Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

A Trio of Environmental Decisions from the Fourth Circuit

August 28, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Within the past few weeks, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has issued some very significant rulings regarding the construction of new natural gas pipelines. These cases are Berkley, et al. v. Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, decided July 25; Sierra Club, Inc., et al., v. U.S. Forest Service, The Wilderness Society, et al., v. U.S. Forest Service, and Sierra Club, Inc. et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, decided July 27, 2018; and Sierra Club v. U.S. Department of the Interior and Defenders of Wildlife, et al., v. U.S. Department of the Interior, decided August 6, 2018. The first two cases involve the Mountain Valley Pipeline, and the last case involves the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. 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

Determining the Cause of the Loss from a Named Windstorm when there is Water Damage - New Jersey

March 23, 2020 — Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Water damage, while one of the leading causes of loss under a property policy, often results in some of the most complex claims due to the intersection of exclusions, sublimits, and complex wording within the policy. One particularly difficult issue is whether water damage caused by a storm surge is covered by the flood sublimit, or under the general policy or water limit. In New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s (“NJTC v. Lloyd’s”), the New Jersey Appeals Court found that the “flood” sublimit of the policy should not apply as the cause of the loss was a “named windstorm” and not a “flood.” In NJTC v Lloyd's the court was asked to determine whether a flood sublimit applied to losses sustained during Superstorm Sandy. The court found that although there was “flooding,” the water damage was more closely related to the “named windstorm”, and therefore, the $400 million policy limits should apply. The court focused its analysis on the definitions for “flood” and “named windstorm” and by applying the efficient proximate cause doctrine to determine which would apply. When reviewing the definitions within the property policies, the court determined that although the loss would qualify under the definition of “flood,” the policy also contained a definition for “named windstorm” which “more specifically encompasses the wind driven water or storm surge associated with a ‘named windstorm’”1. In addition, the policy did not specifically state that “storm surge” associated with a “named windstorm” should be considered a “flood” event and fall under the “flood” sublimit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Perry may be contacted at amp@sdvlaw.com

Water Bond Would Authorize $7.5 Billion for California Water Supply Infrastructure Projects

October 29, 2014 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
When California voters cast their votes on November 4, 2014 they will decide the fate of a $7.5 billion water bond proposal – Proposition 1 – which would authorize $7.12 billion in new general obligation bonds and reallocate $425 million in previously authorized but unissued bonds for water supply infrastructure projects. Proposition 1 – The Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 If you live in California you know that the state is in the midst of its third straight year of drought. And it’s no ordinary drought. According to some, it’s the severest drought on record, as nearly the entire state experiences “severe” to “exceptional” drought conditions across its counties. The California Water Resources Board has implemented emergency water conservation regulations including hefty fines for those who don’t comply and even Governor Brown has allowed the grounds of the State Capitol to go brown to underscore the severity of the situation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

Paycheck Protection Flexibility Act Of 2020: What You Need to Know

July 20, 2020 — Amy R. Patton & Rana Ayazi - Payne & Fears
On June 5, 2020, President Trump signed into legislation the bipartisan bill titled the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (PPPFA). The PPPFA modifies the Paycheck Protection Program, which was first introduced under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The modifications provide borrowers more control over the use of funds and make it easier to obtain forgiveness. The following is a summary of the key changes. 1. Extended Maturity Date From 2 Years to 5 Years Under the CARES Act, the minimum maturity date for loan amounts after the forgiveness period was not defined. The Small Business Administration (SBA) then released an Interim Final Rule clarifying that the minimum maturity date was two years. The PPPFA has extended the term to five years: “The covered loan shall have a minimum maturity of 5 years and a maximum maturity of 10 years from the date on which the borrower applies for loan forgiveness under that section.” 2. Extension of Covered Period From Eight Weeks to a Maximum of 24 Weeks Under the CARES Act, the covered period of the loan (i.e., the time period in which you may spend the loan funds) was February 15, 2020 to June 30, 2020, an eight-week period. The PPPFA extended the covered period to 24 weeks from the origination date of the loan, or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier. Reprinted courtesy of Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and Rana Ayazi, Payne & Fears Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Ms. Ayazi may be contacted at ra@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurance Broker Stole NY Contractor's Payment, Indictment Alleges

March 21, 2022 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
A New York contractor was unknowingly uninsured as it worked on 14 Manhattan projects over four years because its insurance broker was pocketing its payments, according to an indictment. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Why Do Construction Companies Fail?

February 14, 2023 — The Hartford Staff - The Hartford Insights
If a construction company takes on a lot of work, it’s a good thing, right? Not exactly. In fact, overextension is one of the primary reasons why contractors fail. And it’s something that contractors should consider as a priority for their risk management plan. Of the 43,277 construction businesses that started in March 2011, only 37.6% of companies survived 10 years later.1 “The construction industry has a high rate of failure,” explains Tim Holicky, senior executive underwriter in The Hartford’s construction central bond team. “And more often than not, it’s because of too much work, rather than too little of it. The key to a contractor’s long-term survival is knowing when to say no.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights

General Contractor Supporting a Subcontractor’s Change Order Only for Owner to Reject the Change

December 09, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The opinion in Westchester Fire Ins. Co, LLC v. Kesoki Painting, LLC, 260 So.3d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) leads to a worthy discussion because it involves a common scope of work occurrence on construction projects involving a general contractor and subcontractor. The contractor submits a subcontractor’s change order request to the owner and the owner rejects the change order. What happens next is a scope of work payment dispute between the general contractor and subcontractor. Yep, a common occurrence. In this case, a general contractor hired a subcontractor to perform waterproofing and painting. A scope of work issue arose because the specifications did not address how the window gaskets should be cut and then sealed. The owner wanted the window gaskets cut at a 45-degree angle and the subcontractor claimed this resulted in increased extra work. The general contractor agreed and submitted a change order to the owner to cover these costs. The owner rejected the change order claiming it was part of the general contractor’s scope of work even though the cutting of window gaskets at a 45-degree angle was not detailed in the specifications. After the subcontractor filed a suit against the general contractor’s payment bond surety, the project architect further rejected the change order because gasket cutting was part of the specification requirements. (Duh! What else was the architect going to say? It was not going to concede there was an omission that resulted in a change order to the owner, right?) 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

California Limits Indemnification Obligations of Design Professionals

August 24, 2017 — William L. Doerler - White and Williams LLP
The California legislature recently enacted legislation – SB 496 – limiting a design professional’s indemnification obligations in private contracts related to design services. The term “design professional” refers to licensed architects, landscape architects and professional land surveyors, and registered professional engineers. As revised, Cal. Civ. Code § 2782.8 states that, for all contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2018 for design professional services, all provisions that purport to have the design professional indemnify the indemnitee for claims against the indemnitee – or require the design professional to provide a defense to the indemnitee – are unenforceable except to the extent that the claims against the indemnitee arise out of, or relate to, the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. In addition, as revised, § 2782.8 limits a design professional’s liability for the cost of defense to the design professional’s percentage of fault. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES