Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

South Carolina Homeowners May Finally Get Class Action for Stucco Defects

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Last year, Judge J. Michael Baxley approved a class action lawsuit over stucco problems in Sun City Hilton Head. The lawyers from S.C. State Plastering have already settled with about 140 defendants in that community, and they are trying to prevent the plaintiff’s lawyers from communicating with other residents. In June, a judge dismissed S.C. State Plastering’s request to block this communication, but the company has appealed. The South Carolina Supreme Court has heard the case regarding the notices and has yet to rule. The Chief Justice has recused herself, stating that she has a connection to the case, although she has not elaborated. Many homeowners have waited to repair their homes, hoping to receive compensation. Pulte Homes, the builder of the project, has also repaired some homes. It is not clear if those homeowners are eligible for the class action lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Termination for Convenience Clauses: Maybe More Than Just Convenience

June 06, 2022 — Robert C. Shaia - ConsensusDocs
A contractor begins work on a project and everything is going well, until one day the owner informs the contractor that it is being terminated for convenience. Possibly, there is no discussion about alleged defects, reasons for the termination, or any damages the owner might seek against the contractor. In that moment, the contractor may be unaware of any perceived wrongdoing or problems with its work. The industry has typically accepted that, in this scenario, the owner implicitly waives the right to any remedies against the contractor, except those expressly set forth in the contract. Reasonable minds might assume that, if the owner believed it needed to seek further remedies, it would terminate the contractor for cause instead of convenience. And often overlooked during contract negotiations are the benefits of including an express “waiver of remedies” in the termination for convenience section. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert C. Shaia, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Shaia may be contacted at rshaia@watttieder.com

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

Coverage Denied for Faulty Blasting and Improper Fill

October 08, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found coverage was properly denied based on the subcontractor's failure to follow contract specifications in blasting at the job site. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Carpenter Reclamation, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130752 (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 18, 2014). Carpenter was hired by the Board of Education (BOE) to perform preliminary site clearing, demolition, rock excavation, and establishment of sub-grade for a building. Carpenter was to excavate to 3.5 feet below the floor subgrade so that plumbing and other utilities could be installed. Carpenter, however, blasted to depths deeper than required, including some areas that were up to nine feet. The BOE sued, alleging over-blasting and having to pay the cost of remediating the problem, along with breach of contract issues. 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

Parties Can Agree to Anything In A Settlement Agreement………Or Can They?

October 17, 2023 — Alexa Stephenson & Ivette Kincaid - Kahana Feld
A settlement agreement is a contract. When parties to pending litigation enter into a settlement, they enter into a contract. Such a contract is subject to the general law governing all contracts. (T. M. Cobb Co. v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 273, 280 [204 Cal. Rptr. 143, 682 P.2d 338] [offers by a party to compromise under Code Civ. Proc., § 998].) Courts seek to interpret contracts in a manner that will render them “lawful, operative, definite, reasonable, and capable of being carried into effect’” without violating the intent of the parties. (Robbins v. Pacific Eastern Corp. (1937) 8 Cal.2d 241, 272–273; Kaufman v. Goldman, (2011) 195 Cal. App. 4th 734, 745. A settlement agreement like a contract is a document that is typically negotiated between the parties to the agreement and it is up to the parties to determine its terms. Settlements take time and sometimes negotiating the settlement terms takes longer. This is especially true in complex litigation and multiparty matters where negotiating the settlement terms is just as contentious as litigating the matter. Just like contracts, in a settlement agreement the parties cannot agree to terms that violate public policy. A contract is thought to be against public policy if it results in a breach of law, harms citizens, or causes injury to the state. Contracts that are voided on public policy grounds carry no legal obligations. For example, an employer cannot force an employee to sign a contract that forbids the worker from joining a union. Reprinted courtesy of Alexa Stephenson, Kahana Feld and Ivette Kincaid, Kahana Feld Ms. Stephenson may be contacted at astephenson@kahanafeld.com Ms. Kincaid may be contacted at ikincaid@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pennsylvania Superior Court Fires up a Case-By-Case Analysis for Landlord-Tenant, Implied Co-Insured Questions

February 03, 2020 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Joella v. Cole, 2019 PA Super. 313, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently considered whether a tenant, alleged by the landlord’s property insurance carrier to have carelessly caused a fire, was an implied co-insured on the landlord’s policy. The court found that the tenant was an implied co-insured because the lease stated that the landlord would procure insurance for the building, which created a reasonable expectation that the tenant would be a co-insured under the policy. Since the tenant was an implied co-insured on the policy, the insurance carrier could not maintain a subrogation action against the tenant. This case confirms that Pennsylvania follows a case-by-case approach when determining whether a tenant was an implied co-insured on a landlord’s insurance policy. The Joella case stems from a fire at an apartment building in Northampton County, Pennsylvania. The landlord’s property insurance carrier paid the landlord $180,000 to repair the damages resulting from the fire. In March 2018, the insurer brought a subrogation action against Annie Cole, a tenant in the building, alleging that Ms. Cole’s negligent use of an extension cord caused the fire. Ms. Cole raised the affirmative defense that she was an implied co-insured on the landlord’s insurance policy. The subrogating insurer filed a partial motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss Ms. Cole’s defense. In response, Ms. Cole filed a cross motion for partial judgment, arguing that because the lease specified that the landlord would maintain fire insurance for the building, there was a reasonable expectation that she would be a co-insured on that policy. The trial court found in favor of Ms. Cole, holding that the landlord’s insurer could not maintain a subrogation action against her because she was an implied co-insured of the landlord’s insurance policy under the terms of the lease. The landlord’s insurer filed an appeal with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. 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

Former Trump Atlantic City Casino Set for February Implosion

December 29, 2020 — Stephanie Loder - Engineering News-Record
The 39-story main tower of the former Trump Plaza hotel-casino on the Atlantic City, N.J., boardwalk, sold to investor Carl Icahn in 2016, will be imploded in February by a Philadelphia general contractor already in the process of dismantling the former showplace of President Donald Trump's real estate holdings. Reprinted courtesy of Stephanie Loder, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contractors Liable For Their Subcontractor’s Failure To Pay Its Employees’ Wages And Benefits

November 01, 2022 — Edward O. Pacer & David J. Scriven-Young - ConsensusDocs
Recently, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed two House Bills that amend the Illinois Wage Payment & Collections Act, 820 ILCS 115 et. seq. (“Wage Act”), to provide greater protection for individuals working in the construction trades against wage theft in a defined class of projects. Pursuant to this new law, every general contractor, construction manager, or “primary contractor,” working on the projects included in the Bill’s purview will be liable for wages that have not been paid by a subcontractor or lower-tier subcontractor on any contract entered into after July 1, 2022, together with unpaid fringe benefits plus attorneys’ fees and costs that are incurred by the employee in bringing an action under the Wage Act. This new wage theft law follows several other states that have considered and passed similar legislation. These amendments to the Wage Act apply to a primary contractor engaged in “erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building structure, or other private work.” However, there are important limitations to the amendment’s applicability. The amendment does not apply to projects under contract with state or local government, or to general contractors that are parties to a collective bargaining agreement on a project where the work is being performed. Additionally, the amendment does not apply to primary contractors who are doing work with a value of less than $20,000, or work that involves only the altering or repairing of an existing single-family dwelling or single residential unit in a multi-unit building. Reprinted courtesy of Edward O. Pacer, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (ConsensusDocs) and David J. Scriven-Young, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (ConsensusDocs) Mr. Pacer may be contacted at epacer@pecklaw.com Mr. Scriven-Young may be contacted at dscriven-young@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES