Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Job Growth Seen as Good News for North Carolina Housing Market

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
David Mayo, the president of the Home Builders Association of Hendersonville told housing professionals that “it’s been a tough few years, but by all accounts it’s better now.” Currently, Henderson County, North Carolina is seeing three new jobs created for every building permit issued, which is seen as the critical measure of a region’s economic health, according to Dale Akins, a market research firm. Henderson County has seen a rise in building permits, with 32% more permits issued in the first nine months of 2013 than in the same period of 2012. By contrast, adjacent Transylvania County has seen little job growth and a housing market that has shrunk by 25%. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Endangered Species and Deliberative Process Privilege

April 19, 2021 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The federal courts have issued some significant environmental law rulings in the past few days. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club, Inc. On March 4, 2021, the court held that the deliberative process privilege of the Freedom of Information Act shields from disclosure in-house draft governmental biological opinions that are both “predecisional” and deliberative. According to the court, these opinions, opining on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) effects on aquatic species of a proposed federal rule affecting cooling water intake structures—which was promulgated in 2019—are exempt from disclosure because they do not reflect a “final” agency opinion. Indeed, these ESA-required opinions reflect a preliminary view, and the Services did not treat them as being the final or last word on the project’s desirability. The Sierra Club, invoking the FOIA, sought many records generated by the rulemaking proceeding, and received thousands of pages. However, the Service declined to release the draft biological opinions that were created in connection with the ESA consultative process. 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

Treble Damages Awarded After Insurer Denies Coverage for Collapse

July 03, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fourth Circuit upheld the district court's decision that a collapse was covered, but reversed the denial of treble damages to the insured. DENC, LLC v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 10443 (4th Cir. April 18, 2022). The district court decision was summarized here. DENC owned The Crest, an apartment building leased to Elon University for student housing. Philadelphia Indemnity Company insured the property. In January 2018, students gathered on a second-floor breezeway for a party. Partygoers began jumping in the breezeway, which caused an abrupt collapse. Observers noticed that the breezeway was hanging down by more that a foot. DENC filed a claim with Philadelphia the next day. An adjuster was sent to inspect the breezeway. By that time, the city had condemned The Crest. The adjuster said that undiscovered "water damage which occurred over an extended period of time" caused the loss. 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

Surety's Settlement Without Principal's Consent Is Not Bad Faith

January 05, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Sixth Circuit found that the surety did not act in bad faith when it settled the general contractor's claims against the State of Michigan over delays on a construction project. Great Am. Ins. Co. v. E.L. Bailey & Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20018 (6th Cir. Nov. 7, 2016). Bailey, the general contractor, entered into a surety agreement under which Great American would issue surety bonds on behalf of Bailey in the construction of a kitchen at a State prison. Bailey, the principal, paid Great American (GAIC), the surety, to provide bonds guaranteeing contract performance to the State, the obligee or owner. GAIC provided a performance bond, guaranteeing performance of the contract work, and a payment bond, guaranteeing payments to subcontractors and suppliers. Under the agreement, Bailey would indemnify GAIC for all payments or other expenses GAIC incurred due on either bond, and would pay upon demand collateral in an amount to be determined by GAIC. In the event of an alleged breach by Bailey, the agreement assigned to GAIC all Bailey's rights under its contract with the State and well as all its claims against any party. Bailey never finalized completion, and GAIC reached agreement with the State for another contractor to complete the project. 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

Builder’s Risk Coverage—Construction Defects

August 20, 2019 — Brian Hearst - Construction Executive
This is the second of three articles bringing clarity to the complex and challenging course of construction exposures and providing solutions for mitigating risk through builder’s risk insurance coverage. Part I, Builder’s Risk Coverage – Language Matters, addressed a select few critical exposures to projects under the course of construction. Part II addresses how a standard builder’s risk policy may respond to a loss arising from defective construction and alternative insurance market offerings that can help with specific costs associated with construction defect loss. Coverage for Loss Ensuing from Faulty Workmanship Part I tackled the standard builder’s risk exclusion that applies to losses arising from faulty materials or workmanship. Traditionally, carriers do not have an appetite for covering a contractor’s failure to perform their work properly. There is one exception, which is coverage is available for ensuing loss – or the resulting damage to other property from faulty workmanship. If the excluded cause of loss (i.e., faulty workmanship) causes resultant damage, the builder’s risk policy will cover the damages to the extent the peril of fire is covered. The ensuing loss exception limits the faulty work exclusion to costs directly related to repairing or replacing the faulty work. For example, suppose faulty wiring work leads to a fire which damages part of a structure under construction. The faulty workmanship exclusion would apply to the actual faulty wiring work, but if fire is a covered peril under the policy (this is nearly always the case), the policy would respond to the structure’s fire damage. Reprinted courtesy of Brian Hearst, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Hearst may be contacted at Brian.Hearst@lockton.com

What You Need to Know About “Ipso Facto” Clauses and Their Impact on Termination of a Contractor or Subcontractor in a Bankruptcy

September 12, 2022 — Martha B. Chovanes & Laurie A. Stanziale - ConsensusDocs
While contractor bankruptcies have long been an issue in the construction industry, in the aftermath of COVID-19 and the resultant labor, material and supply-chain delays, contractor bankruptcies are of even greater concern. Many construction contracts attempt to protect the upstream party from a bankruptcy filing of its contractor or subcontractor by providing for an automatic right to terminate a contract, referred to as “ipso facto” clauses. However, such clauses are generally unenforceable as bankruptcy laws, specifically Section 365(e) of Title 11 of the United States Code, protect the party filing for bankruptcy (the “Debtor”) from unilateral termination of the contract by the non-Debtor party. What is an “Ipso Facto” clause? An ipso facto clause is a provision in an agreement which permits its termination by one party due to the bankruptcy, insolvency or financial condition of the other party. Reprinted courtesy of Martha B. Chovanes, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs) and Laurie A. Stanziale, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs) Ms. Chovanes may be contacted at mchovanes@foxrothschild.com Ms. Stanziale may be contacted at lstanziale@foxrothschild.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

To Require Arbitration or Not To Require Arbitration

December 31, 2014 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Many, if not most, construction contracts that I review during the course of my practice day include a mandatory arbitration clause. Most of these refer in a blanket manner to AAA Construction Industry Rules. The topic for this post is not whether such clauses are enforceable or whether they are one tool in the contracting tool box in a state where the contract is king. I picked the title of this post carefully because I wanted to discuss whether such clauses should be required as a routine part of all construction contracts and, if so, how those clauses can and should be written. I have previously shared my thoughts on mandatory arbitration and its desirability in numerous spots here at Construction Law Musings (you can search arbitration or check out the ADR page for more). In short, my opinion is that arbitration was initially conceived with the purpose of streamlining the dispute resolution process and to correspondingly lower the costs associated with such dispute resolution. Arbitration, when used correctly, can, in certain very industry specific cases, help by using an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators that have some expertise in the particular area of the construction industry or the particular specialized issue that will turn the case one way or the other. All of these goals are good and I applaud them. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Halliburton to Pay $1.1 Billion to Settle Spill Lawsuits

September 03, 2014 — David Wethe, Margaret Cronin Fisk and Laurel Calkins – Bloomberg
Halliburton Co. agreed to pay $1.1 billion to settle a majority of lawsuits brought over its role in the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. The agreement is subject to court approval and includes legal fees, the Houston-based company said in a statement today. Halliburton was accused by spill victims and BP Plc of doing defective cementing work on the Macondo well before the April 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Halliburton blamed the incident on decisions by BP, which owned the well. The settlement comes as the judge overseeing oil-spill cases weighs fault for the disaster. An agreement now averts the company’s risk of a more costly judgment for some spill victims and removes much of the uncertainty that has plagued Halliburton for the past four years as investors waited to see the payout tally. With its biggest piece of liability resolved, Halliburton can refocus its attention on developing new oilfield technology that will help it boost profits worldwide. Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg journalists David Wethe, Margaret Cronin Fisk and Laurel Calkins Mr. Wethe may be contacted at dwethe@bloomberg.net; Ms. Fisk may be contacted at mcfisk@bloomberg.net; and Ms. Calkins may be contacted at lcalkins@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES