Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Commercial Real Estate Brokerages in an Uncertain Russian Market

March 28, 2022 — Cait Horner & Adam J. Weaver - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Several commercial real estate firms have joined the growing list of companies temporarily suspending – or outright terminating – property and facility management operations in Russia amid economic sanctions and mounting international pressure. CBRE is the latest to make such a move, discontinuing its Russian leasing, investment and property management operations and denouncing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in a statement issued March 7th. Other major players, including Savills, Knight Frank, and Colliers, have already suspended operations in the country, citing similar concern for international sanctions and the humanitarian impact of the invasion. Colliers is going even further to suspend operations in Belarus as well. Recently, global real estate service giant JLL switched course, issuing a formal statement that “with great sadness,” it will begin the process of separating from its domestic operations in Russia, though not commenting on whether the separation will be temporary or permanent. This is a significant change from just earlier this month , where, when asked about pulling operations from the country, JLL stated it would stay abreast of the situation abroad and continue to ensure the safety of its people and clients. Now that CBRE and Dallas-based JLL have joined the list, Houston-based powerhouse Hines appears to be continuing its “wait and see” approach. Hines currently owns Russian assets valued at $2.9 billion, nearly 2 percent of its entire $160 billion asset portfolio, and its property management portfolio manages more than 243 million square feet worldwide. While other firms have temporarily suspended current operations, Hines has gone so far as to say it will avoid servicing any future investments in the country, though it did similarly condemn Russia’s actions. With JLL’s recent decision , if Hines does take a stronger stance, it will likely happen soon. Reprinted courtesy of Cait Horner, Pillsbury and Adam J. Weaver, Pillsbury Ms. Horner may be contacted at cait.horner@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Loud Boom, But No Serious Injuries in World Trade Center Accident

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Wall Street Journal reports that nearly twenty tons of steel fell forty stories at the World Trade Center site on February 16. One person was checked by medical personnel. One person who works in the Financial District said it was “almost like thunder.” Frank Pensabene, one of the ironworkers on the site said that after “loud boom,” “all hell broke loose.” The steel beams and cables fell onto a flatbed truck, which was not occupied at the time.

Read the full story…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Breach of a Construction Contract & An Equitable Remedy?

September 22, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
In payment or collection-type lawsuits, the party suing for money sometimes asserts a claim for unjust enrichment or quantum meruit as an alternative equitable remedy to a breach of contract claim. Frankly, sometimes a party will do this as a means to throw everything against the wall hoping something, just something, sticks. However, if there is a contract by and between the parties, equitable claims such as unjust enrichment or quantum meruit will invariably fail. They will fail because a party cannot circumvent a contract simply because their recourse may prove better under an equitable theory. It doesn’t work like that! And, it should not! Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Is it the End of the Story for Redevelopment in California?

October 02, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Long, long ago (in 2012 to be exact) in a land not so far away (also known as California), legislation which allowed local governments to establish redevelopment agencies tasked with eliminating blight through the development, reconstruction and rehabilitation of residential, commercial, industrial and retail districts were abolished. Note: For a relatively concise history of redevelopment in California see the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s working paper Redevelopment Agencies in California: History, Benefits, Excesses, and Closure (January 2014). A quite war has been waged ever since. Cities, community development commissions, successor agencies to redevelopment agencies, nonprofit housing corporations and individual taxpayers have fought the legislation (AB 1X 26 (Blumenfield 2011)) which eliminated California’s 425 redevelopment agencies, principally, on constitutional grounds. 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

The Problem with One Year Warranties

June 10, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Contractors often ask if they should include a one year warranty in their subcontracts. I tell them that they can, but it may be more effective to include a one-year correction period. If a contractor does include a warranty in the contract, it may actually extend the time in which a contractor may be sued. I recommend instead a Correction Period. Typical Construction Warranties Form construction contracts, like the AIA forms, often times contain warranty language. The AIA A201, General Conditions, contains a warranty section that covers materials, but it does not address how long the work is warranted: “3.5 WARRANTY The Contractor warrants to the Owner and Architect that materials and equipment furnished under the Contract will be of good quality and new unless the Contract Documents require or permit otherwise. The Contractor further warrants that the Work will conform to the requirements of the Contract Documents and will be free from defects, except for those inherent in the quality of the Work the Contract Documents require or permit.” Instead, the AIA A201, section 13.7, limits the time by which claims must be brought to 10 years or the applicable statute of limitations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

Changes to Va. Code Section 43-13: Another Arrow in a Subcontractor’s Quiver

November 02, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As is always the case here in Virginia, our General Assembly has made some legislative changes that affect construction contracting. One of these changes is an amendment to Va. Code 43-13 found in the mechanic’s lien section of the Virginia Code. This section of the code has always required that any money paid to a contractor must first go toward paying its subcontractors, suppliers and laborers prior to being used for any other purpose. Prior to 2020, the only remedy for violaiton of Va. Code 43-13 was to go to the local Commonwealth’s Attorney and request a prosecution of the wrongdoer. For various reasons, including that such action did not get the subcontractor or supplier that remained unpaid under this section paid, this remedy was not often pursued except in the most egrigious cases. A key change in the statute occurred during the 2020 legislative session states as follows:

Any breach or violation of this section may give rise to a civil cause of action for a party in contract with the general contractor or subcontractor, as appropriate; however, this right does not affect a contractor’s or subcontractor’s right to withhold payment for failure to properly perform labor or furnish materials on the project. Any contract or subcontract provision that allows a contracting party to withhold funds due under one contract or subcontract for alleged claims or damages due on another contract or subcontract is void as against public policy.

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

Release Language Extended To Successor Entity But Only Covered “Known” Claims

August 06, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent case contains valuable analysis that has impact on whether a “successor” entity will be bound by a settlement agreement it was not a direct party to. This case contains arguments for contractors that can be raised in a number of different contexts if it is sued by a successor or related entity. The same case discusses the difference between releasing a party for “known” claims without releasing the same party for “unknown” claims. This is an important distinction because unknown claims refer to latent defects so a release that only releases a party for known claims is not releasing that party for latent defects. In MBlock Investors, LLC v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1432d (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), an owner hired a contractor to construct a project. At completion, the owner transferred the project to an affiliated entity (collectively, the “Owner”). The contractor sued the Owner for unpaid work, the Owner claimed construction defects with the work, and a settlement was entered into that released the contractor for KNOWN claims. Thereafter, the Owner defaulted on the construction loan and agreed to convey the property through a deed in lieu of foreclosure to an entity created by the lender (the “Lender Entity”). 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

"Damage to Your Product" Exclusion Bars Coverage

February 02, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of coverage for the insured based upon the exclusion for "damage to your product." S.E. Arnold & Co. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2016 Ark. App. LEXIS 625 (Ark. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2016). The homeowners paid the insured, S.E. Arnold & Company, over $78,000 to supply and install wood flooring in their residence. The homeowners eventually sued Arnold, alleging that the products and services as provided by Arnold had breached its contract, Arnold was negligent, and it violated applicable rules, regulations, and laws. Specifically, the homeowners alleged that the flooring as sold and installed had splinters, cupping occurred across the width of the individual pieces of flooring, and installation was in contradiction to industry standards and applicable building codes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES