Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Vinci Will Build $580M Calgary Project To Avoid Epic Flood Repeat

June 20, 2022 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
Vinci Construction has begun work on a giant flood control project in Alberta designed to prevent a repeat of one of the most devastating natural disasters in Canadian history. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Expansion of Potential Liability of Construction Managers and Consultants

November 18, 2019 — Scott D. Cessar - Construction Executive
Over the last decade or so, there has been far more judicial willingness to adopt legal theories that result in an increased risk of exposure to construction managers and consultants working on construction projects. This has resulted in a greater likelihood of lawsuits being filed that name construction managers and consultants as defendants and a greater likelihood of those lawsuits surviving efforts to have the lawsuits dismissed prior to trial. The consequence of more claims has led to increased costs for legal expenses, settlements and uncompensated personnel time devoted to the defense of the claims. This expansion of potential liability may be broken into two sets:

claims for pure economic loss not arising from property damage or personal injury by parties not in a contractual relationship with a construction manager or consultant; and
claims for property damage or personal injury by a party not in a contractual relationship with a construction manager or consultant.

The first set concerns claims by a contractor against a construction manager or consultant that its breach of duties owed to the owner on a project and/or its provision of incomplete or inaccurate information on a project, which it knew, or should have reasonably anticipated, would be relied on by the contractor, resulted in damages to the contractor. Reprinted courtesy of Scott D. Cessar, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Cessar may be contacted at scessar@eckertseamans.com

Design-Assist Collaboration/Follow-up Post

March 16, 2020 — John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Shortly after posting the blog article “Design-Assist an Ambiguous Term Causing Conflict in the Construction Industry,” I received an email from Brian Perlberg, the Executive Director and Senior Counsel for ConsensusDocs. He brought two ConsensusDocs forms to my attention: ConsensusDocs 541 Design Assist Addendum and ConsensusDocs 300 Integrated Form of Agreement (IFOA). In the ConsensusDocs model of “design-assist,” the lead design professional retains design responsibility but benefits from input and consultation from the construction team during design development. By contrast, in the design-build project delivery method, the constructor assumes design responsibility and liability for either the entire project design (design-build) or just a component of the design (delegated design). The ConsensusDocs 541 document goal is to provide “accurate information concerning program, quality, cost, constructability and schedule from all parties.” It provides a range of standard and optimal services during design development that essentially shifts the curve of selecting the construction manager (CM) and most importantly, special trade contractors, to much earlier in the process, perhaps as soon as the owner’s program is developed. This opens a world of possibilities for the design and construction team to collaborate early and often. The design professional, however, does not abdicate its design responsibility or authority in this process. The ultimate goal is to end the all-too-common wasteful cycle of design and redesign that is common in construction projects.[1] Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

Land Planners Not Held to Professional Standard of Care

October 10, 2013 — Heather Anderson — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
Recently, the Colorado Court of Appeals indicated that there is no professional duty of care applicable to land planners. See Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. v. Coleman Brothers Constr., LLC, 297 P.3d 1042 (Colo. App. 2013). Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. (“SCA”) agreed to provide land planning services to Coleman Brothers Construction, LLC (“Coleman”) for property referred to as Crown Mountain in a letter and then verbally agreed to provide a development analysis for another property, located on Emma Road in Basalt, Colorado. Thereafter, SCA sent letters to the defendant concerning the possible subdivision and development of the Emma Road property. Approximately two years later, SCA sued Coleman for breach of the verbal agreement concerning the Emma Road property. Coleman then asserted counterclaims against SCA for negligently providing inaccurate advice about whether the Emma Road property could be subdivided and developed, and that the county had denied the planned unit development sketch plan SCA prepared and submitted on behalf of Coleman. The district court granted SCA’s motion for summary judgment thereby concluding that the economic loss rule barred Coleman’s negligence counterclaims. The Court of Appeals agreed. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals reiterated the economic loss rule espoused in the Colorado Supreme Court in the Town of Alma v. AZCO Constr., Inc., 10 P.3d 1256, 1264 (Colo. 2000) case. “Under the economic loss rule, ‘a party suffering only economic loss from the breach of an express or implied contractual duty may not assert a tort claim for such a breach absent an independent duty of care under tort law.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heather Anderson
Heather Anderson can be contacted at anderson@hhmrlaw.com

A Property Tax Exemption, Misapplied, in Texas

June 18, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
In an important ruling for Texas businesses, the Texas Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the TCEQ misapplied the Texas property tax’s exemption for specified pollution control equipment. Since 1993, the Texas Constitution has included a provision which authorizes the Texas Legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation “all or part of real and personal property used … wholly or partly … for the control or reduction of air, water or land pollution.” This provision is implemented by Section 11.31 of the Texas Tax Code, which is administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (See the rules at Title 30, Chapter 17 of the Texas Administrative Code.) If the Executive Director of the TCEQ determines that the equipment is used wholly or partly for pollution control, he issues a “positive use determination”; in the event it does not, the Executive Director issues a “negative use determination and rejects the application for the exemption. In 2007, Section 11.31 was amended at 11.31 (k) to list several items of equipment that are presumed to be pollution-control equipment, including “heat recovery steam generators” or HRSGs. This equipment is used by powerplants to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions that are the product of generation of electricity. Several applications were submitted to the TCEQ by the Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, seeking a tax exemption for its HRSG units. In July 2012, the TCEQ denied these applications, with the flat declaration that HRSGs are not pollution-control equipment—“they are used solely for production.” The Brazos Cooperative sued the Commission, and on May 3, 2019, in the case of Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. TCEQ, the Texas Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion reversing the Commission, and the lower court (the Eight Court of Appeals, sitting in El Paso) that affirmed the Commission’s action. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Sometimes, Being too Cute with Pleading Allegations is Unnecessary

June 06, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There are times where being too darn cute with your pleading allegations is unnecessary and does not work. But, the point is really that the cuteness is unnecessary. In a Miller Act payment bond dispute in Boneso Brothers Construction, Inc. v. Sauer, Inc., 2018 WL 2387833 (N.D.Cal. 2018), a claimant asserted claims against a Miller Act payment bond surety for breach of the payment bond, breach of a subcontract, open account, and account stated. The question is why would the claimant sue the payment bond surety for breach of subcontract (when the subcontract was not with the surety), and open account and account stated. I have no clue, other than such claims appeared quite unnecessary when the claimant asserted an action on the Miller Act payment bond (which is what the surety is liable under — actions under the statutory payment bond). Such claims were dismissed. And, they should have been. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Partners Patti Santelle and Gale White honored by as "Top Women in Law" The Legal Intelligencer

September 22, 2016 — White and Williams LLP
Managing Partner Patti Santelle and Partner Gale White were among the 25 women recognized by The Legal Intelligencer as "Top Women In Law" for 2016. The honor shines a light on the outstanding work being done by female attorneys across Pennsylvania who are making strides to push the legal profession forward for women. Honorees were selected by The Legal, with the help of suggestions from the legal community. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

The Looming Housing Crisis and Limited Government Relief—An Examination of the CDC Eviction Moratorium Two Months In

December 14, 2020 — Zachary Kessler - Gravel2Gavel
Months after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a nationwide eviction moratorium using its emergency pandemic powers under the Public Health Service Act, the efficacy of this unprecedented measure remains unclear. While the Order ostensibly protects tenants facing homelessness or housing insecurity due to the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic through the end of 2020, legal challenges have been initiated in Ohio and Georgia, with additional lawsuits appearing likely. Further, even barring legal challenges, courts have not handled these cases in a uniform manner. With lawmakers unable to reach any stimulus or COVID-19 relief agreement before the election, the CDC Order appears likely to remain the only federal eviction moratorium through its expiration on December 31, 2020. Since the Order’s enactment, the CDC has since released new guidance, answering some of the open questions not covered by the initial Order. This guidance, while non-binding, is largely more favorable to landlords and property management companies than the initial text of the Order, as it provides that landlords are not required to make tenants aware of the Order’s protections and may challenge the truthfulness of the tenants’ declarations in any state or municipal court. The guidance also clarified the potential criminal penalties for violating the Order and the criminal penalties for perjury for bad faith submissions of the requisite declaration by tenants. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zachary Kessler, Pillsbury
Mr. Kessler may be contacted at zachary.kessler@pillsburylaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES