Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

“Pay When Paid” Provisions May Not Be Dead, at Least Not Yet

August 24, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Sophisticated contractors know that in California contractual “pay when paid” provisions are enforceable but that “pay if paid” provisions are not. “Pay If Paid” v. “Pay When Paid” Provisions A “pay if paid” provision is one in which a higher tier party agrees to pay a lower tier party “if” it is paid in turn by a still higher party. Most commonly they are found in subcontracts between general contractors and subcontractors and provide that the general contractor will pay the subcontractor “if” the general contractor is paid by the project owner. However, they can also be found in subcontracts between higher and lower tiered subcontractors and between subcontractors and material suppliers and equipment lessors. In California, such provisions, which create a condition precedent to payment, namely, a condition that must precede payment to a lower tiered party, are void as a matter of law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Judgment for Insurer Reversed Due to Failure to Establish Depreciation

August 01, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The trial court erred in placing the burden on the policyholder to establish depreciation in determining the actual cash value of the loss. SFR Serv., LLC v. Tower Hill Prime Ins. Co., 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 3570 (Fla. Ct. App. May 26, 2023). The insureds' roof was damaged by Hurricane Irma. They submitted their claim to their insurer, Tower Hill. The cost of repair was assessed at $7,726.94, below the amount of the deductible. Therefore, there was no recovery under the policy. The insureds assigned their claim to SFR Services, LLC, their roofing contractor. SFR submitted a claim to Tower Hill for $162,083.84. Tower Hill refused to pay and SFR sued. 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

Watchdog Opens Cartel Probe Into Eight British Homebuilders

April 02, 2024 — Damian Shepherd & Katharine Gemmell - Bloomberg
Britain’s top antitrust enforcer has opened an investigation into eight housebuilders to probe potential information sharing, sharpening scrutiny of a sector that’s failing to deliver enough affordable housing to meet demand. The Competition and Markets Authority has opened a cartel investigation into eight developers including Barratt Developments Plc, the Berkeley Group, Persimmon Plc and Vistry Group Plc. The investigation centers on concerns the companies may have exchanged competitively sensitive information, which could be influencing the build-out of sites and the prices of new homes. An initial review will take place until December. CMA Chief Executive Officer Sarah Cardell told Bloomberg Television the watchdog had seen potential evidence of companies exchanging information relating to pricing, sales rates, and incentives offered to new homebuyers. The watchdog has the power to fine firms a maximum penalty of as much as 10% of annual revenue and disqualify directors following cartel investigations. Reprinted courtesy of Damian Shepherd, Bloomberg and Katharine Gemmell, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Five New Laws to Know Before They Take Effect On Jan. 1, 2022

December 27, 2021 — Amy R. Patton & Blake A. Dillion - Payne & Fears
Gov. Gavin Newsom closed California’s 2020-2021 Legislative Session with a flurry of bill signings, many of which created and/or updated employment-related laws. A few of these bills were “emergency bills” which became effective immediately (such as the COVID-related right to rehire and sick pay laws), while others do not become effective until Jan. 1, 2022. Employers should ensure that their policies, procedures, and systems comply with these new and updated laws. California’s Regulation of Quotas in Warehouse Distribution Centers On Sept. 22, 2021, Governor Newsom signed AB 701, aimed at regulating quotas in warehouse distribution centers, into law. Effective Jan. 1, 2022, employers with 100 or more employees at a single warehouse distribution center or 1,000 or more employees at one or more warehouse distribution centers in the state must provide to each nonexempt employee, upon hire, or by Jan. 31, 2022, a written description of each quota to which the employee is subject. This bill also sets certain standards for what constitutes an enforceable quota and for the employer’s obligation to respond to information requests. Employers should carefully review their quota systems to first determine if the quotas are necessary, and if so, ensure compliance with this new law by preparing clear written descriptions for each and every quota. A more in-depth discussion of the provisions of the AB 701 can be found here. Reprinted courtesy of Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Additional Elements a Plaintiff Must Plead and Prove to Enforce Restrictive Covenant

April 19, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Florida Statute s. 542.335 is a statute that deals with restrictive covenants in contracts that impose a restraint on trade. It is an important statute to determine invalid restraints on trade that unreasonably or unfairly prevent competition. Any invalid restraint on trade is unenforceable. Restrictive covenants–or covenants in agreements that restrict you or prevent you from doing something–may unsuspectingly be included in contracts or the impact of the restrictive covenant may not be appreciated at the onset. A party seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant in a contract has the additional burden of PROVING the validity and reasonableness of the restrictive covenant:

Under section 542.335, three requirements must be satisfied for a restrictive covenant to be enforceable: (1) the restrictive covenant must be “set forth in a writing signed by the person against whom enforcement is sought”; (2) the party seeking to enforce the restrictive covenant “shall plead and prove the existence of one or more legitimate business interests justifying the restrictive covenant”; and (3) the party seeking to enforce the restrictive covenant “shall plead and prove that the contractually specified restraint is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest or interests justifying the restriction.”

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

Engineer Proposes Slashing Scope of Millennium Tower Pile Upgrade

January 03, 2022 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
Based on further structural analysis and the success of a pilot program that installed three permanent piles using modified procedures, the structural engineer-of-record for the delayed perimeter pile upgrade of the 645-ft-tall Millennium Tower in San Francisco has proposed a significantly reduced scope for the project that he says would still arrest settlement and allow the slow recovery of some of the condominium building’s tilt. Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Does a Broker Forfeit His or Her Commission for Technical Non-Compliance with Department of Real Estate Statutory Requirements?

September 14, 2020 — Kevin J. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, CK Revocable Trust v. My Home Group Real Estate LLC, 2020 WL 4306183 (7/28/2020), the Court of Appeals addressed the distinction between “substantive” and “technical” statutory requirements for real estate broker commission agreements. The Court explained that failure to comply with a substantive requirement would preclude the broker from recovering a commission, but failure to comply with a technical requirement would not. As examples of such substantive requirements, the Court identified the statutory requirement that the broker be licensed at the time the claim for commission arose, and the statutory requirement that the listing agreement be signed by both the broker and the client. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com

Janus v. AFSCME

July 18, 2018 — Ryan Foltz – Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Janus v. AFSCME1. By a 5-4 vote, SCOTUS ruled that public employee unions cannot require non-members to pay union dues, even if those employees are benefiting from the services provided by the union. 28 states already had “right-to-work” laws on the books, meaning that unions in those states were already precluded from collecting fees from non-union members. This ruling makes that ban a national standard. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan Foltz, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Foltz may be contacted at rfoltz@grsm.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES