FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Fraud Claims and Breach Of Warranty Claims Against Manufacturer

March 04, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent case touches upon two issues that are noteworthy when considering fraud claims and breach of warranty claims against a manufacturer. Below contains a discussion on these claims. Independent Tort Doctrine “Florida’s independent tort doctrine provides that a party may not recover in tort for a contract dispute unless the tort is independent of any breach of contract.” MidAmerica C2L Inc. v. Siemens Energy, Inc., 2024 WL 414620, *6 (M.D.Fla. 2024). This means tort allegations and claims MUST be separate and distinct from performance under the contract. Id. (citation omitted). In MidAmerica C2L, a plaintiff sued a manufacturer relating to sophisticated equipment for a coal gasification plant. The parties entered into different agreements for the equipment and a license where the plaintiff could use the manufacturer’s patented technology for its coal gasification plants. A dispute arose and the plaintiff sued the manufacturer under various legal theories. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment. 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

---

Construction Law Alert: Builder’s Alternative Pre-litigation Procedures Upheld Over Strong Opposition

April 01, 2014 — Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefko - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
Last week, the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, was tasked with evaluating the enforceability of provisions in home purchase contracts containing alternative pre-litigation procedures which differ from the standard Right to Repair Act procedures. The Court of Appeal, in McCaffrey v. Superior Court of Fresno, et al. ultimately upheld the contractual provisions, and in overturning the trial court's decision, preserved the rights of builders to contract around certain requirements set forth in the Right to Repair Act. The McCaffrey Group, Inc. constructed single-family homes in a Fresno development. Plaintiffs consisted of 24 homeowners within the development who brought suit against McCaffrey for construction defects in their homes. The homeowners were comprised of three categories: (1) the original purchasers who bought their homes from McCaffrey before January 1, 2003 and had a 2001 version of McCaffrey's contract; (2) the original purchasers who bought their homes from McCaffrey on or after January 1, 2003 and signed a 2003 version of McCaffrey's contract; and (3) the subsequent purchasers who did not buy their homes directly from McCaffrey, but purchased their homes subject to either the 2001 or 2003 version of McCaffrey's home purchase agreement. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Colorado Chamber of Commerce CEO Calls for Change to Condo Defect Law

March 05, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez - CDJ STAFF
According to the Denver Business Journal, Dennis Houston, president and CEO of the Parker Chamber of Commerce in Colorado, spoke at the state’s capitol recently, calling legislators “to make it harder for attorneys to file class-action lawsuits against condominium builders so that areas like his can attract a workforce of millennials.” Houston and other Chamber of Commerce leaders gathered at the capitol “to lobby for sensible energy policies and construction defects reform, among other things.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

In Personal Injury Actions, Prejudgment Interest on Costs Not Recoverable

March 12, 2015 — Elizabeth P. Trent and Leah B. Mason – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Bean v. Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation, 2015 DJDAR 2864 (“Bean”), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held in the published portion of its opinion that courts may not award prejudgment interest on costs in personal injury actions. In Bean, an employee of defendant Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation (Pacific Coast) drove his vehicle into plaintiff Daniel William Bean’s truck while Bean was stopped at a red light. Bean suffered serious injuries and sued Pacific Coast. A jury found Pacific Coast negligent and awarded Bean $1,271,594.74 in damages. This amount exceeded Bean’s $999,999.00 statutory offer to compromise issued to Pacific Coast prior to trial, which Pacific Coast rejected. Reprinted courtesy of Elizabeth P. Trent, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Leah B. Mason, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Trent may be contacted at etrent@hbblaw.com Ms. Mason may be contacted at lmason@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Argument for Solar Power

July 09, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Jennifer Goodman in Big Builder provides eight reasons why buyers should opt for solar power. First on her list is “Codes.” Goodman pointed out that beginning in 2020, “California’s Title 24 will require all new residential construction to be net-zero energy, which means that they will need renewable energy systems in order to generate as much power as they consume.” Other reasons include incentives, aesthetics, appraisal/lending standards, payback, legislation, cost, and finally, “clean, quiet, and abundant power.” Goodman stated that the “technology generates no noise or off gassing and because solar power is generated from sunlight--not heat--even residents in the northern U.S. are able to take advantage of it.” 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

---

Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (05/18/22)

June 13, 2022 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Businesses renovate office spaces at a historic pace, China plans to build a 3D-printed hydropower dam without human workers, the U.S. infrastructure package has thousands of projects underway, and more.

• Miami’s crypto-real estate boom has been challenging all conventional wisdoms as the price of crypto currencies like Bitcoin have surged, which could spill over into other popular real estate markets. (Peter Lane Taylor, Forbes)
• China is planning to build the world’s first 3D-printed hydropower dam in Tibet, with an AI-powered design and no human workers. (Matthew Loh, Business Insider)
• With the hybrid work model here to stay, businesses are having their offices renovated at a historic pace. (Joe Dyton, Connected Real Estate Magazine)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

---

Federal Contractors – Double Check the Terms of Your Contract Before Performing Ordered Changes

July 08, 2019 — Jonathan Schirmer - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
As federal contractors may be aware, the general rule when performing a contract for the federal government is that only the contracting officer (“CO”) can bind the government. Often, the CO delegates responsibility to a contracting officer’s representative (“COR”). While in some cases a COR may be able to bind the federal government, the contract may limit that ability exclusively to the CO. Important for our clients, it is the responsibility of the contractor to determine whether the COR can legally bind the federal government when ordering changes to the scope of work. [1] This is true even when a COR possesses apparent authority to order changes to the work, and when the project is almost exclusively overseen by COR’s. [2] A recent case highlights the dangers of a contractor relying on the orders of a COR when performing work outside the scope of a contract. In Baistar Mechanical Inc., a contractor was awarded a maintenance and snow removal contract with the federal government. The contract expressly stated that only the CO had contracting authority regarding additional or changed work. [3] However, Baistar, the contractor, argued it was directed by the contracting officer’s representatives to perform work outside of the contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Schirmer, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Schirmer may be contacted at jonathan.schirmer@acslawyers.com

---