Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

City Drops Impact Fees to Encourage Commercial Development

November 08, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Orvido, Florida city council wants to encourage commercial development, and they’re willing to do it by discouraging residential development. The impact fees for commercial buildings have dropped sharply, the Orlando Sentinel notes that for a 50,000 square-foot office building, the city is reducing the impact fee from $2,890 to $1,575, a drop of $1,313, nearly half. Meanwhile, the impact fee for single-family homes has seen an increase of seven percent, going from $3,195 to $3.433. The city is clear about its reasons. “We’re very heavy on the residential side. We want to have more high-paying jobs come into the city,” said Keith Britton, a member of the council. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New Megablimp to Deliver to Remote Alaskan Construction Sites

January 13, 2017 — Ryan W. Sternoff - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC Blog
For nearly 20 years, Lockheed Martin has been working on developing a “Hybrid Airship” that may transform the ability to construct facilities in remote project locations.[i] On September 13, 2016, the Daily Journal of Commerce reported that the first of these “Hybrid Airships,” which can land in snow, ice, gravel, and water, are set to deliver from a facility operated by PRL Logistics in Kenai, Alaska, beginning in 2019.[ii] PRL will be operating the blimps in partnership with UK-based Straightline Aviation who placed the first order for the airships this year. According to PRL, the hope is that the airships will provide low cost solutions for moving freight in Alaska, where runways and roads are not always available. The helium-lifted behemoth blimps have space for 47,000 pounds of cargo and 18 passengers and cost about $40 million dollars. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan W. Sternoff, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Sternoff may be contacted at rsternoff@ac-lawyers.com

A Lack of Sophistication With the Construction Contract Can Play Out In an Ugly Dispute

November 07, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There are times where a lack of sophistication can come back to haunt you. This is not referring to a lack of sophistication of the parties. The parties, themselves, could be quite sophisticated. This is referring to a lack of sophistication with the construction contract forming the basis of the relationship. While parties don’t always want to buy into the contract drafting and negotiation process, it is oftentimes the first document reviewed. Because contract terms and conditions are important. They govern the relationship, the risk, scope, amount, and certain outcomes with disputes. However, a lack of sophistication can play out when that contract that should govern the relationship, the risk, the scope, the amount, and certain outcomes doesn’t actually do that, or if it does, it does it poorly. An example of how bad a dispute can play out when it comes to the lack of sophistication on the front end is Avant Design Group, Inc. v. Aquastar Holdings, LLC, 2022 WL 6852227 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), where a cost-plus contract was treated as a lump sum contract. Here, an owner planned to perform an extensive interior build-out to a residential unit. The owner had an out-of-country architect; because the architect was not licensed in Florida, the owner hired a local architect/designer to oversee construction and obtain goods and services for the residential interior build-out. The contract was nothing but a proposal of items and costs. The proposal stated the owner “would pay the cost of goods and services of the vendors, plus pay a ‘20% Interior Design & Administrative Fee’” to the local designer. Avant Design Group, 2022 WL at *1. The proposal further stated, “This preliminary budget of the Client’s construction costs include [sic] anticipated costs for construction materials, labor and sales tax. Any other cost, including but not limited to freight, cartage, shipping, receiving, storage and delivery are not included in the preliminary budget and will be invoiced separately.” Id., n.2. 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

Does the Miller Act Trump Subcontract Dispute Provisions?

May 16, 2018 — Christopher M. Horton - Smith Currie
All general contractors performing public building or public works contracts with the federal government must be familiar with the Miller Act. It is a requirement for doing business with the federal government. Pursuant to the Miller Act, a general contractor entering into a public building or public works contract with the federal government must furnish a payment bond in an amount equal to the contract price, unless the contracting officer determines that it is impractical to obtain a bond in that amount and specifies an alternative bond amount. Miller Act payment bonds guarantee payment to certain subcontractors and suppliers supplying labor and materials to contractors or subcontractors engaged in the construction. As a result, subcontractors have an avenue of relief should they not get paid for work done on the project. Specifically, subcontractors have a right to bring an action against the surety within 90-days after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material for which the claim is made. Any such action must be brought no later than one year after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material. 40 United States Code § 3133. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher M. Horton, Smith Currie
Mr. Horton may be contacted at cmhorton@smithcurrie.com

Ninth Circuit Holds that 1993 Budget Appropriations Language Does Not Compel the Corps of Engineers to use 1987 Wetlands Guidance Indefinitely

October 09, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On September 21, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided the case of Tin Cup, LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals (although all members concurred in the result) held that legislative language in a 1993 appropriations act does not require the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to continue to use its 1987 Clean Water Act (CWA) wetlands guidance beyond 1993. The Ninth Circuit noted that it approaches the interpretation of budget bills somewhat differently. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Construction Law Alert: Unlicensed Contractors On Federal Projects Entitled To Payment Under The Miller Act

May 07, 2014 — Steven M. Cvitanovic and Jessica M. Lassere Ryland - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
As a matter of first impression, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Technica LLC ex rel. U.S. v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., 12-56539, 2014 WL 1674108 (9th Cir. Apr. 29, 2014), allowed an unlicensed subcontractor to recover from a prime contractor for unpaid services relating to a federal construction project under a federal Miller Act claim. California law otherwise prevents unlicensed contractors from recovering for unpaid work on non-federal projects as a penal measure intended to encourage contractors to maintain a valid license at all times. Technica LLC (“Technica”) worked as a sub-subcontractor on a large federal fence replacement project (the “Project”). Over the course of a year, Technica supplied nearly a million dollars worth of labor, materials, and services for the Project. However, Technica received only $287,861.81 in partial payments for its work. Technica proceeded to file suit in district court against the prime contractor Candelaria Corporation (“Candelaria”) and its payment surety Carolina Casualty Insurance Company (“CCIC”) under the Miller Act to recover amounts owed to it on the subcontract against the payment bond. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP and Jessica M. Lassere Ryland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Lassere Ryland may be contacted at jlassere@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Chambers USA 2019 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm

June 03, 2019 — David Marion, Patricia Santelle & Maulin Vidwans - White and Williams LLP
Chambers USA once again recognized White and Williams as a leading law firm in Pennsylvania for achievements and client service in the area of insurance law. In addition, three lawyers received individual honors - one for her work in insurance, one for his work in commercial litigation and another for his work in banking and finance. White and Williams is acknowledged for its renowned practice offering expert representation to insurers and reinsurers across an impressive range of areas including coverage, bad faith litigation and excess liability. The firm is recognized for its notable strength in transactional and regulatory matters complemented by its adroit handling of complex alternative dispute resolutions. Chambers also acknowledged the firm's broad trial capabilities, including handling data privacy, professional liability and toxic tort coverage claims, and experience in substantial claims arising from bodily injury and wrongful death suits. White and Williams' individual lawyer honorees include Managing Partner Patti Santelle, who is named an Eminent Practitioner in the area of insurance. Patti's considerable experience advising insurers on a broad range of coverage matters, including asbestos, environmental and toxic tort cases, coupled with her proficiency in coverage actions at the state and federal level earn her a well-regarded reputation as an "excellent lawyer." Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys David Marion, Patricia Santelle and Maulin Vidwans Mr. Marion may be contacted at mariond@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Vidwans may be contacted at vidwansm@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contract Change #9: Owner’s Right to Carry Out the Work (law note)

March 28, 2018 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
In prior versions of the General Conditions, if a contractor defaulted and the Owner (after giving notice) opted to cure by carrying out the work itself, an appropriate Change Order would be issued. However, a Change Order is a contract that requires an agreement by both the Owner and Contractor, and, obviously, Contractors were reluctant to agree that they were in default and responsible for a deductive change order. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES