FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Proving & Defending Lost Profit Damages

June 09, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
I have written numerous articles regarding the challenge in proving lost profit damages. Yes, lost profits are a form of damages in business disputes, but they are a form of damages that are subject to a certain degree of conjecture and speculation. For this reason, lost profit evidence is oftentimes precluded from being presented at trial or lost profit damages are reversed on appeal. This is why it is imperative to ensure i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed when it comes to proving lost profit damages. It is also imperative, when defending a lost profit claim, to put on evidence and establish the speculative nature of the lost profit damages. 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

---

But Wait There’s More: Preserving Claims on Commonwealth Projects

February 07, 2018 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions Blog
On construction projects owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a contractor may make a claim with the Board of Claims. But first, you must be aware of two limitations periods that could cause you to waive your claim if they are not met. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

From the Ground Up

March 06, 2022 — Maggie Murphy - Construction Executive
As a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, Mari Borrero knows a thing or two about stepping up to a challenge. She describes her time in the military as “one of those milestones that changes your life,” and credits the experience with turning her from a self-described “entitled teenager” into the woman she is today: fearless, bold and relentless in pursuit of her dreams. A career in the construction industry was never on the table for Borrero, who, after being honorably discharged from the Marine Corps, worked as a hospice-care coordinator and then a teacher in support of her then-third-grade son. The common thread in all these occupations? A genuine desire to put the needs of others before her own. Today, Borrero says she can’t imagine doing anything other than what she now calls work—owning and operating a construction business, Auburn, Washington–based American Abatement & Demo. Easing Transitions Born in Bayamón, Puerto Rico, Borrero was five when her mother moved the family to Dallas to seek life-saving treatment at Children’s Medical Center Dallas for her brother, who had a rare kidney disease. A local church supported the family, providing housing, food and clothing until they were able to transition into their own space. Reprinted courtesy of Maggie Murphy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Trumark Homes Hired James Furey as VP of Land Acquisition

April 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to GlobeSt.com, “Homebuilder Trumark Homes has hired James Furey as VP of land acquisition.” The “veteran developer” has held positions at Meritage Homes, Richmond American Homes, and Beazer Homes USA. “James is a versatile manager who brings a wealth of experience in many elements of the homebuilding process,” Jason Kliewer, partner and general counsel for Trumark, told GlobeSt.com. “He will be an invaluable asset as Trumark moves aggressively in the California market.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

May 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

In the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.



First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”



The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”



Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”



The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”



Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Lien Law Unlikely To Change — Yet

May 26, 2011 — Melissa Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina

For those of you following the proposed revisions to the NC lien law that is currently at the NC House Judiciary Subcommittee B, a quick update: the proposed bill (HB 489) is unlikely to be voted on this legislative session due to its unpopularity with several constituency groups, including both the AIA-North Carolinaand the NC Home Builders Association.



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Brumback of Ragsdale Liggett PLLC. Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com.

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

---

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

---

Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Ruling On Certificates Of Merit And “Gist Of Action” May Make It More Difficult For An Architect Or Engineer To Seek An Early Dismissal

January 07, 2015 — Jerrold P. Anders and Michael W. Jervis - White and Williams LLP
In Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarified the gist of the action doctrine that distinguishes between tort and contract claims. In doing this, the Court also ruled that a Certificate of Merit in a professional liability claim is necessary only if the plaintiff is in a direct client relationship with the licensed professional. This clarification of the Certificate of Merit requirement may limit the ability of architects and engineers to obtain an early dismissal in lawsuits. Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co. involves a common scenario. The Brunos filed a claim with their homeowners’ insurer after discovering mold in their home during remodeling. The policy included an endorsement providing coverage for mold. As part of the claim adjustment, Erie hired an engineer to inspect the mold and to provide an opinion on its severity to determine the extent of remediation required. The engineer hired by Erie reported to Mr. Bruno that the mold was harmless, that concern over health problems due to mold was merely a “media frenzy,” and that the Brunos should continue with their renovations. Reprinted courtesy of Jerrold P. Anders, White and Williams LLP and Michael W. Jervis, White and Williams LLP Mr. Anders may be contacted at andersj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---