Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Construction in Indian Country – What You Need To Know About Sovereign Immunity

July 22, 2019 — Edward J. Hermes - Snell & Wilmer Under Construction Blog
There are many legal issues to consider when bidding on and building projects in American Indian Country. Which labor and employment laws apply? Are there contracting or hiring preferences that apply? Do the Prompt Pay Act and other state laws apply? Can I bring a lawsuit to enforce the contract and, if so, where would I file suit? This article addresses the final question, which is often the most important question when contracting with a tribal entity. Many of the construction projects in American Indian Country are with tribes or entities wholly owned or by a tribe, such as housing authorities, casinos, hospitals, schools or other economic enterprises. Like the state and federal government, tribes (and their tribally—owned enterprises) enjoy sovereign immunity from any lawsuit, meaning they cannot be sued unless the tribe expressly agrees to waive its sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity poses a unique issue for contractors that does not typically arise in other projects, but it need not be a deterrent to doing business with tribes. It is usually in the best interest of both the contractor and tribe to negotiate an acceptable waiver of sovereign immunity. Absent such a waiver, the tribe or tribal entity cannot be sued and the resulting forfeiture of remedies can be devastating for the contractor. To waive sovereign immunity, the tribe must make it clear in the contract that it can be sued in a specific jurisdiction. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505, 509 (1991). It does not matter whether the tribe is operating on or off its lands—if there is no express contractual waiver of sovereign immunity, a contractor will have no recourse in the event of non-payment or other breach of contract. See Kiowa tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 118 S.Ct. 1700, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Edward J. Hermes, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Hermes may be contacted at ehermes@swlaw.com

Misread of Other Insurance Clause Becomes Costly for Insurer

February 22, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii

One insurer's refusal to defend based upon its "other insurance" provision ultimately meant the insurer had to pay all of the insured's defense costs. Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 2018 Wis. App. LEXIS 51 (Wis. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2018).

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) was a government agency that provided water reclamation and flood management services to the city. From March 1, 1998 to February 20, 2008, MMSD contracted with United Water Services Milwaukee LLC to operate the sewerage system. From March 1, 2008 on, MMSD contracted with Veolia Water North America-Central, LLC to operate the system.

Through agreements, both companies were obligated to indemnify MMSD for claims arising out of the operations and maintenance of the system and to obtain insurance to cover their indemnity obligations. Both companies complied.

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

Coverage Issues: When You Need Your Own Lawyer in a Construction Defect Suit

October 16, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
When an insurer hires an attorney on behalf of a client in a construction defect suit, that attorney is the client’s lawyer, but as Mike Curry writes on the website of Pendleton Wilson Hennessey & Crow, PC, a point may come when you need to hire your own additional attorney. Even though an insurance company client may refer to the lawyer as “the insurance carrier’s attorney,” Mr. Curry cites the words of the Colorado Bar Association’s ethics committee, “the insured is the client to whom the lawyer’s duty of loyalty is owed, regardless of any retention agreement the lawyer may have with the carrier.” Mr. Curry then offers the example of what happens when the insurance company advises its client that it may not cover. “You presumably call your attorney and ask him to explain what’s going on, what the letter means, and what to do next.” All the attorney can say is “I cannot offer legal advice on coverage issues.” This is the limitation of what Mr. Curry refers to as “the tripartite relationship.” The attorney has been retained for issues related to the construction defect dispute between the insured and the plaintiff. Not between the insurer and its insured. The attorney has, as he points out, a fiduciary obligation to the insurance company. When coverage issues arise, “an independent attorney — one you hire — can help you with the coverage issues that your insurance-assigned attorney simply cannot address.” He further notes that “personal counsel owes no fiduciary obligation to the insurance company,” and can be “utilized to persuade the carrier to provide coverage or settle the case.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Improvements to AIA Contracts?

February 05, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Joel Sciascia, general counsel for the construction management company Pavarini McGovern, made some insightful comments in the Viewpoint section of the latest Engineering News Record magazine. He argues that architects should not be the initial decision maker (“IDM”) under AIA contracts. Instead of using the architect, Mr. Sciascia suggests the use of an independent dispute-resolution board. In 2007, the AIA introduced a new concept into the A-201 documents through which the owner and contractor had the option of naming an independent third party to resolve disputes, instead of automatically allowing the architect to resolve disputes. But, if the parties did not select any specific independent decision maker, the architect would be considered the default initial decision maker. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

Bremer Whyte’s Newport Beach Team Prevails on a Motion for Summary Judgment in a Wrongful Death Case!

September 02, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations on another win to Orange County Partners Jonathan Cothran and Rachel Mihai for prevailing on a Motion for Summary Judgment in a wrongful death case! Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging negligence and vicarious liability against BWB&O’s client, a licensed electrical contractor. BWB&O’s client installed a solar system at the Plaintiffs’ home in January 2018. In October 2018, an electrical fire broke out at the home in an upstairs bedroom. Tragically, the family’s father perished in the fire when he entered the home after the fire started. Plaintiffs alleged that BWB&O’s client was liable for the fire and Plaintiffs’ resulting injuries due to its electrical work on the solar system at the home. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Harrisburg Sought Support Before Ruinous Incinerator Retrofit

September 20, 2017 — Jonathan Barnes & Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
When former Harrisburg, Pa., Mayor Stephen Reed (D) and his aides set out to retrofit the city’s aging incinerator in late 2000, the project spun out of control over the coming years, enlarging the debt the city owed on the facility to $300 million and sinking Harrisburg into financial ruin. Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Barnes, ENR and Richard Korman, ENR ENR staff may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer's Bad Faith is Actionable Tort for Purposes of Choice of Law Analysis

January 08, 2024 — Janeen M. Thomas - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
When an insurer handles a claim in violation of its duty to act in good faith, policyholders are often eager to sue the insurer for bad faith, seeking extra contractual damages. Before filing suit, however, it is critical that policyholders consider what state’s law applies to the bad faith claim. In the recent case of Scott Fetzer Co. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc.1, the Ohio Supreme Court held that Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws, § 145 (“Section 145"), governed the choice of law dispute, which meant that the insured would be able to obtain discovery of Travelers’ claims-handling procedures, guidelines, internal documents, and communications relating to the claim.2 The insured, Scott Fetzer, argued that the materials were discoverable because documents evidencing an insurer’s bad faith are not protected by attorney-client privilege in Ohio. In response, Travelers argued that the laws of either Indiana (the place where the parties entered into the insurance contract), or Michigan (the location of the insured risk) governed the discovery dispute because Restatement (Second) § 193 (“Section 193”) governs the choice of law analysis for claims that “arise out of insurance contracts.”3 The laws of either Indiana or Michigan were more favorable for Travelers because Indiana does not allow discovery of materials covered by attorney-client privilege, and Michigan does not even recognize a cause of action for bad faith. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Janeen M. Thomas, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at JThomas@sdvlaw.com

Sometimes it Depends on “Whose” Hand is in the Cookie Jar

January 21, 2015 — Roger Hughes – California Construction Law Blog
In a lengthy and somewhat detailed decision, the California Court of Appeal for First District, in Pittsburg Unified School District v. S.J. Amoroso Construction Company, Inc., Case No. A138825 (December 22, 2014), held that a public entity could unilaterally withdraw retention funds during a pending legal dispute without the court first finding that the contractor had defaulted on the public works project. Background In 2008, general contractor S.J. Amoroso Construction Company, Inc. (“S.J. Amoroso”) entered into a construction contract with the Pittsburg Unified School District (“District”) for the reconstruction and modernization of a high school in Pittsburg, California. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES