FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

“Over? Did you say ‘over’?”

December 31, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
The United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that under the Federal Arbitration Act, an arbitrator – and not a court – is to determine the preclusive effect of an arbitrator’s earlier ruling. In the case, insurers engaged in three reinsurance agreements had previously arbitrated concerning one of the insurer’s billing methodologies. When a similar dispute occurred years later, the victors in the first arbitration – rather than pursuing arbitration – filed in federal court in Chicago seeking to have the court declare that the prior arbitration award precluded re-arbitration of the latest dispute. The insurer on the other side of the dispute moved to compel arbitration, a motion granted by the district court. The plaintiff insurers appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

---

Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Dorian

September 16, 2019 — Adam P. Handfinger, Stephen H. Reisman & Gary M. Stein - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
While Hurricane Dorian churns in the Atlantic with its sights currently set on the east coast of Florida, storm preparations should be well underway. As you are busy organizing efforts to secure your job sites, we at Peckar & Abramson offer some quick reminders that may prove helpful:

• Review your contracts, particularly the force majeure provisions, and be sure to comply with applicable notice requirements
• Even if not expressly required at this time, consider providing written notice to project owners that their projects are being prepared for a potential hurricane or tropical storm and that the productivity and progress of the work will be affected, with the actual time and cost impact to be determined after the event.
• Consult your hurricane plan (which is often a contract exhibit) and confirm compliance with all specified safety, security and protection measures.
• Provide written notice to your subcontractors and suppliers of the actions they are required to take to secure and protect their portions of the work and the timetable for completion of their storm preparations.

Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, PC attorneys Adam P. Handfinger, Stephen H. Reisman and Gary M. Stein Mr. Handfinger may be contacted at ahandfinger@pecklaw.com Mr. Reisman may be contacted at sreisman@pecklaw.com Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

COVID-19 Response: Key Legal Considerations for Event Cancellations

March 30, 2020 — Michael G. Platner, Solomon B. Zoberman, & Jane C. Luxton - Lewis Brisbois
Every passing day brings stark new reports of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and increasing numbers of cancelled conventions, concerts, and other major events. Both the hospitality and travel industry on the one hand, and organizations that are canceling events on the other, are scrambling to understand the legal consequences of these costly terminations. Cancellation fees can be breathtaking, and affected parties are quickly learning that there are no simple answers as to whether a disease outbreak of this scope and scale falls within force majeure (or Act of God) clauses that either do not explicitly list, or arguably may never have contemplated, circumstances of this type. Generally, force majeure clauses excuse parties’ performance under a contract when circumstances that are beyond their control arise and prevent them from fulfilling their obligations. The party electing to enforce its rights under the force majeure clause must show that the triggering event qualifies as a force majeure event, and that the event has rendered the party’s performance impossible or impracticable. Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois attorneys Michael G. Platner, Solomon B. Zoberman and Jane C. Luxton Mr. Platner may be contacted at Michael.Platner@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Zoberman may be contacted at Solomon.Zoberman@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Common Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-for-Delay Clause

March 16, 2017 — David Cook & Chadd Reynolds - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP Blog
In continuing our series on common contract provisions found in construction contracts, this post highlights no-damages-for-delay clauses. Parties to a contract – particularly a construction contract – may agree that the performance of the contract must occur within a set amount of time. When a party is delayed in performing a contract, it may incur additional costs due to the delay. In most circumstances, unless the parties agree otherwise, the delayed party would be entitled to an extension of time to perform the contract. But it may also seek to recover the additional costs resulting from the delay. A no-damages-for-delay clause attempts to prevent the delayed party from recovering those additional costs. In construction contracts, an upstream party, such as an owner or prime contractor, typically relies on a no-damages-for-delay clause when presented with a delay claim by a downstream party, such as a subcontractor. Reprinted courtesy of David Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP and Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Federal Court Dismisses Coverage Action in Favor of Pending State Proceeding

October 12, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the coverage action that was parallel to a case pending in state court involving the same parties and same issues pending. Navigators Ins, Co. v. Chriso's Tree Trimming, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129711 (E.D. Calif. July 22, 2020). Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) entered into a tree, brush and wood removal contract with Mount F Enterprises, Inc. Mountain F subsequently entered into a subcontractor agreement with Chriso Tree Trimming, Inc. for work to be performed for PG&E. In August 2017, Chriso attempted to remove a tree, but the tree accidentally fell in the wrong direction and knocked down nearby powerlines. The powerlines came into contact with surrounding brush and started the "Railroad Fire." The fire was eventually contained on September 15, 2017, after 12, 407 acres were burned and 7 structures and 7 homes were destroyed. Five subrogation lawsuits were filed in state court against Chriso and Mountain F by various insurance companies that paid for the damage caused by the Railroad Fire. A policy limits demand to settle all claims against Chriso and Mountain F was made. Navigators insured Chriso for $9 million through a Commercial Excess Liability Policy, payable once all other insurance was exhausted. The policy included a "Professional Services Endorsement" (PSE Exclusion) that excluded coverage of "professional services." "Professional services" was defined through a list of 12 non-exclusive professions and services that generally referred to activities involving specialized knowledge or skill that was predominantly mental or intellectual in nature rather than physical or manual. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Eleventh Circuit Asks Georgia Supreme Court if Construction Defects Are Caused by an "Occurrence"

December 20, 2012 — TRED EYERLY, INSURANCE LAW HAWAII
The Eleventh Circuit certified a question to the Georgia Supreme Court, asking whether property damage can constitute an "occurrence" under a CGL policy where its effects are not felt on "other property." HDI-Gerling Am. Ins. Co. v. Morrison Homes, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. Ct. LEXIS 23813 (11th Cir. Nov. 19, 2012). The general contractor, Taylor Morrison Services, Inc., was covered by a CGL policy issued by Gerling. The policy excluded "expected or intended injury," contractual liability," and business risk exclusions. Morrison was sued by homeowners in a class action suit. Morrison had allegedly omitted four inches of gravel required beneath the base of the concrete foundations by the Uniform Building Code. Thereafter, the houses sustained water intrusion, cracks in the floors and driveways, and warped and buckling flooring. Gerling defended, but sued Morrison for a declaratory judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii.
Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Wichita Condo Association Files Construction Defect Lawsuit

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Key Construction, the contractor of a downtown Wichita, Kansas mixed-use development has been sued by the condominium association of the development’s condo building. The WaterWalk Place Owners Association claims that the balconies on the building do not drain properly. Additionally, the suit claims that the building has water intrusion problems due to inappropriate or missing sealant at windows, doors, and expansion joints. Key Construction says that they are dealing with the problems and describe the suit as due to “a deadline pushing on” the residents. Wyatt Hock, the attorney for the residents, says that he hopes for a settlement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Yet Another Reminder that Tort and Contract Don’t Mix

January 25, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have stated on numerous occasions here at Musings that in Virginia, contract claims and tort claims (read fraud) don’t mix. A recent case from the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia presents another example of this principle. In Itility LLC v. The Staffing Resource Group, Judge Ellis of the Alexandria Division, considered ITility’s claims of fraud and breach of contract against SRG and one of its officers based upon SRG’s alleged violation of its duties under a teaming agreement. The claim by ITility was that TSRG provided false and misleading resumes and thus damaged ITility. SRG filed a Motion to Dismiss and the Court was therefore required to resolve the following issues: (1) whether plaintiff’s fraud claim is barred by Virginia’s “source of duty” rule; (2) whether plaintiff’s claim for tortious interference with a business expectancy is barred by SRG’s participation in the business expectancy, and (3) whether the teaming agreement between the parties bars plaintiff’s claims for consequential and punitive damages. Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---