Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

California Indemnity and Defense Construction Law Changes for 2013

April 03, 2013 — William L. Porter, Esq. - Porter Law Group

Death of “Type 1” Indemnity in California Construction

For many years the prevalence of the “Type 1” indemnity clause has been the subject of fierce debate within the construction industry. Subcontractors have complained that they are saddled with indemnity obligations that require them to indemnify contractors from construction-related claims for which these subcontractors are truly not responsible. In defense, contractors have argued that they must be entitled to the freedom to set contractual terms to best protect themselves and they point out that subcontractors are certainly free to negotiate better terms or turn down work.

After many years of debate and small legislative inroads in prohibiting Type 1 indemnity in residential projects and where it concerns the “sole negligence”, “willful misconduct” or the “design defects” of others, the California legislature has finally spoken broadly and definitively on the issue of Type 1 indemnity clauses in construction contracts. Under new Civil Code section 2782, beginning with contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013, broad “Type 1” indemnity clauses shall be void and unenforceable in the context of both private and public construction projects in California. Civil Code section 2782 now makes it clear that subcontractors can no longer be required to indemnify against another’s active negligence in connection with construction contracts, whether public or private.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Esq.
William L. Porter, Esq. can be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

Connecticut Appellate Court Breaks New Ground on Policy Exhaustion

April 26, 2021 — Eric B. Hermanson & Austin D. Moody - White and Williams
The Connecticut Appellate Court recently issued a wide-ranging opinion, Continental Casualty Co. v. Rohr, Inc.,[1] which significantly extended the current restrictive view on when a general liability policy can be considered exhausted so as to trigger overlying excess coverage. The case marks a further step away from Judge Augustus Hand’s almost-century-old ruling in Zeig v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.,[2] which held that an underlying policy could be “exhausted” by a below-limits settlement as long as the insured was willing to “fill the gap” between the settlement amount and the limits of the policy.[3] In recent years, courts in California and elsewhere have increasingly walked back Zeig’s broad ruling – holding in Qualcomm v. Certain Underwriters,[4] for example, that an insured’s below-limits settlement with primary carriers does not exhaust the limits of primary coverage, or allow the insured to access overlying excess coverage.[5] Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and Austin D. Moody, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Performing Work with a Suspended CSLB License Costs Big: Subcontractor Faces $18,000,000 Disgorgement

September 17, 2015 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & David A. Harris – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In what could lead to a draconian result, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held that a contractor who performs work without a valid license can be required to disgorge all payments received, even if the contractor perfectly performed its work. The case, Judicial Council of California v. Jacobs Facilities, Inc. (Ct. of Appeal, 1st App. Dis., Div. One, A140890, A141393), involved an $18,000,000 contract between Jacobs Facilities, Inc. (“Jacobs Facilities”) and the Judicial Council of California (“Judicial Council”). In April 2006, Jacobs Facilities, a wholly owned subsidiary of Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (“Jacobs Engineering”) entered into a three year contract with the Judicial Counsel to maintain 121 courthouses and other judicial branch buildings throughout Southern California (the “Contract”). Jacobs Facilities contracted to provide maintenance and oversight services, while retaining subcontractors to perform the actual maintenance and repair work. In December 2006, as part of a corporate reorganization, Jacobs Engineering started winding up Jacobs Facilities and transferred its employees to Jacobs Engineering and then subsequently to another wholly owned subsidiary called Jacobs Project Management Co. (“Jacobs Management”). The work that was performed by Jacobs Facilities was taken over by Jacobs Management. As part of the windup, Jacobs Facilities’ Contractor’s State License Board license was allowed to lapse and the license expired by operation of law in November 2008. Although Jacobs Management was now performing the work, it was not added as a party to the contract. Although it appears Judicial Council was aware of the corporate changes, it was not until November 2009 that the parties assigned the contract to Jacobs Management. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Federal Court Opinion Has Huge Impact on the Construction Industry

July 06, 2020 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia recently issued an opinion that should get the attention of any contractor or subcontractor performing work on a federal funded construction project. In U.S. ex rel IBEW Local 98 v. The Fairfield Company, the federal court held that a contractor on a SEPTA project could be held liable under the False Claims Act for failing to pay its workers under the Davis Bacon Act. The court found that liability was appropriate under the FCA even through the contractor did not knowingly violate the Davis Bacon Act. The court awarded the plaintiff over $1,000,000 in damages and an additional over $1,000,000 in attorneys fees. An Extremely Brief Primer on the FCA A full discussion of the FCA is beyond the realm of this blog post and you could write a book on FCA cases. But in a nutshell, the FCA prohibits a contractor from knowingly submitting a claim for payment to the federal government (or an entity receiving funding from the federal government, like SEPTA) that is false. Importantly, knowingly does not equal actual knowledge of the falsity of the claim. Rather, “reckless disregard of the truth or falsity” of the submission is sufficient. As explained below, this standard played an important role in the court’s decision and should give contractors performing work on federally funded projects pause. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Arizona – New Discovery Rules

May 16, 2018 — John Belanger - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Effective July 1, 2018 New Rules of Civil Procedure are taking effect in Arizona on July 1, 2018. The new Rules will change how discovery works in civil litigation in the state. Here is a sneak peek at the changes that will impact your file handling the most: Tiered Discovery

How much discovery is allowed in a case will now depend on the amount and type of relief sought
Cases will be assigned to one of three tiers
Parties can agree on a tier assignment, the court can assign a tier, or a tier can be assigned based on the amount of damages, or a combination of monetary and non-monetary damages

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Belanger, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Mr. Belanger may be contacted at jbelanger@bremerwhyte.com

Sources of Insurance Recovery for Emerging PFAS Claims

December 17, 2024 — Jasjeet K. Sahani - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
This year, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued its first-ever national, legally enforceable drinking water standard to protect communities from exposure to harmful per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), also known as “forever chemicals.”[1] In addition, the Food and Drug Administration announced that grease-proofing materials containing PFAS are no longer being sold for use in food packaging in the United States.[2] These are likely the first in a line of many PFAS regulations that will emerge as the harmful effects of PFAS are further understood. With this increasing regulatory focus on PFAS and their harmful effects, companies whose operations might involve these substances should be aware of what they are and potential sources of recovery for claims that arise from their omnipresence. PFAS Background According to the EPA, PFAS are widely used, long-lasting chemicals which break down slowly over time.[3] PFAS can be found in thousands of items, including, but not limited to: pots and pans, cleaning products, fabric and leather coatings, firefighting foam, carpeting, roofing materials, paints, sealants, caulks, and adhesives.[4] Additionally, manufacturing processes, waste storage, and treatment sites commonly release PFAS into the air, soil, and water.[5] Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jasjeet K. Sahani, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Sahani may be contacted at JSahani@sdvlaw.com

The New York Lien Law - Top Ten Things You Ought to Know

December 23, 2023 — Ralph E. Arpajian - White and Williams LLP
Over the course of my career, I have had the privilege of working with and representing numerous construction lenders (and borrowers/developers) in the financing of some of the largest commercial projects in the United States. A number of these projects have been in New York, where one encounters the New York Lien Law (the “Lien Law”). Many of my clients, particularly those lenders, borrowers, and their counsel, located outside of New York, are often perplexed by my advice regarding the Lien Law and the loan structuring requirements which result. In the hope that it would be helpful (especially for non-New York counsel), I have compiled a “top ten” list outlining, in my view, the most critical (and most perplexing) aspects of structuring New York construction loans under the Lien Law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ralph E. Arpajian, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Arpajian may be contacted at arpajianr@whiteandwilliams.com

Court Upholds Denial of Collapse Coverage Where Building Still Stands

October 02, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision finding the policy's collapse coverage did not apply. Cmty. Garage v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 2018 Mich. App. LEXIS 2680 (Mich. Ct. App. June 19, 2018). The insured operated a truck repair business. In June 2016, the insured's place of business sustained damage due to failure of several trusses providing structural support to the building's roof. The failure was due to latent construction defects leading to an insufficient load bearing capacity. The roof began to sag while one of the walls bulged outward due to the sudden pressure overload. The insured hired a construction firm to install temporary shoring to support the roof and prevent further damage. All of the building's walls remained standing and, although the roof sagged, it also remained intact. However, the building could not be safely occupied until repairs were completed. 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