Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

They Say Nothing Lasts Forever, but What If Decommissioning Does?

June 10, 2019 — Stella Pulman - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The looming decommissioning liabilities of offshore energy producers have been a focus of the federal government in recent years. One recent case out of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Taylor Energy v. United States, highlights the tension between the federal government’s desire to maintain financial security for decommissioning activities, and that of an operator whose security is tied up indefinitely while the government awaits technological advances to allow for safe decommissioning. The case relates to a trust agreement between Taylor Energy and the United States, established to secure Taylor’s decommissioning liabilities for 28 wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Taylor completed certain decommissioning work for which it was reimbursed by the trust. However, with over $400 million remaining in the trust, Taylor and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) concluded that the ecological benefits of further decommissioning would be outweighed by the ecological risks. But despite recognizing that the limitations of current technology made the environmental impacts of further decommissioning work unjustifiable, the BSEE declined to release Taylor from its decommissioning obligations and instead decided to await “changes in technology and a better understanding of the undersea environment.” Because Taylor’s decommissioning obligations remained in place, the U.S. refused to release the remaining funds in the trust. Taylor claimed that the United States should release the remaining funds in the trust because “decommissioning the remaining wells is not ‘currently technologically feasible.’” Taylor asserted that Louisiana law applied to the trust agreement, and that under Louisiana law every contract must be completed within an ascertainable term. By holding the trust funds until decommissioning was complete, Taylor argued that the government was essentially holding the funds in perpetuity given the technological infeasibility of completing decommissioning. Taylor also asserted that the agreement was premised on an impossibility (the full decommissioning of the wells), and/or a mutual mistake of the parties (that the wells could be decommissioned). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stella Pulman, Pillsbury
Ms. Pulman may be contacted at stella.pulman@pillsburylaw.com

Effective October 1, 2019, Florida General Contractors Have a Statutory Right to Recovery of Attorney Fees Against a Defaulted Subcontractor’s Surety

July 01, 2019 — Warren E. Friedman - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Florida contractors will soon have a level playing field, at least related to the right to recovery of attorney fees in certain circumstances. Effective October 1, 2019, the Florida statute by which legal fees may be recovered from insurers and sureties was amended to expressly afford that right to contractors. Florida’s Insurance statute, Chapter 627, affords a right to recovery of attorney fees when a judgment is obtained against an insurer and in favor of any insured pursuant to a policy or contract executed by the insurer. See Fla. Stat. § 627.428. In the construction context, the Florida Legislature has also applied this right to the recovery of attorney fees from sureties, for example in circumstances where suit is brought against a surety under a payment or performance bond. See Fla. Stat. § 627.756. But there was an oddity to this statute – it specifically provided this right for “owners” and “subcontractors”, but “contractors” were skipped over. For as long as Section 627.756, Florida Statutes has been on the books, the right to recovery of attorney fees against a surety under a payment or performance bond was only afforded to owners, subcontractors, laborers, and materialmen. Specifically, since at least 1977, Section 627.756, Florida Statutes substantially provided as follows (emphasis added): Section 627.428 applies to suits brought by owners, subcontractors, laborers, and materialmen against a surety insurer under payment or performance bonds written by the insurer under the laws of this state to indemnify against pecuniary loss by breach of a building or construction contract. Owners, subcontractors, laborers, and materialmen shall be deemed to be insureds or beneficiaries for the purposes of this section. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Warren E. Friedman - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Friedman may be contacted at wfriedman@pecklaw.com

Construction Litigation—Battles on Many Fronts

May 07, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
When you are involved in construction litigation, you have battles on several fronts, including those against subcontractors, owners, insurers and the court. Shoring up your defenses on each of these fronts is imperative, or you may lose the battle or, worse yet, the war. A recent opinion out of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (overseeing federal courts in Alabama, Florida and Georgia) Carithers v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company, illustrates the various battle fronts involved in a construction case. In this case, the Carithers (Home Owner) sued their homebuilder, Cronk Duch Miller & Associates (Contractor) in state court after discovering multiple defects with their home. Battle Front #1—Claim Against Contractor The Contractor and Home Owner entered into a consent judgment for approximately $90,000.00 and the Contractor assigned its claim against its insurer to the Home Owner. It is unlikely that the Contractor paid the $90,000.00 judgment. The Home Owner likely agreed not to collect on the $90,000.00 in exchange for the chance to pursue the Contractor’s claim against its insurer. 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

Nevada Assembly Passes Construction Defect Bill

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Nevada Speaker says that AB401 gives contractors what they want, but a contractors’ group has asked a Senate committee to kill the bill. Supporters of AB 401 say that it clarifies what qualifies as a construction defect and shortens the statute of limitations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New York Court Holds Insurer Can Recover Before Insured Is Made Whole

October 24, 2023 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tamagawa, Index No. 510977/2021, 2023 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 5434, the Supreme Court of New York considered whether an insurance carrier can settle its property subrogation lawsuit with the defendant, and discontinue the lawsuit, while the carrier’s insured still had pending claims with the carrier and claims for uninsured losses against the defendant. The court held that the carrier’s claims for the amount paid are divisible and independent of the insured’s claims and that the carrier’s settlement did not affect the insured’s right to sue for any unreimbursed losses. The court’s decision reminds us that, in New York, a carrier can resolve its subrogation claim before the insured is made whole. In June 2018, a water loss occurred in an apartment owned by Malik Graves-Pryor (Graves-Pryor). Graves-Pryor reported a claim to his property insurance carrier, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (Carrier). Investigation into the water loss revealed that the water originated from failed plumbing pipes in another apartment unit owned by Taku Tamagawa (Tamagawa). Carrier paid its insured over $600,000 for repairs. In May 2021, Carrier filed a subrogation lawsuit against Tamagawa, alleging improper maintenance of the plumbing pipes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Massachusetts Federal Court Holds No Coverage for Mold and Water Damage Claim

February 11, 2019 — Brian Margolies - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In its recent decision in Clarendon National Ins. Co. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., 2019 WL 134614 (D. Mass. Jan. 8, 2019), the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts had occasion to consider the application of a prior knowledge provision in the context of a claim for mold and water-related bodily injury and property damage. Philadelphia insured a condominium property management company under a general liability insurance policy for the period September 1, 2007 through September 1, 2008. In 2009, the insured was sued by a unit owner alleging bodily injury and property damage resulting from toxic mold conditions resulting from leaks that had been identified in her unit as early as 2004. Notably, the complaint alleged that mold was identified in 2006 and that repair efforts were undertaken, but that these efforts all proved unsuccessful. Plaintiff alleged that she was forced to vacate her apartment in 2008 as a result of the conditions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

Lawsuits over Roof Dropped

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
An Iowa roofing contractor has dropped its lawsuit over a contract to re-roof a condominium complex. The condominium association has dropped its counterclaim against the roofer. Hansel Construction alleged that the Harbourage Owners Association failed to fulfill the contract’s provisions, which prevented Hansel Construction from fulfilling its contract. Further, Hansel alleged that it had expenses, losses, and damages, as a result of Harbourage’s actions. In response, Harbourage sued James Hansel. Now, both lawsuits have been dismissed by the parties. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

What to do about California’s Defect-Ridden Board of Equalization Building

October 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Jerry Brown recently signed into law a bill requiring the state of California “to assess its properties in the Sacramento area and develop long-term plans for renovating, replacing or selling the most troublesome buildings,” according to SF Gate. Some say the Board of Equalization building, which was built for $80 million and then repaired for $60 million has construction defects, is “jeopardizing the health and safety of public employees.” Current problems include “[f]looding, mold, falling windows and free-falling elevators,” reported SF Gate. Furthermore, recently, “three employees filed a $75 million lawsuit against the state, alleging toxic mold in the building is causing extreme fatigue, skin rashes, persistent flu-like symptoms, respiratory illnesses, frequent headaches, memory lapses and fears of cancer.” “This is a disaster,” Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, who authored the bill regarding assessing state capitol buildings, told SF Gate. “It endangers the health and safety of employees and the public alike. And it is costing state taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES