Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Lenders and Post-Foreclosure Purchasers Have Standing to Make Construction Defect Claims for After-Discovered Conditions

October 10, 2013 — W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
The Colorado Court of Appeals has decided a case which answers a question long in need of an answer: do banks/lenders have standing to assert construction defect claims when they receive title to a newly-constructed home following a foreclosure sale or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure? The decision was released on August 1, 2013, in the case of Mid Valley Real Estate Solutions V, LLC v. Hepworth-Pawlack Geotechnical, Inc., Steve Pawlak, Daniel Hadin, and S K Peightal Engineers, Ltd. (Colorado Court of Appeals No. 13CA0519). The background facts of the case are typical of a Colorado residential construction defect case generally. A developer contracted for an analytical soil engineering report from a geotechnical engineering firm (H-P) which made a foundation recommendation. The developer’s general contractor then retained an engineering firm (SPKE) to provide engineering services, including a foundation design. The general contractor built the foundation in accordance with the H-P and SPKE criteria and plans. The house was not sold by the developer and went into default on the construction loan. These events resulted in a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure to a bank-controlled entity which purchased the house for re-sale. Shortly after receiving the developer’s deed, the bank-related entity discovered defects in the foundation that resulted in a construction defect suit against the two design firms and related individuals. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. can be contacted at mann@hhmrlaw.com

Reduce Suicide Risk Among Employees in Remote Work Areas

November 24, 2019 — Sandra Moran - Construction Executive
In the construction industry, a disturbing and unnerving trend has been developing over the past few decades. Construction and resource extraction have the highest rate of deaths by suicide compared to any other industry. This phenomenon is not limited to a single country. The statistics from three developed countries with strong construction and resource extraction industries (United States, United Kingdom and Australia), reflect the same pattern. A major risk factor that has not been given much attention and scrutiny is the requirement for many workers to be away from their homes for long periods of time, based in remote locations and basecamps. This isolation contributes to loneliness and disconnectedness that increases the vulnerability to employees at risk due to underlying mental health disorders, such as depression and anxiety, or those with suicidal ideations or prior attempts. Basecamps or remote work locations remove workers from the support networks of family, friends, and even medical and psychological caregivers. Employers placing employees in remote work locations should be mindful that simply wanting to work in a remote location does not necessarily equate to being able to cope well in such an environment—unless appropriate supports are provided. Companies need to become proactive to lead employees to become true teams to help reduce the risk of suicide among their workers. Reprinted courtesy of Sandra Moran, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Asbestos Confirmed After New York City Steam Pipe Blast

July 21, 2018 — Eydie Cubarrubia - Engineering News-Record
Asbestos has been found at the site where an underground steam pipe exploded early Thursday morning near the Flatiron building in midtown Manhattan. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eydie Cubarrubia, ENR
Ms. Cubarrubia may be contacted at cubarrubiae@enr.com

Developer Pre-Conditions in CC&Rs Limiting Ability of HOA to Make Construction Defect Claims, Found Unenforceable

August 16, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civ. Code §4000, et seq.), also known simply as “Davis-Stirling,” is a statute that applies to condominium, cooperative and planned unit development communities in California. The statute, which governs the formation and management of homeowners associations or HOAs, also governs lawsuits filed by HOAs for construction defects. In the next case, Smart Corners Owner Association v. CJUF Smart Corner LLC, Case No. D076775 (May 20, 2021), the 4th District Court of Appeal addressed the pre-litigation voting requirements of Davis-Stirling and the impact of recent amendments to the Act. The Smart Corners Case In 2004, CJUF Smart Corner LLC contracted with Hensel Phelps Construction Company for the construction of the Smart Corner condominium project, a 19-story mixed-use development with 301 residential units and common areas, in San Diego, California. As part of the development an HOA was formed, the Smart Corner Owner Association. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Firm Sued for Stopping Construction in Indiana Wants Case Tried in Germany

October 16, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Getrag Transmission, a German firm, is being sued by a Detroit-based construction firm that Getrag had hired to build a factory in Indiana. When a court gave the go-ahead to Walbridge Construction for the suit, Getrag appealed, stating that the case should be held in German so that Getrag officials do not have the expense of traveling to Indiana. Getrag was building the plant, which would have cost $350 million, as part of a partnership with Chrysler. Chrysler dropped from the project after filing for bankruptcy. Shortly afterward, Getrag also filed for bankruptcy. Walbridge is seeking $118.5 million due to expenses incurred with subcontractors. Chrysler has announced its intention of finishing the plant, which they estimate will cost about $162 million. Once complete, the plant will employ about 850 workers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Kiewit-Turner Stops Work on VA Project—Now What?

December 31, 2014 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
The Kiewit-Turner joint venture created to build the VA’s hospital near Denver stopped work on December 10 after the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals ruled that the VA breached the contract. Kiewit-Turner claims that the VA owes it over $100 million on the project. And, given the appeals board’s recent ruling entirely against the VA, the claim may get some traction. This project has been plagued with problems from the beginning. One strange aspect of the project is the VA’s apparent unwillingness to incorporate value engineering or require the architects to redesign the project to fit within the budget. The latest budget was $582M, while the latest projections show that the project will cost more than $1 billion to complete. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

A Court-Side Seat: NWP 12 and the Dakota Access Pipeline Easement Get Forced Vacations, while a Potential Violation of the Eighth Amendment Isn’t Going Anywhere

August 10, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Here’s a report on several new decisions made over the past few days. U.S. SUPREME COURT U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Northern Plains Resources Council On July 8, 2020, the Court has issued a partial stay of the decision of the U.S. District Court for Montana, which had held that the nationwide use by the Corps of Engineers of its Nationwide Permit 12 to permit oil and gas pipelines must be vacated because the Corps, when it reissued these permits in 2012, failed to follow the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The breadth of this ruling seems to have surprised and alarmed many past and perspective permittees of the Corps. The stay will not apply to the ongoing Ninth Circuit litigation. FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL Vega, et al. v. Semple (The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) On June 29, 2020, the court refused to dismiss a putative class action by past and present inmates of Connecticut’s Garner Correctional Institution who alleged that state correctional officials exposed them to excessive amounts of radon gas in violation of the Eighth Amendment. These officials are alleged to have been “deliberately indifferent” to inmate safety. A 1993 Supreme Court decision, Helling v. McKiney, clearly established the law in this area, and the Garner facility opened in 1992. The defense clams of limited immunity as to federal law violations were rejected. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Insurer Must Pay for Matching Siding of Insured's Buildings

December 02, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Seventh Circuit found that the insurer was obligated to pay for siding of a building that was not damaged by hail so that it matched the replaced damaged portions of the siding. Windridge of Naperville Condominium Association v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. 23607 (7th Cir. Aug. 7, 2019). A hail and wind storm damaged buildings owned by Windridge. The storm physically damaged the aluminum siding on the buildings' sought and west sides. Philadelphia Indemnity, Windridge's insurer, contended that it was only required to replace the siding on those sides. Windridge argued that replacement siding that matched the undamaged north and east elevations was no longer available, so Philadelphia had to replace the siding on all four sides of the buildings to that all of the siding matched. Windridge sued and moved for summary judgment. The district court ruled that matching was required. The only sensible result was to treat the damage as having occurred to the building's siding as a whole. The policy was a replacement-cost policy. Philadelphia promised to "pay for direct physical 'loss' to 'Covered Property' caused by or resulting from" the storm, with the amount of loss being "the cost to replace the lost or damaged property with other property . . . of comparable material and quality . . . and . . . used for the same purpose." The loss payment provision offered four different measures for loss, leaving Philadelphia free to choose the least expensive: (1) pay the value of the lost or damaged property; (2) pay the cost of repairing or replacing the lost or damaged property; (3) take all or any part of the property at an agreed or appraised value; or (4) repair, rebuild or replace the property with other property of like kind and quality. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES