Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Congratulations Devin Brunson on His Promotion to Partner!

April 26, 2021 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is very proud to announce Devin Brunson has been promoted to the position of partner with the firm! Mr. Brunson came to BWB&O from another civil litigation firm and helped start the Denver, Colorado office along with partners Lucian Greco, John Toohey and Peter Brown. He has taken on a significant leadership role within the firm over the past several years and has been integral in growing the office to its current footprint. He is licensed to practice law in Colorado, District of Colorado, and in the U.S. District Court. His practice is focused in the areas of civil and business litigation, construction litigation, and employment law. Mr. Brunson has a diverse practice background that includes complex civil litigation and intellectual property disputes and has had the privilege of representing business owners, contractors, corporate executives, and professional athletes during the course of his career. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Providing Your Insurer Prompt Notice

May 20, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Sometimes, when it comes to insurance, you may hear the argument that you breached your insurance policy by failing to provide your insurer with prompt notice as the insurance policy requires. Well, this is not such an absolute issue. With that said, you should absolutely provide your insurer with prompt notice of a claim or loss. No legitimate reason not to. But, if you don’t, it is not an absolute get out of jail free card for your insurer, but it does give them a good argument, which you don’t really want to deal with. In Gulfpoint Construction Co., Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 2024 WL 1759228 (11th Cir. 2024), an insured appealed a trial court’s ruling that found it did not provide prompt notice to its property insurer as the policy required. In this case, notice was provided two years after a loss from a hurricane. The insurer denied coverage and, in doing so, relied on the insured’s failure to provide prompt notice. Although the trial court agreed, the appellate court found this was a genuine issue of material fact. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Homeowners May Not Need to Pay Lien on Defective Log Cabin

July 01, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Idaho Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Perception Construction Management v. Bell. The Bells hired PCM to build a log home, agreeing to play monthly invoices in full within ten days. The Bells paid the first four invoices in full, part of the fifth, and ceased payment after that. Beofre seventh invoice, the Bells terminated the contract and hired a new contractor. PCM filed a claim of lien and ceased work.

The Bells responded that PCM was in breach of contract and had failed to fulfill the contract in a workmanlike manner. They claimed construction defects and in the lien suit, sought to include testimony from an architect and a plumber reviewing PCM’s work. The court only allowed the architect to testify as to whether the amount of the lien was reasonable. No testimony was permitted from the plumber.

The Idaho Supreme Court concluded that the claims of construction defects were important to case and remanded it to the lower court for a new trial taking into evidence that Bell’s contention that PCM’s work was defective.

Read the court’s decision

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Goldilocks Rule: Panel Rejects Proposed Insurer-Specific MDL Proceedings for Four Large Insurers, but Establishes MDL Proceeding for the Smallest

November 16, 2020 — Eric B. Hermanson & Konrad R. Krebs - White and Williams
It is an outcome few people expected. Back in August, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Panel) refused plaintiffs’ requests to set up a single industry-wide multi-district litigation, which would have consolidated — in a single massive proceeding — all federal lawsuits seeking COVID-related business interruption coverage from insurers. The Panel acknowledged common legal issues, and potential benefits of coordinated management, but it balanced those benefits against the numerous factual differences between policies, carriers, and insureds, and noted that “[t]hese differences will overwhelm any common factual questions.” Then, after lengthy argument, the Panel ordered further briefing as to whether separate, company-specific MDL proceedings might be appropriate against five specific insurance carriers: specifically, the five carriers against whom the largest numbers of federal claims were pending. By choosing these five carriers and not others for further argument, the Panel seemed to be suggesting a formula: the larger the carrier, and the greater the number of claims against it, the greater the potential benefit from coordinated management, and the stronger the plaintiffs’ case for pre-trial consolidation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric Hermanson, White and Williams
Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com

Will Maryland Beltway Developer's Exit Doom $7.6B P3 Project?

March 13, 2023 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
Maryland’s controversial $7.6-billion plan to build tolled express lanes along two Washington, DC-area interstates has suffered a potentially fatal blow with the departure of the private development consortium from the project. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Thanks for Four Years of Recognition from JD Supra’s Readers’ Choice Awards

May 20, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
A big thank you to the folks at JD Supra and its readers for recognizing us in its Construction category for its 2019 Readers’ Choice Awards! We’re honored to be among the 228 authors recognize for their visibility, engagement and thought leadership out of more than 50,000 who have published articles on JD Supra this past year. Congratulations as well to the other JD Supra 2019 Readers’ Choice Award recipients whose hard work encourages us to be better authors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Quick Note: Remember to Timely Foreclose Lien Against Lien Transfer Bond

July 09, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When a construction lien is transferred to a lien transfer bond pursuant to Florida Statute s. 713.24, instead of foreclosing the lien against the real property, you are foreclosing the lien against the lien transfer bond. This is not a bad deal and, oftentimes, is probably ideal. Remember, however, just because a construction lien was transferred to a lien transfer bond (pre-lawsuit) does not mean you get more time to file your lien foreclosure lawsuit. A lawsuit must still be filed within one year (short of that period being specifically shortened under operation of the law). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law

May 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The US District Court for Maryland has granted a summary judgment in the case Konover Construction Corp. v. ATC Associates to Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company and denied a request for dismissal from ACT. Konover (KBE) was contracted by Wal-Mart to build a Wal-Mart store and a Sam’s Club in Port Covington, Maryland. Superus, Inc. was hired by KBE to build the masonry walls. Superus purchased a policy from Massachusetts Bay Insurance which named KBE as an additional insured. Wal-Mart hired ATC Associates to independently test and inspect the concrete structural steel, and masonry.

After the building was in use, a large crack appeared which was attributed a latent construction defect. Other cracks were discovered. Upon investigation, it was discovered that there were “voids or foam in the concrete block surrounding the reinforcing steel that should have been filled with grout,” and in some cases, “reinforcing steel was missing or not installed in accordance with the specifications.” KBE paid for the repair and remediation and Wal-Mart assigned all rights and interests against ATC to KBE.

KBE filed suit against ATC. ATC called for dismissal on the grounds that Wal-Mart had no claims as the problems had been remediated. Wal-Mart then provided KBE with additional agreements to give them enforceable rights against ATC and Superus. KBE filed a fourteen claims against ATC, Superus, and Massachusetts Bay. In the current case, Massachusetts Bay sought summary judgment and ATC sought dismissal of all claims against it.

Massachusetts Bay claims that they need not indemnify Superus, as “there is no evidence adequate to establish that Superus’ defective work caused any collateral and/or resulting damage that was not subject to an Impaired Property exclusion, and that, in any event, no damage occurred during the policy period.”

As Wal-Mart is headquarted in Arkansas, certain contracts were under Arkansas law. Under the Arkansas courts, “defective workmanship, standing alone and resulting in damages only to the work product itself, is not an ‘occurrence.’” The court determined that collateral or resultant damage would be covered. The court found that “it is clear under Arkansas law, and the parties appear to agree, that Massachusetts Bay is not obligated to indemnify KBE for any repairs to the masonry walls themselves, including any cracks or gaps in the walls.” The court also found that “there is no evidence adequate to prove that any allegedly resultant property damage was caused by Superus’ faulty construction of the walls.” The court also noted that “if the building code violation and structural integrity problem were ‘property damage,’ insurance coverage would be barred by the Impaired Property Exclusion.” Based on these findings, the court concluded that Massachusetts Bay is entitled to summary judgment.

While the court dismissed the case against Massachusetts Bay, the court declined ATC’s motion to dismiss. The court noted that ACT’s alleged negligence in conducting inspections “created only a risk of economic loss for KBE.” Although hired by Wal-Mart, ATC “transmitted its daily testing and inspection reports of the Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club projects directly to KBE.” The court found that “KBE has made a plausible claim.”

ATC also claimed that KBE contributed to the negligence due to the negligence of its subcontractor. The court concluded that it was plausible that “ATC will not be able to carry its burden of proving KBE was contributorily negligent.” The court was less sanguine about KBE’s fraud claim, but though it “may not now appear likely to have merit, it is above the ‘plausibility’ line.”

In conclusion, KBE may not continue its case against Massachusetts Bay. However, the judge allowed the other proceedings to continue.

Read the court’s decision…