Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Insurance Policy’s “No Voluntary Payment” Clauses Lose Some Bite in Colorado

October 22, 2013 — Brady Iandiorio — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
The Colorado Court of Appeals recently handed down an opinion dulling the teeth of the “no voluntary payment” clauses found in many contractors’ insurance policies. In the case of Stresscon Corporation v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, 2013 WL 4874352 (Colo. App. 2013), the Court of Appeals found that an insured’s breach of the “no voluntary payment” clause does not always bar the insured from receiving benefits from its insurance company. In July 2007, at a construction project run by Mortenson (the “GC”), a partially erected building collapsed, killing one worker and gravely injuring another. The collapse was caused by a crane hook pulling a concrete component off of its supports. The GC contracted with Stresscon Corporation (“Stresscon”) to build pre-cast concrete components for the project, and in turn Stresscon hired two sub-subcontractors, RMS and Hardrock (the “Crane Team”) to work together to erect those concrete components. Stresscon and the Crane Team had liability insurance, and Stresscon was insured by Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”). The accident led to three separate lawsuits: 1) one brought by the deceased worker; 2) one brought by the injured worker; and 3) one brought by the GC against Stresscon claiming it was entitled to contract damages incurred because the project was delayed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
Brady Iandiorio can be contacted at Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

Is the Event You Are Claiming as Unforeseeable Delay Really Unforeseeable?

September 26, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Is the item or event you are claiming as an unforeseeable, excusable delay really unforeseeable? This is not a trick question. Just because your construction contract identifies items or events that constitute unforeseeable, excusable delay does not mean those items can be used as a blanket excuse or crutch for the contractor. That would be unfair. For instance, it is not uncommon for a construction contract to list as unforeseeable, excusable delay the following events or items: “(i) acts of God or of the public enemy, (ii) act of the Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity, (iii) acts of another Contractor in the performance of a contract with the Government, (iv) fires, (v) floods, (vi) epidemics, (vii) quarantine restrictions, (viii) strikes, (ix) freight embargoes, (x) unusually severe weather, or (xi) delays of subcontractors or suppliers at any tier arising from unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of both the Contractor and the subcontractors or suppliers.” See, e.g., F.A.R. 52.249-10(b)(1). While the itemization of excusable delay may be worded differently, the point is there may be a listing as to what items or events constitute excusable delay. An excusable delay would justify additional time and, potentially, compensation to the contractor. 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

WSDOT Excludes Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs from Participation Goals

June 15, 2017 — Ellie Perka - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
A drastic change has been implemented by the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) to the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”) Program in Washington. Effective June 1, 2017, WSDOT has implemented a “waiver” to exclude women-owned DBEs[i] from qualifying toward Condition of Award (“COA”) Goals on federally-funded projects. This move is significant. It will likely result in long-lasting detrimental impacts on the DBE community, women-owned businesses, and the entire construction community in Washington. The construction industry should be in an uproar over this change. Instead, it has largely gone unnoticed (likely because its impacts have not yet been felt). It is a de facto exclusion of women-owned businesses from the DBE program, and the severity of this change cannot be overstated. Under the waiver, women-owned businesses no longer satisfy COA Goals on federally-funded projects (i.e., projects receiving funding from the Federal Highway Administration) advertised after June 1, 2017. Existing contracts are not impacted and may continue to utilize women-owned DBEs to satisfy COA Goals until the project is complete. The waiver is not retroactive. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ellie Perka, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Ms. Perka may be contacted at eperka@ac-lawyers.com

San Francisco International Airport Reaches New Heights in Sustainable Project Delivery

November 21, 2022 — Aileen Cho - Engineering News-Record
Ten years ago, Geoff Neumayr decided he was tired of “doing design and construction by combat.” San Francisco International Airport had completed a master plan for the complex and the front of the airport facilities doing things the traditional way. Reprinted courtesy of Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Coverage for Hurricane Sandy Damage

August 02, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The magistrate recommended that summary judgment be entered in favor of the insurer, thereby eliminating coverage for property damage incurred during Hurricane Sandy. Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. v. Great Northern Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103015 (E.D. N.Y. June 30, 2017). Madelaine Chocolate owned a facility three blocks form the Atlantic Ocean and one block from the Jamaica Bay section of Long Island Sound. Hurricane Sandy arrived October 29, 2012. Madeline Chocolate's facility sustained significant damage to its inventory, production machinery and premises, as storm surge from both bodies of water hit the property. Operations ceased during the 2012 holiday season and beyond, resulting in millions of dollars in lost income. 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

Illinois Legislature Enables Pre-Judgment Interest in Personal Injury Cases

February 01, 2021 — Justin Zimmerman - Lewis Brisbois
On January 13, 2021, the Illinois General Assembly passed HB 3360, which will enable pre-judgment interest of 9% in personal injury cases. The legislation was sponsored by Madison County, Illinois-area representative Jay Hoffman (D-Belleville) and Illinois state senator Dan Harmon (D-Oak Park). Under current Illinois law, plaintiffs are not entitled to pre-judgment interest in personal injury cases because the nature and extent of a plaintiff’s damages cannot be calculated in advance and liability is uncertain (compared, for example, to a breach of contract claim). If signed by the governor, personal injury actions in Illinois will be subject to 9% per annum pre-judgment interest accruing “on the date the defendant has notice of the injury from the incident itself or a written notice." Notably, the bill will also impact pending litigation as interest begins to accrue on the effective date of the legislation for cases already filed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Justin Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Zimmerman may be contacted at Justin.Zimmerman@lewisbrisbois.com

Arbitration Provisions Are Challenging To Circumvent

May 13, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Arbitration provisions are enforceable and they are becoming more challenging to circumvent, especially if one of the parties to the arbitration agreement wants to arbitrate a dispute versus litigate a dispute. Remember this when agreeing to an arbitration provision as the forum for dispute resolution in your contract. There is not a one-size-fits-all model when it comes to arbitration provisions and how they are drafted. But, there is a very strong public policy in favor of honoring a contractual arbitration provision because this is what the parties agreed to as the forum to resolve their disputes. By way of example, in Austin Commercial, L.P. v. L.M.C.C. Specialty Contractors, Inc., 44 Fla.L.Weekly D925a (Fla. 2d DCA 2019), a subcontractor and prime contactor entered into a consultant agreement that contained the following arbitration provision:

Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof shall be subject to the dispute resolution procedures, if any, set out in the Prime Contract between [Prime Contractor] and the [Owner]. Should the Prime Contract contain no specific requirement for the resolution of disputes or should the [Owner] not be involved in the dispute, any such controversy or claim shall be resolved by arbitration pursuant to the Construction Industry Rules of the American Arbitration Association then prevailing, and judgment upon the award by the Arbitrator(s) shall be entered in any Court having jurisdiction thereof.

The prime contract between the owner and prime contractor did not require arbitration. 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

Cal/OSHA’s Toolbox Has Significantly Expanded: A Look At Senate Bill 606

December 13, 2021 — Michael J. Studenka - Newmeyer Dillion
Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed into law Senate Bill 606, set to take effect on January 1, 2022. With proponents of the bill citing the need to hold large employers accountable for COVID-related workplace hazards, SB 606 creates two new categories of employer violations. First, SB 606 creates a rebuttable presumption that if a type of violation is discovered at one particular worksite, Cal/OSHA can extrapolate that the violation is an “enterprise-wide” violation at all of the other company worksites. Additionally, SB 606 adds a new category of “egregious violations” to Cal/OSHA’s arsenal, adding a penalty multiplier for such violations. Finally, SB 606 increases Cal/OSHA’s investigative capabilities by authorizing Cal/OSHA to issue a subpoena to employers should they fail to “promptly provide” information requested during an investigation. As further explained below, the consequences of violating Cal/OSHA regulations has become significantly greater and more expensive, particularly for larger employers with multiple worksites. ENTERPRISE-WIDE VIOLATIONS AND THE SEVERE REMEDIES THAT FOLLOW Under SB 606, employers with more than one worksite will now face a rebuttable presumption that a violation at one location is actually “enterprise-wide” if either of the following are true:

A written policy or procedure violates any Cal/OSHA standard, rule, order or regulation; OR
Cal/OSHA finds evidence of a “pattern or practice” of the same violation being committed by the employer at one or more of its worksites.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Studenka, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Studenka may be contacted at michael.studenka@ndlf.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES