FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Quick Note: Insurer Must Comply with Florida’s Claims Administration Act

September 14, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
As an insured, know YOUR rights under Florida’s Claims Administration Act (Florida Statute s. 627.426). I wrote an article on this exact topic. If a third-party claim is asserted, or in the process of being asserted, against you, do yourself a favor and consult a lawyer that can assist you with preserving your insurance coverage rights. You pay liability insurance premiums for a reason so make sure you are not doing anything that could jeopardize rights under applicable insurance policies. A liability insurer must comply with the Claims Administration Act if it wants to deny coverage based on a coverage defense (e.g., the insured’s failure to cooperate with the insurer). 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

---

Toolbox Talk Series Recap - Undocumented Change Work

October 15, 2024 — Douglas J. Mackin - The Dispute Resolver
In the August 29, 2024 edition of Division 1's Toolbox Talk Series, Don Rea presented on the causes of undocumented change order work and what actions parties to a construction project can take to protect themselves, which compliments and reinforces some of the key points from the May 30, 2024 Toolbox Talk on maximizing profits while experiencing changes during project performance. Article 7 of AIA A201 General Conditions covers (i) change orders, (ii) constructive change directives, and (iii) “minor changes.” Work that falls outside the scope of the construction contract will often fit into one of these three categories. Rea’s presentation focused on the fact that, regardless of which category applies, proper documentation of the change work is vital. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas J. Mackin, Cozen O’Connor
Mr. Mackin may be contacted at dmackin@cozen.com

---

Know your Obligations: Colorado’s Statutory Expansions of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Are Now in Effect

November 04, 2019 — Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
The Colorado legislature had a busy session this year. Among the several significant bills it enacted, HB1170 strengthens tenant protections under the implied warranty of habitability. It became effective on August 2, 2019, so landlords and tenants alike are now subject to its requirements. The bill makes numerous changes to Colorado’s implied warranty of habitability, and interested parties should review the bill in detail. Landlords in particular may want to consider retaining legal counsel to make sure they have proper procedures in place to promptly deal with any habitability complaints within the new required timelines. This posting is not intended to provide a comprehensive guide to the changed law, but simply to highlight some of the most significant changes. With that caveat, landlords and tenants should be aware that as of August 2, 2019:

• The following conditions are now deemed to make a residential residence uninhabitable for the purposes of the implied warranty of habitability:
  • The presence of mold, which is defined as “microscopic organisms or fungi that can grow in damp conditions in the interior of a building.”
  • A refrigerator, range stove, or oven (“Appliance”) included within a residential premises by a landlord for the use of the tenant that did not conform “to applicable law at the time of installation” or that is not “maintained in good working order.” Nothing in this statute requires a landlord to provide any appliances, but these requirements apply if the landlord either agreed to provide appliances in a written agreement or provided them at the inception of the tenant’s occupancy.
  • Other conditions that “materially interfere with the tenant’s life, health or safety.”
  Read the court decision
  Read the full story...
  Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mcklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
  Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

  ---

  Counter the Rising Number of Occupational Fatalities in Construction

  April 19, 2021 — Joshua Jacobsen - Construction Executive
  Prior to the pandemic, the construction industry was experiencing mental and behavioral health stressors and increasing fatalities. The pandemic is contributing to these underlying conditions threatening the safety and wellbeing of the construction workforce:
  • Workers in construction occupations experienced 1,066 fatalities, a 6.3% increase and the highest total since 2007. Across all industries slips, trips and falls resulted in 880 deaths, a 11.3% increase from the previous year;
  • Increasing mental health challenges as evidenced by growing percentage of Americans starting therapy; and
  • Rising risk of relapse to substance use disorders and especially opioid overdoses. Deaths from unintentional overdoses of non-medical drug or alcohol use while at work climbed slightly to 313, marking the seventh straight annual increase in this category.
  Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Jacobsen, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
  Read the full story...
  Reprinted courtesy of
  Mr. Jacobsen may be contacted at jjacobsen@holmesmurphy.com

  ---

  Five Construction Payment Issues—and Solutions

  October 03, 2022 — Michael Bignold - Construction Executive
  Sales are important for construction companies that want to succeed. However, while companies certainly need to spend time on sales and marketing, having a full order book is only part of the equation. They still need to do the work and, even more importantly, they need to be able to collect payment from customers. Here are common payment issues in the construction industry and what leaders can do to prevent or mitigate them. 1. Change Order Disputes If a project goes exactly as planned and quoted, billing the customer is a fairly simple matter. However, it’s very rare that any job goes exactly according to the quote in the construction business. Change orders, omissions and additions are typical on jobs of any size across the industry. If contractors are not handling those changes properly by getting everything in writing, they could be in trouble when the time comes to send invoices. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Bignold, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
  Read the full story...
  Reprinted courtesy of
  

  ---

  The Murky Waters Between "Good Faith" and "Bad Faith"

  September 30, 2019 — Theresa A. Guertin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
  In honor of Shark Week, that annual television-event where we eagerly flip on the Discovery Channel to get our fix of these magnificent (and terrifying!) creatures, I was inspired to write about the “predatory” practices we’ve encountered recently in our construction insurance practice. The more sophisticated the business and risk management department is, the more likely they have a sophisticated insurer writing their coverage. Although peaceful coexistence is possible, that doesn’t mean that insurers won’t use every advantage available to them – compared to even large corporate insureds, insurance companies are the apex predators of the insurance industry. In order to safeguard policyholders’ interests, most states have developed a body of law (some statutory, some based on judicial decisions) requiring insurers to act in good faith when dealing with their insureds. This is typically embodied as a requirement that the insurer act “fairly and reasonably” in processing, investigating, and handling claims. If the insurer does not meet this standard, insureds may be entitled to damages above and beyond that which they could otherwise recover for breach of contract. Proving that an insurer acted in “bad faith,” however, can be like swimming against the riptide. Most states hold that bad faith requires more than just a difference of opinion between insured and insurer over the available coverage – the policyholder must show that the insurer acted “wantonly” or “maliciously,” or, in less stringent jurisdictions, that the insurer was “unreasonable.” Read the court decision
  Read the full story...
  Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
  Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com

  ---

  Federal Arbitration Act Preempts Pennsylvania Payment Act

  June 15, 2020 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
  I am back. It feels like an entirety since I last posted. But a hellacious trial schedule got me off the blogosphere for some time. Plus, there was nothing to write about. But I am back with a bang thanks to a decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania concerning the interplay of a forum selection clause appearing in an arbitration clause in a construction contract and the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act. In Bauguess Electrical Services, Inc. v. Hospitality Builders, Inc., the federal court (Judge Joyner) ruled that the federal arbitration act preempted the Payment Act’s prohibition on forum selection clauses and held that an arbitration must proceed in South Dakota even though the construction project were the work was performed was located in Pennsylvania. The Payment Act applies to all commercial construction projects performed in Pennsylvania. As some you might know, Section 514 of the Payment Act, 73 P.S. 514, prohibits choice of law and forum selection clauses. It states “[m]aking a contract subject to the laws of another state or requiring that any litigation, arbitration or other dispute resolution process on the contract occur in another state, shall be unenforceable.” Therefore, if a construction contract is for a project located in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania law must apply and all disputes must be adjudicated in Pennsylvania. Read the court decision
  Read the full story...
  Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
  Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

  ---

  Scaffolding Purchase Suggests No New Building for Board of Equalization

  July 30, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
  Employees at California’s Board of Equalization spoke out against the Brown administration after the state purchased new scaffolding for the defect-riddled building, rather than finding a new facility, reported the Sacramento Bee. The existing scaffolding was leased for $10,000 per month, but the lease expired, prompting the purchase of new scaffolding for about $100,000. The board’s Chairman Jerome Horton stated “that while the change may make financial sense in the short term, it sends a signal that the Department of General Services intends to keep Equalization’s 2,200 or so employees in the troubled building,” according to the Sacramento Bee. Building problems include “toxic mold, defective elevators, leaking windows, corroded wastewater pipes, floods, and exterior glass panels that spontaneously break or pop off.” So far, $2.3 million has been paid “in connection with building-related employee injury claims” along with $60 million in repairs. However, an additional $115 million is estimated to completely fix the defects. Read the court decision
  Read the full story...
  Reprinted courtesy of
  

  ---