Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

One-Upmanship by Contractors In Prevailing Wage Decision Leads to a Bad Result for All . . . Perhaps

July 19, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Fights between contractors can be a bit like Mad magazine’s “Spy vs. Spy” with each side trying to out outwit and one-up one another. The next case, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Built Pacific, Inc., Case No. D076601 (March 15, 2021), is a case in point. The Built Pacific Case Built Pacific, Inc. was a subcontractor to Austin Sundt Joint Venture on a public works project known as the San Diego Regional Airport Authority Project. In 2015, following an investigation by the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), the DLSE issued a Civil Wage Penalty Assessment of $119,319.76 based on Built Pacific’s failure to pay prevailing wages. The DLSE also named Austin Sundt in the Civil Wage Assessment pursuant to Labor Code 1743 which makes contractors and subcontractors jointly and severally liable for wage violations. As a result of the Civil Wage Assessment, Austin Sundt withheld approximately $70,000 in retention from Built Pacific. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Florida High-Rise for Sale, Construction Defects Possibly Included

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The owners of One Bal Harbour in Bal Harbour, Florida have filed for bankruptcy and are seeking to sell off the luxury condominium and hotel building. There have been problems with the building, including flooding and allegations of structural defects. The original developer went bankrupt and sold before the construction defect lawsuits begain. The building’s opening price of $13 million won’t wipe out Elcom’s $20 million in debt. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Powers of the Nation’s Bankruptcy Courts

June 11, 2014 — Earl Forte – White and Williams LLP
On June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-awaited decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, Chapter 7 Trustee of Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc., Case No. 12-1200, in which the court confirmed that the power of the nation’s bankruptcy courts to hear and decide cases involving state-created private rights in which the bankruptcy proof of claim process has not been directly invoked, is severely limited by Article III of the Constitution of the United States. The decision in Executive Benefits, while providing some clarity to practitioners and the public following the Court’s June 2011 decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), nevertheless will make a substantial portion of bankruptcy litigation matters more cumbersome and potentially more expensive to guide through the bankruptcy system. Clients and practitioners are best advised to hire knowledgeable counsel to help navigate the more complex procedural waters created by this decision. Although the Court in Executive Benefits did resolve a pending procedural question that had dogged practitioners since Stern was decided in 2011, the Court’s decision in Executive Benefits now makes it abundantly clear that many disputes that were previously heard and decided in the nation’s bankruptcy courts can no longer be decided there and must be submitted to the district courts for full de novo review and entry of a final judgment or order. It is difficult to see how this decision will not make bankruptcy litigation more cumbersome and expensive by adding an additional layer of judicial involvement to many matters, notably to fraudulent transfer and other avoidance “claw back” actions that historically have been decided in the bankruptcy courts and used famously in Madoff and other cases as an efficient device for creating value for creditors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Earl Forte, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Forte may be contacted at fortee@whiteandwilliams.com

Safety Data: Noon Presents the Hour of Greatest Danger

April 20, 2017 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
Unlike previous research into construction fatalities, a new review of three years of Labor Dept. data found that most occur between 10 am and 3 pm, with a peak at noon. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, ENR
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

The Hazards of Carrier-Specific Manuscript Language: Ohio Casualty's Off-Premises Property Damage and Contractors' E&O Endorsements

October 05, 2020 — Theresa A. Guertin & Eric M. Clarkson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Risk transfer in the construction industry depends heavily on industry-standard insurance language. Insurance provisions in subcontracts typically reference ISO standard insurance terminology or endorsements in order to guarantee (or, at least, attempt to secure) coverage for upstream parties. The contract may require, for example, that a subcontractor maintains general liability insurance on a “current ISO occurrence form,” and name upstream parties as additional insureds, and both parties will have a general understanding of what that entails for purposes of risk transfer. Problems arise, however, when insurance companies stray from standard language, especially on issues that go to the heart of construction risk transfer. In some instances, provisions that track ISO language may contain subtle changes that seem to meet the contractual insurance requirements. Upon closer scrutiny, it could significantly change how a policy will respond to a given claim. Given the extent of potential liability arising from construction projects, if the insurance programs intended to back up risk transfer and indemnity agreements do not respond as expected, all the potentially liable parties may be left in the lurch. Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Eric M. Clarkson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at emc@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

2022 California Construction Law Update

December 27, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s been a trying year as we approach the end of 2021. From the pandemic approaching nearly two years to concerns regarding climate change to the impact of inflation on everything from the cost of groceries to housing affordability. During the first half of the 2021-2022 legislative session, a total of 2,421 bills were introduced in 2021 of which 836 made it to the Governor’s desk and 770 were signed into law. This is up from the 2,223 bills introduced in 2020 of which 428 bills made it to the Governor’s desk and 372 were signed into law, due in large part, to the fact that legislators were not required to shelter-in-place as they were in 2020. Not surprisingly, for the construction industry, many of the bills were focused on the hot topics of the year including housing affordability and climate change. However, there were also the typical changes to project delivery methods and a few changes to the Licensing Law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Inverse Condemnation Action

June 02, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The South Carolina Court of Appeals found there was no coverage for an inverse condemnation action based upon the policy's pollution exclusion. South Carolina Ins. Reserve Fund v. E. Richland County Public Service District, 2016 S. C. App. LEXIS 32 (S.C. Ct. App. March 23, 2016). In 2010, Coley Brown filed a complaint against the East Richland County Public Service District ("District") for inverse condemnation, trespass, and negligence. The complaint alleged that the District had installed a sewage force main line and an air relief valve on Brown's street, and the valve released offensive odors on his property many times a day. The stench caused Brown to buy a new piece of property and move, but he was unable to sell the old property. The district tendered the complaint to the South Carolina Insurance Reserve Fund ("Fund"), but coverage was denied. 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

When “Substantially Similar” Means “Fundamentally Identical”: Delaware Court Enforces Related Claim Provision to Deny D&O Coverage for Securities Class Action

August 10, 2021 — Geoffrey B. Fehling, Lawrence J. Bracken II & Lorelie S. Masters - Hunton Andrews Kurth
A company faces two class action lawsuits—filed by different plaintiffs, complaining of different allegedly wrongful conduct, asserting different causes of action subject to different burdens of proof, and seeking different relief based on different time periods for the alleged harm. Those facts suggest the suits are not “fundamentally identical,” but that is what a Delaware Superior Court recently concluded in barring coverage for a policyholder seeking to recover for a suit the court deemed “related” to an earlier lawsuit first made outside the policy’s coverage period. First Solar Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., No. N20C-10-156 MMJ CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. June 23, 2021). The decision, which is not on all fours with some of the authority upon which it relies, underscores the inherent unpredictability of “related” claim disputes and need for careful analysis of the policy language against the factual and legal bases of the underlying claims. Underlying Shareholder Class Actions and D&O Claims Shareholders of solar panel manufacturer First Solar sued the company and its directors and officers in a class action lawsuit (the “Smilovits Action”) for the class period April 2008 to February 2012. The Smilovits Action asserted federal securities violations arising from First Solar’s alleged misrepresentations about the company’s business strategies, product design, financial strength, and ability to offer solar electricity at comparable rates to conventional energy producers (i.e., achieving “grid parity”), artificially inflated stock price, insider trading, manipulation of solar power metrics, and violations of GAAP accounting standards. First Solar submitted a claim to its D&O insurer, National Union, which provided coverage for the Smilovits Action and exhausted the policy. Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES