FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Another Reminder to ALWAYS Show up for Court

July 20, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have discussed the need to always respond to a lawsuit on multiple occasions here at Construction Law Musings. However, I keep reading cases where the defendant fails to appear either by pleading or in person. Such action is never a good idea as demonstrated once again in the case of Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v. Precision Constr. & Mgmt. Group, LLC, a case out of the Eastern District of Virginia. The basic facts are not a surprise and are taken from the magistrates report that was adopted by the District Court. Balfour Beatty and Precision entered into a subcontract for some electrical work at a project located in Loudoun County. The subcontract included an attorney fees provision and provided for liquidated damages for late performance and the typical damages for default. The project began in July of 2016 with substantial completion July 5, 2018. Precision failed to supply sufficient manpower and sent a letter to Precision stating the same. After an agreement between the parties regarding supplementation by Balfour Beatty and to the accompanying back charge, Balfour Beatty informed Precision by letter that it would be liable for any liquidated damages. The Owner began assessing liquidated damages and Balfour Beatty subsequently terminated the subcontract and discovered defective work by Precision. 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

---

Wyncrest Commons: Commonly Used Progress Payments in Construction Contracts Do Not Render Them Installment Contracts

December 11, 2023 — Benjamin J. Hochberg - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
In BIL-JIM Construction Company, Inc. v. Wyncrest Commons, LP, 2023 WL 7276637 (Unpublished, decided November 3, 2023), the New Jersey Appellate Division was asked to consider two issues regarding the interpretation and application of a construction contract that utilized the standard form American Institute of Architects owner/contractor agreement (AIA Document A101-2007) (the “AIA Contract”). Specifically, it was asked to consider: 1) whether a modified AIA Contract was an “installment contract,” whereby each progress payment was subject to its own statute of limitations; and 2) whether and when work had been approved in the context of New Jersey’s Municipal Land Use Law. While the decision is presently unpublished, it provides guidance as to how form contracts utilizing the same or similar terms will be treated by New Jersey’s courts and is a reminder that the potential for future claims must be considered during contract negotiations. Discussion The primary issue in Wyncrest was whether an AIA Contract was an “installment contract,” and the remaining issues turned on the resolution of this question. Wyncrest, the owner for the project at issue, did not dispute that its contractor, BIL-JIM Construction Company, Inc., had not been fully paid for work that it had performed in connection with a construction project located in Ocean County, New Jersey. Instead, Wyncrest argued that because its AIA Contract with BIL-JIM required that invoices be presented and paid monthly, it constituted an “installment contract.” As such, older payments would be treated as individual transactions and were time barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court agreed with Wyncrest’s characterization of the AIA Contract as an “installment contract,” and found that BIL-JIM’s invoices were each subject to their own statute of limitations. However, the trial court disagreed with Wyncrest’s argument that BIL-JIM’s claim for retainage—which was submitted at the end of its work at the project—was time barred. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Benjamin J. Hochberg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Hochberg may be contacted at bhochberg@pecklaw.com

---

Potential Problems with Cases Involving One Owner and Multiple Contractors

January 27, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Matthew Devries’ blog, Best Practices Construction Law, problems can arise in a case with one owner and multiple contractors: “Increasingly, two or more contractors may each have a separate contract with the owner for different portions of the work on a single project.” The problems occur when contractor responsibilities or storage sites become entangled, “for example, from one contractor’s storage of materials on a site where the other has work to perform, or from one contractor’s failure to progress with work that is preliminary to the other’s work.” Devries adds that in “addition to claims against the other contractor, claims may also be made against the owner for failure to coordinate the work.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

90 and 150: Two Numbers You Must Know

July 22, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Mechanic’s liens are a big topic here at Construction Law Musings. I’ve discussed everything from the picky nature of this powerful payment tool to the changes that are upcoming on July 1, 2019. Given the strict way that the form and timing of a Virginia mechanic’s lien is so critical, I thought a quick reminder was in order. Two numbers that are critical to the timing and content of any mechanic’s lien are 90 and 150, both found in Va. Code 43-4. 90 days is the time from the last date of work (not invoicing), or last date of the last month in which work was done given proper circumstances. The 90 days prescibes the time during which a contractor can properly record a valid lien. This is a hard deadline and is 90 days, not three months. Miss this deadline and no matter what the type of payment that has not been made (something discussed below), the contractor will lose its lien rights. This is the easier of the two numbers to both understand and apply. Count 90 days from last non-corrective or warranty work and that is your hard out for filing. 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

---

Preventing Common Electrical Injuries on the Jobsite

February 03, 2020 — Kelsey Rzepecki - Construction Executive
Despite the overall decrease in electrical workplace fatalities, construction workers remain the most at risk of death from electrical accidents. In 2016, 53% of all fatal electrical injuries were in the construction industry, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employers can improve their bottom line by implementing prevention strategies to reduce chances of electrical injuries and create a safer, more efficient jobsite. What Are the Most Common Electrical Injuries in Construction? The three types of electrical injuries that occur the most often on construction jobsites are:

1. electrocution (such as electric shock and burns) through unintentional contact with high-voltage lines or equipment;
2. severe burns or death from explosive gases accidentally ignited by electrical equipment; and
3. injuries from falls or from contact with moving equipment after worker experiences a low-voltage electrical shock and can no longer keep balance or physical control of the tools or equipment they have when shocked.

Reprinted courtesy of Kelsey Rzepecki, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Ms. Rzepecki may be contacted at krzepecki@graphicproducts.com

---

Don’t Conspire to Build a Home…Wait…What?

June 08, 2020 — Ben Volpe - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
In 1986, the Colorado General Assembly enacted the Pro Rata Liability Act, codified at C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5, which eliminated joint and several liability for defendants in favor of pro rata liability.[1] The statute was “designed to avoid holding defendants liable for an amount of compensatory damages reflecting more than their respective degrees of fault.”[2] However, the following year, the Colorado legislature carved out an exception to preserve joint liability for persons “who consciously conspire and deliberately pursue a common plan or design to commit a tortious act.”[3] Because of this conspiracy exception, plaintiffs try to circumvent the general rule against joint and several liability by arguing that construction professionals defending construction defect cases were acting in concert, as co-conspirators. Plaintiffs argue that if they can prove that two or more construction professionals consciously conspired and deliberately pursued a common plan or design, i.e., to build a home or residential community, and such a plan results in the commission of a tort, i.e., negligence, the defendants may be held jointly and severally liable for all of the damages awarded. Since 1986, Colorado courts have construed the “conspiracy” provision in § 13-21-111.5(4), but some have disagreed as to what constitutes a conspiracy for purposes of imposing joint liability. Civil Conspiracy In Colorado, the elements of civil conspiracy are that: “(1) two or more persons; (2) come to a meeting of the minds; (3) on an object to be accomplished or a course of action to be followed; (4) and one or more overt unlawful acts are performed; (5) with damages as the proximate result thereof.”[4] Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Benjamin Volpe, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Volpe may be contacted at volpe@hhmrlaw.com

---

Modified Plan Unveiled for Chicago's Sixth-Tallest Tower

February 15, 2018 — Jeff Yoders – ENR
The Chicago Plan Commission on Jan. 18 approved a $700-million development that, as presented, would include the city’s sixth-tallest building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com

---

Manhattan Site for Supertall Condo Finds New Owner at Auction

December 15, 2016 — Oshrat Carmiel – Bloomberg
A development site slated for an almost 1,000-foot condo tower on Manhattan’s far east side found a new owner through a bankruptcy auction Tuesday, removing a hurdle for construction after about a year of delays. Gamma Real Estate, the lender to the project, won the auction with a credit bid of $86 million and is poised to take control of the site, pending approval from the bankruptcy court, said David Schechtman, a broker with Meridian Investment Sales, which handled the auction with another brokerage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg
Mr. Carmiel can be followed on Twitter @OshratCarmiel

---