Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Drafting or Negotiating A Subcontract–Questions To Consider

June 21, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to drafting and negotiating a subcontract, there are provisions that should be important to you from a risk assessment standpoint. From the subcontractor’s standpoint, below are questions you should ask, or issues you should consider, as you go through the subcontract. These are the same questions and issues that are also important to a contractor as the contractor will want to ensure these issues are included in the subcontract. By asking yourself these questions, you can check to see how the subcontract addresses these issues, and how the risk should be negotiated. Hopefully, you are working with counsel to make sure you understand what risk you are assuming and those provisions you want to try to push back on. Asking yourself these questions, or considering these questions, will help you go through the subcontract with a purpose based on the risk profile of the project and certain risk you don’t want to assume.

Prime Contract –> Does the subcontract incorporate the prime contract? Make sure to request the prime contract since the subcontract will identify the prime contract as part of the Subcontract Documents and will require you to assume towards the contractor the same obligations the contractor is required to assume towards the owner.
Scope of Work –> What is the scope of work? Is it clear. Make sure the scope is clear and you understand the scope.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Indemnity Clauses That Conflict with Oregon Indemnity Statute Can Remain Partially Valid and Enforceable

November 30, 2016 — Masaki James Yamada – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
When the indemnity provision of a contract conflicts with ORS 30.140, it is voided to the extent that it conflicts with the statute, but no more. Such provisions can remain partially valid and enforceable.[i] In Montara Owner Assn., the owner brought claims against the contractor for construction defects and damage relating to the construction of 35 townhouses. Contractor then brought third-party claims against more than 20 subcontractors for breach of contract and indemnity. Before trial, contractor settled with all but one subcontractor. The subcontract contained an indemnity provision requiring subcontractor to indemnify contractor for losses arising out of subcontractor’s work, including losses caused in part by contractor’s own negligence. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Masaki James Yamada, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Yamada may be contacted at myamada@ac-lawyers.com

Car Crashes Through Restaurant Window. Result: Lesson in the History of Additional Insured Coverage

December 29, 2020 — Randy J. Maniloff - White and Williams LLP
Back in the day, additional insureds were oftentimes afforded coverage for liability “arising out of” the named insured’s work for the additional insured. When confronted with such language, courts often concluded that it dictated “but for” causation. In other words, but for the named insured doing the work for the additional insured, the additional insured would not be in the liability-facing situation that it is in. The result in some cases: additional insureds were entitled to coverage for their sole negligence. Decisions reaching such a conclusion were generally not well-received by insurers. This was especially so when you consider that the premium received by insurers, for the AI coverage, may not have been enough to buy a package of Twizzlers. Insurer frustration with such decisions -- which insurers did not believe expressed the intent of additional insured coverage -- led ISO to make revisions to additional insured forms in 2004 (later revisions followed). At the heart of these revisions was an attempt to require fault on the part of the named insured before coverage could be afforded to the additional insured. (This is a very brief and simple history of this complex issue.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Randy J. Maniloff, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Maniloff may be contacted at maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com

Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case Triggered by Complaint's Allegations

August 20, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The subcontractor's insurer could not escape contributing to defense costs of its insured when coverage was possible based upon the underlying complaint's allegations. Seneca Ins. Co. v. James River Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97156 (D. Ore. July 17, 2014). The underlying action alleged construction defects in a 60-unit complex located in Seaside, Oregon. S.D. Deacon Corp. was the general contractor and contracted with the owners association to reconstruct portions of the building, including the curtain wall. Deacon subcontracted with Superwall Design, LLP for work on the curtain wall renovation. At some point not specified in the underlying complaint, the Association notified Deacon of construction defects in the curtain wall renovation. Deacon investigated and concluded that the alleged property damage was the result of inadequate usage of materials, violations of state and local building codes, and violations of relevant industry standards relating to the work performed by Superwall. Deacon contended that the problems were caused by Superwall's faulty workmanship. 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

Basement Foundation Systems’ Getting an Overhaul

October 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Builder reported that “[a] new game-changing system, recently recognized for its energy-efficient composite approach to basement construction, soon could change how American builders construct foundations.” Epitome composite foundation walls from Composite Panel Systems (CPS) “was awarded the Composites and Advanced Materials Exposition’s Unsurpassed Innovation Award in Orlando, Fla., on Oct. 14.” The system “combines integrated stud cavities for mechanicals, insulation, the top plate, and a vapor barrier in a single step.” It has been approved for use in Wisconsin, and is expected to receive International Building code and International Residential Code compliance later this year. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Settlement between IOSHA and Mid-America Reached after Stage Collapse Fatalities

April 02, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
On August 13, 2011, “[s]even people were killed and dozens were injured when the stage collapsed during a Sugarland concert” at the Indiana State Fair, according to the JC Online. Recently, Mid-America Sound Corp., the company that provided the stage equipment, has settled with the Indiana Occupational Safety and Health Administration (IOSHA), agreeing “to pay a $50,000 fine and increase employee safety training.” "This agreement is a resolution requiring both extensive safety improvements for the construction or erection of temporary roof structures and specifically related employee safety training that will create a safer workplace for Indiana event production workers," Labor Commissioner Rick Ruble said in a statement, as quoted by JC Online. "The agreement produces a positive outcome for everyone involved." The stage equipment company “made no admission of any wrongdoing by entering into the settlement,” according to Michael Moon, attorney for Mid-America Sound Corp., as quoted by JC Online. “Mid-America believed that it was important to move forward in a cooperative effort with IOSHA and to avoid the costs and expenses of further litigation." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

NLRB Finalizes Rule for Construction Industry Unions to Obtain Majority Support Representational Status

September 23, 2024 — Aaron C. Schlesinger - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
On July 26, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued its Fair Choice – Employee Voice Final Rule (“Final Rule”), which takes effect September 30, 2024. The Final Rule eases the process for unions in the construction industry to convert their status as collective bargaining representative of bargaining unit employees from Section 8(f) to 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”) simply by placing certain recognitional acceptance language in their collective bargaining agreements. As a result, construction industry employers should review their collective bargaining agreements prior to signing to determine if such language exists. Section 9(a) Non-Construction Industry Employers In most industries, not including construction, union recognitional status as collective bargaining representative of the employer’s employees is governed by Section 9(a) of the Act. In order for a Union to obtain recognitional status under Section 9(a), the union must either: (1) file a petition with the NLRB showing support of 30% of the proposed bargaining unit via employee executed authorization cards and win an election of 51% of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit who actually vote; or (2) by reaching an agreement with the employer that the union possesses employee executed authorization cards from 51% of the proposed bargaining unit, which has been confirmed by a neutral arbitrator pursuant to a card count. Once such status is achieved, the union and employer are required to meet and bargain towards reaching a collective bargaining agreement covering the terms and conditions of employment of the union represented employees. A Section 9(a) union cannot have its recognitional status revoked absent the loss of majority support of the employees it represents. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com

David Uchida Joins Kahana Feld’s Los Angeles Office as Partner

December 31, 2024 — Linda Carter - Kahana Feld
Kahana Feld is pleased to announce that David M. Uchida recently joined the firm as a partner in the firm’s Los Angeles Office. He is a member of the firm’s General Liability group. A client-focused and seasoned litigator, David has defended product manufacturers and suppliers in complex toxic tort and environmental litigation. David also has extensive experience defending clients in alleged asbestos, benzene, and silica exposure claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Linda Carter, Kahana Feld
Ms. Carter may be contacted at lcarter@kahanafeld.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES