Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Congress Relaxes Several PPP Loan Requirements

June 15, 2020 — Greg Tross & Michael Krueger – Newmeyer Dillion
On June 3, 2020, Congress passed the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act ("Act") which does exactly what it means to do: provide flexibility for PPP loan recipients. President Trump is expected to sign the bill into law within the week. The Act extends the "covered period" for Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") loans from the original eight weeks to 24 weeks or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier. This extension provides much needed reprieve to small businesses who can utilize these funds to weather the economic effects of the Coronavirus Pandemic through 2020. The Act also revises the limitations on how small businesses utilize their PPP loans. While the CARES Act originally required 75% of the PPP loan to be used for payroll costs, this number has now been reduced to 60%. This means that up to 40% of the PPP loan can be used to cover mortgage obligations, rent, and other covered utility payments. The PPP loan payment deferral period has also been extended to align with the date on which the PPP loan's forgiveness amount is remitted to the lender. This should provide more certainty to small businesses on their payback obligations, if any. Recently, the Small Business Administration also released loan forgiveness applications to assist a business in calculating their loan forgiveness. While the SBA will likely revise it with the Act's passing, small businesses should look at the application's framework to prepare for submitting their loan forgiveness requests in the future. Newmeyer Dillion continues to follow COVID-19 and its impact on your business and our communities. Feel free to reach out to us at NDcovid19response@ndlf.com or visit us at www.newmeyerdillion.com/covid-19-multidisciplinary-task-force/. Reprinted courtesy of Greg Tross, Newmeyer Dillion and Michael Krueger, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Tross may be contacted at greg.tross@ndlf.com Mr. Krueger may be contacted at michael.krueger@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Georgia Court Rules that Separate Settlements Are Not the End of the Matter

October 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Georgia Court of Appeals recently took up the question of how parties in a construction defect settlement relate to one another in terms of apportioning the settlement. Scott Murphy, writing on the Barnes & Thornburg blog clarifies the issues. The underlying construction defect case involved a newly-constructed hotel with mold and mildew problems. The owners sued the contractor (for negligent construction) and the architect (for negligent design). Separately, the owners settled with the contractor for $2.3 million and the architect for $100,000. Subsequently, the contractor sued the architect, attempting to recover part of the settlement the contractors had made with the owners. At trial, the architect prevailed, obtaining a summary judgment that under Georgia law, “joint-tortfeasors can no longer assert contribution or non-contractual indemnity claims.” This was reversed by the Court of Appeals, determining that the two were not joint tortfeasors. Mr. Murphy notes that “the court rejected the parties’ attempt to disavow joint and several liability in their respective settlement agreements.” The court ruled that the contractor could proceed with their claims against the argument. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pandemic-Related Construction Materials Pricing Poses Challenges in Construction Lawsuits

September 20, 2021 — Nick Stewart - Construction Executive
During the global pandemic the construction industry saw unprecedented inflation in the cost of building supplies as a result of a myriad of issues. On May 7, 2021, lumber prices hit a record high at $1,670.50 per thousand board feet. This was more than six times their pandemic low in April 2020. This significant price spike was related to closure of sawmills during the height of the pandemic, low supply, soaring demand to expand existing homes or purchase new construction, the western U.S. wildfires and tariffs. More recently, lumber prices have fallen but they are still up nearly 100% from spring 2020. Some experts believe that the recent wildfires in the western United States and upcoming hurricane season will cause prices to jump back up in the upcoming months. Additionally, since March 2020, steel prices are up roughly 200%. The increase in steel prices is a result of many of the same factors causing lumber pricing spikes. Many steel mills shut down production or drastically reduced production during the early days of the pandemic expecting a deep recession and/or to comply with restrictive government mandates. Despite these industry expectations, demand for steel -elated products like grills and home appliances soared. These household demands for steel-based products impacted the price of steel for construction projects. Prior to the pandemic, hot-rolled steel traded between $500 and 800 per ton but hit an all-time high of $1,825 per ton in early July 2021. Reprinted courtesy of Nick Stewart, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Stewart may be contacted at nstewart@turnerpadget.com

Georgia Passes Solar CUVA Bill

April 20, 2017 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Georgia House Bill 238 authorizes the withdrawal of property from a conservation use covenant for purposes of developing a solar generation plant. Before the law was passed, subject to certain limited exceptions, properties under a conservation use covenant generally could not be developed without breaching the covenant. The new law permits the removal of a portion of the property to be used for solar development without breaching the covenant for the rest of the property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Unpunished Racist Taunts: A Pennsylvania Harassment Case With No True 'Winner'

December 04, 2023 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
The taunts started in the first days of Andre Pryce’s new job, camouflaged as joking. During the nine months of 2019 spent working as a drill rig hand, mostly in the woods in western Pennsylvania, for a contractor that also performs much construction-related drilling, he said coworkers filled his ears with racist insults. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Signature? Potentially No Problem for Sureties Enforcing a Bond’s Forum Selection Clause

March 21, 2022 — Brian C. Padove - ConsensusDocs
One of the foundational tenets of contract law is that a party may only be bound by terms they agree to, or in other words, if the party did not sign a contract, that party cannot be bound by the terms thereof. While this principle is generally unwavering, there are certain situations in which a non-signatory to a contract may still be bound by the terms of a contract. In particular, this non-signatory issue may arise when a payment bond claimant makes a bond claim, subsequently files a lawsuit, but the bond contains a forum selection clause different than the venue of the lawsuit and the surety seeks to enforce the bond’s forum selection clause. For example, the claimant may have filed its lawsuit against the surety in federal court, even though the bond provides language specifically mandating that no lawsuit shall be commenced by any claimant other than in a state court where the project is located. Thus, the question then becomes, can the surety enforce the forum selection clause against the claimant when the claimant did not sign the bond and/or never agreed to the terms thereof? The short answer, it depends (yes, that is a very lawyer-like answer). Given recent case law over the past decade, however, the surety has a strong argument in favor of enforcement of the forum selection clause. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian C. Padove, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Padove may be contacted at bpadove@watttieder.com

HOA Group Speaking Out Against Draft of Colorado’s Construction Defects Bill

April 30, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Ed Sealover of the Denver Business Journal reported on a homeowner association group that has spoken out against the recent draft of Colorado’s Construction Defects bill. According to Sealover’s article, Senator Jessie Ulibarri claimed that the “proposed bill…would mandate that homeowners alleging that owner-occupied multi-family structures have major construction defects go through mediation or arbitration before a lawsuit can be filed.” Furthermore, the bill would require “written consent from a majority of unit owners” before the “executive board of a homeowners association files such a lawsuit.” The bill originated due to findings that “[l]ess than 2 percent of new housing stock being built in Colorado is in the form of condos, an anomaly that developers attribute to state laws that allow condo owners to file multi-million-dollar class-action lawsuits even if only a few of them want to move forward with the legal action.” However, Molly Foley-Healy, chairwoman of the Community Associations Institute (CLAC), spoke out against the bill: “Senator Ulibarri’s stated goal is to create more affordable housing, but this bill has nothing to do with affordable housing. Instead, it hurts the very people he said he wanted to help. It effectively blocks homeowners from holding builders responsible for their shoddy construction and leaves homeowners living in HOAs to pick up the tab for repairing the defects.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Asbestos Exclusion in Alleged Failure to Disclose Case

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In the case Phillips v. Parmelee, the Wisconsin Supreme court ruled “that an asbestos exclusion in a liability policy barred a duty to defend and indemnify a building seller for claims that the seller failed to disclose that the building contained asbestos,” according to an article in Mondaq by Ruth S. Kochenderfer and Deanna P. Cook, both from Steptoe & Johnson LLP. The policyholder received a building report stating that the “heating ducts likely contained asbestos,” however, the buyers alleged that the policyholder never provided them the report. After the buyers purchased the property, contractors “cut through the heating ducts, unknowingly dispersing asbestos throughout the building.” According to Kochenderfer and Cook’s article, “The insurer intervened in the buyers' suit and sought summary judgment against the policyholder and buyers, arguing that an asbestos exclusion precluded coverage for the buyers' suit against the policyholder.” The buyers took the case to the Wisconsin Supreme court and “attacked the asbestos exclusion,” but the court rejected every argument. Kochenderfer and Cook stated that the “decision is significant because three courts, including Wisconsin's highest court, squarely rejected attempts to narrow a broad, clearly-worded asbestos exclusion. Further, it confirms that such an asbestos exclusion will apply to all causes of action, including an alleged failure to disclose the presence of asbestos.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES