FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Appeals Court Explains Punitive Damages Awards For Extreme Reprehensibility Or Unusually Small, Hard-To-Detect Or Hard-To-Measure Compensatory Damages

November 10, 2016 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co. (No. B234271A, filed 11/3/16), (“Nickerson II”) a California appeals court outlined the requirements for complying with the single-digit multiplier annunciated as a Constitutional limitation on punitive damages by the United States Supreme Court in State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell (2003) 538 U.S. 408, for awards of punitive damages against insurers in cases of extreme reprehensibility or unusually small, hard-to-detect or hard-to-measure compensatory damages. 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

---

The 411 on the New 415 Location of the Golden State Warriors

June 10, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
You can feel the buzz here in the Bay Area as the Golden State Warriors enter Game 4 of the NBA Playoffs following a 35 point upset over the Houston Rockets on Saturday, and a chance tonight to sweep the series and head to the NBA Finals for the first time since 1975. Formerly the Philadelphia Warriors from 1946 to 1962, and later the San Francisco Warriors from 1962 to 1971, the Golden State Warriors have played in Oakland’s currently named Oracle Arena since 1966 (except for one year when they played in San Jose while the Oracle Arena was being remodeled). Starting next year, however, construction will begin on the Warriors’ new stadium in the Mission Bay area of San Francisco with completion scheduled for the 2018-2019 season. Although details are just emerging – and even the conceptual plans have changed after some said that the initial design looked like a toilet – here’s the 411 we know on the new 415 location of the Warriors:

• The cost of the new arena is estimated to be $1 billion.

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

---

Protect Your Right To Payment By Following Nedd

August 03, 2022 — Denise Motta - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
In order to preserve your right to payment, you must satisfy the contractual requirements supporting a change order for the increased costs or time due to the delay. The key to the successful presentation of change order claims is educating your team on the following: 1. NOTICE

• Review the change order and notice provisions of your contracts. Make your contract searchable and insert the term “Noti” and look for the items listed below.
• Who: Check the designated representative for notice.
• It may not be the project manager.
• Confirm who can authorize the change order.
• Is owner approval required?
• Ensure that the party approving the change order has authority to do so.

• What: Check for specific information required by the contract.
• Provide ALL information available.
• If certain information is not yet available, state that the information will be provided when available.
• Reserve all rights to amend and submit additional information.
• Request both an increase to the Contract Sum and Contract Time.
• Make the request even if you do not believe the delay or time necessary will cause a significant impact.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Denise Motta, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
Ms. Motta may be contacted at dmotta@grsm.com

---

California Contractors: Amended Section 7141.5 Provides Important License Renewal Safety Net

July 25, 2021 — Amy L. Pierce, Mark A. Oertel, John Lubitz & Adam B. Wiens - Lewis Brisbois
Under California’s Contractors State License Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 7000 et seq., contractors’ licenses expire two years from the last day of the month in which the license was issued or two years from the date on which the renewed license last expired. The Contractors State License Board (CSLB) sends licensees a renewal application 60 to 90 days in advance of the date the license is set to expire. Even with various controls in place, mistakes happen and a renewal application filing deadline can be missed. During the August 5-6, 2019 Executive, Licensing, and Legislative Committee Meetings, the CSLB discussed proposed amendments to Section 7141.5 to reduce both the burden on it to review applications for retroactive renewal of a license that had not been timely submitted and to provide contractors with some relief from the high burden to establish “the failure to renew was due to circumstances beyond the control of the licensee.” Not long after, the CSLB’s Board of Directors gave staff approval to seek an author for the bill and, on September 29, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 1474 into law, which includes the CSLB’s proposed amendments to Section 7141.5, effective January 1, 2021. Reprinted courtesy of Amy L. Pierce, Lewis Brisbois, Mark A. Oertel, Lewis Brisbois, John Lubitz, Lewis Brisbois and Adam B. Wiens, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Pierce may be contacted at Amy.Pierce@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Oertel may be contacted at Mark.Oertel@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Lubitz may be contacted at John.Lubitz@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Wiens may be contacted at Adam.Wiens@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Balcony Collapses Killing Six People

June 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Six college students died from injuries that occurred when a balcony collapsed at a downtown apartment complex in Berkeley, California, according to Berkeleyside. The city of Berkeley ordered a structural inspection of the remaining balconies at Library Gardens, and to immediately remove the failed balcony. The following day Berkeleyside reported that the city ordered the Library Gardens’ owners to remove another balcony after “[i]nspectors determined that the third-floor balcony ‘was structurally unsafe and presented a collapse hazard endangering public safety.’” Berkeley’s mayor, Tom Bates, stated that “investigators believe the wood wasn’t sealed properly at the time of construction and was damaged by moisture as a result,” the Wall Street Journal reported. Read the full story, 6/16/15 Berkeleyside article... Read the full story, 6/17/15 Berkeleyside article... Read the full story, Wall Street Journal... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

January 05, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
One of the many items of construction law that has always been about as clear as mud has been the interaction between a contractual pay if paid clause and payment bond claims either under the Federal Miller Act or Virginia’s “Little Miller Act.” While properly drafted contractual “pay if paid” clauses are enforceable by their terms in Virginia, what has always been less clear is whether a bonding company can take advantage of such a clause when defending a payment bond claim. As always, these questions are very fact specific both under the Federal Act and the state statute. I wish that this post would answer this question, but alas, it will not. A recent case from the City of Roanoke, Virginia looked at the interaction between a payment bond and a “condition precedent” pay if paid clause as it relates to a private project that is not subject to the Little Miller Act. In the case of IES Commercial, Inc v The Hanover Insurance Company, the Court examined a contractual clause between Thor Construction and IES Commercial in tandem with the bond language between Hanover Insurance Company and Thor as it related to a surprisingly familiar scenario. The general facts are these: IES performed, Thor demanded payment from the owner for the work that IES performed and the owner, for reasons that are left unstated in the opinion, refused to pay. IES sues Hanover pursuant to the payment bond and Hanover moves to dismiss the suit because Thor hadn’t been paid by the owner and therefore Hanover could take advantage of the pay if paid language. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of “Contractor” for Forum Selection Clauses

October 02, 2015 — David A. Harris & Abigail E. Lighthart – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc. (“Vita Planning”), the First Appellate District held California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 410.42 (“Section 410.42”) which prohibits an out-of-state contractor from requiring a California subcontractor to litigate disputes in a state other than California, applies not only to traditional “contractors” and “subcontractors” but also to design professionals and architects. In Vita Planning, a dispute arose when HKS, a Texas based architectural firm, refused to pay Vita Planning and Architecture (“Vita”), a landscape design firm, for work on a luxury hotel in Mammoth Lakes, California (“Project”). HKS contended it was not required to pay Vita until it was paid by the owner of the Project, and any claims regarding the work needed to be filed in Texas pursuant to a forum selection clause contained in a Prime Contract between HKS and the Owner. The forum clause was “incorporated by reference” into an unsigned “standard form” agreement between HKS and Vita. Despite the forum clause, Vita filed a Complaint against HKS in Marin County Superior Court. Reprinted courtesy of Abigail E. Lighthart, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Ms. Lighthart may be contacted at alighthart@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer

December 20, 2012 — BRADY IANDIORIO, HIGGINS, HOPKINS, MCLAIN & ROSWELL
With the aftermath of Sandy still being felt up and down the Eastern seaboard, the question of many victims turns to how they can rebuild their lives and homes. One of the first things many people do is call on their insurance carriers to help rebuild whatever damaged property they have. In a recent case here in Colorado, those rebuilding efforts got reaffirmed by a Court of Appeals case, Kyle W. Larson Enterprises, Inc., Roofing Experts, d/b/a The Roofing Experts v. Allstate Insurance Company, --- P.3d ----, 2012 WL 4459112 (Colo. App. September 27, 2012). The facts of the case are pretty straightforward and could describe many repair vendors in numerous situations. Roofing Experts contracted with four homeowners insured by Allstate to repair their damaged roofs. The contracts provided that repair costs would be paid from insurance proceeds. The contracts also allowed Roofing Experts full authority to communicate with Allstate regarding all aspects of the insurance claims. Before work began, Roofing Experts met with adjusters from Allstate to discuss the four homes and the amount of each claim. After receiving approval for the claims, Roofing Experts began the repairs. During construction, Roofing Experts discovered additional repairs were necessary to maintain certain manufacturer’s warranties and to conform to applicable building codes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Iandorio can be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

---