Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

EEOC Suit Alleges Site Managers Bullied Black Workers on NY Project

June 15, 2020 — Emell D. Adolphus - Engineering News-Record
Bullying, threats and racial slurs detail alleged “hostile” working conditions for black employees at a now complete cement plant modernization project near Albany, N.Y., in a lawsuit filed June 2 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against CCC Group Inc., a San Antonio, Texas-based general contractor. Emell D. Adolphus, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Supreme Court Set to Alter Law on Key Project, Workforce Issues

December 02, 2019 — Mary B. Powers & Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-Record
With its term now under way, the U.S. Supreme Court could change federal laws with industry impact—from where huge pipelines can be built and new regulation of pollution in groundwater to whether LGBTQ workers have anti-bias rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Mr. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Home Building on the Upswing in Bakersfield

May 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Low inventories and low mortgage rates are leading developers to build new homes in Bakersfield, California. According to KGET, home permits are up forty-five percent over last April. In one development, a street of six homes all sold on the same day. Indications are also that people who lost their homes during the bust are entering homeownership again. Prices are also up. A year ago, the average home sale price was $145,000. Now it’s $250,000. Oh, and that development where they sold six homes in a day? The next phase of development goes on sale in May. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Supreme Court Finds that the Notice-Prejudice Rule Applicable to Insurance is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State

October 14, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co. (No. S239510, filed 8/29/19), the California Supreme Court held that California’s notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy in the insurance context, supporting the application of California law under a choice of laws analysis. In addition, the Court held that the rule generally applies to consent (aka “no voluntary payments”) provisions in first party insurance policies but not to consent provisions in third party liability policies. Pitzer College discovered soils contamination while building a new dormitory. Under pressure to complete construction before the start of the school year, Pitzer proceeded to remediate the soils, incurring $2 million in expense. Pitzer submitted a claim to Indian Harbor, which provided Pitzer insurance covering legal and remediation expenses resulting from pollution conditions discovered during the policy period. The policy contained a notice provision requiring Pitzer to provide oral or written notice of any pollution condition to Indian Harbor and, in the event of oral notice, to “furnish … a written report as soon as practicable.” In addition, a consent provision required Pitzer to obtain Indian Harbor’s written consent before incurring expenses, making payments, assuming obligations, and/or commencing remediation due to a pollution condition. The consent provision had an emergency exception for costs incurred “on an emergency basis where any delay … would cause injury to persons or damage to property or increase significantly the cost of responding to any [pollution condition],” in which case Pitzer was required to notify Indian Harbor “immediately thereafter.” Lastly, a choice of law provision stated that New York law governed all matters arising under the policy. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Difference Between a Novation And A Modification to a Contract

May 10, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In contract law, there are two doctrines that have similarities but are indeed different. These doctrines are known as novation and modification. There are times you may want to make arguments relative to these doctrines because they are important for your theory of the dispute. Thus, you want to make sure you understand them so you can properly plead and prove the required elements to substantiate the basis of the theories. Understanding the elements will help you understand the evidence you will need to best prove your factual theories. A novation is essentially substituting a new contract for an old contract.

“‘A novation is a mutual agreement between the parties for the discharge of a valid existing obligation by the substitution of a new valid obligation.’” Thompson v. Jared Kane Co., Inc., 872 So.2d 356, 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citation omitted). To prove a novation, a party must prove four elements: “(1) the existence of a previously valid contract; (2) the agreement of the parties to cancel the first contract; (3) the agreement of the parties that the second contract replace the first; and (4) the validity of the second contract.” Id. at 61. Whether the parties consented to the substitute contract can be implied from the factual circumstances. Id.

Parties are more familiar with a modification because it is not uncommon that parties may agree to modify contractual terms. The contract remains in effect but certain terms or obligations are modified. For example, a change order to a contract is a modification. 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

John O’Meara is Selected as America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators

December 02, 2019 — John O'Meara - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce that Partner John V. O’Meara has been selected as a member of America’s Top 100 Civil Defense Litigators. This invitation resulted from a national selection process and is intended to honor the best defense attorneys in the Country. Mr. O’Meara was selected to join a group of lawyers which include past and current state bar presidents, national ABOTA Presidents, ABOTA Masters in Trial and International Academy of Trial Lawyer presidents. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John O'Meara, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara, LLP
Mr. O'Meara may be contacted at jomeara@bremerwhyte.com

Construction Contract Terms Matter. Be Careful When You Draft Them.

February 01, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In a prior post, I discussed the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. Bae Sys. Ordinance Sys in the context of the interplay between fraud, contract, and statutes of limitation. Some cases just keep on giving. This time the case illustrates the need for careful drafting of those pesky, and highly important, clauses in your construction documents. In the current iteration of this ongoing saga, the Court considered the contractual aspects of the matter. As a reminder, the facts are as follows: In May 2011, the United States Army (“Army) awarded BAE Systems Ordnance Systems, Inc. (“BAE”) a contract to design and construct a natural gas-fired combined heating and power plant for the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (“RAAP”). On October 7, 2015, BAE issued a request for a proposal from Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC (“Fluor”) to design and build a temporary boiler facility at a specific location on the RAAP property. On October 13, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to change the location of the boiler facility. On December 10, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to require BAE to design and construct a permanent boiler facility. On December 30, 2015, Fluor and BAE executed a fixed-price subcontract for Fluor to design and construct the temporary boiler. Throughout 2016, BAE issued several modifications to Fluor’s subcontract to reflect the modifications BAE received from the Army on the prime contract. On March 23, 2016, BAE directed Fluor to build a permanent – rather than temporary – boiler facility. On March 28, 2016, Fluor began construction of the permanent facility and began negotiations with BAE about the cost of the permanent facility. On September 1, 2016, the parties reached an agreement on the cost for the design of the permanent facility, but not on the cost to construct the permanent facility. On November 29, 2016, the parties executed a modification to the subcontract, officially replacing the requirement to construct a temporary facility with a requirement to construct a permanent facility and agreeing to “negotiate and definitize the price to construct by December 15, 2016.” The parties were unable to reach an agreement on the construction price. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Business Risk Exclusions Dismissed in Summary Judgment Motion

November 09, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
While the court denied summary judgment on whether the alleged damage was due to faulty workmanship and not covered, it granted summary judgment for dismissal of several business risk exclusions the insurer asserted against the developer. United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Dorn Homes, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138431 (D. Ariz. Aug. 4, 2020). Dorn, a residential home developer, developed a 350 single family residential home division. Dorn did not perform the actual construction, but contracted with various subcontractors. After completion, Dorn began to receive complaints from homeowners about interior damage to some of the homes. Inspections showed interior cracking, wall separation and foundation movement. Dorn ultimately installed an unvented foam insulated roof system to address these issues. Therefore, it did not repair the faulty workmanship of its subcontractors because it would not have been efficient or as effective. Dorn paid for the repairs to the 87 homes at issue. 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