Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Five-Year Statute of Limitations on Performance-Type Surety Bonds

December 01, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The statute of limitations on a claim against a performance-type bond is 5 years from the breach of the bond, i.e., the bond-principal’s default (based on the same statute of limitations that governs written contracts / obligations). See Fla. Stat. s. 95.11(2)(b). This 5-year statute of limitations is NOT extended and does NOT commence when the surety denies the claim. It commences upon the default of the bond-principal, which would be the act constituting the breach of the bond. This does not mean that the statute of limitations starts when a latent defect is discovered. This is not the case. In dealing with a completed project, the five-year statute of limitations would run when the obligee (beneficiary of the bond) accepted the work. See Federal Insurance Co. v. Southwest Florida Retirement Center, Inc., 707 So.2d 1119, 1121-22 (Fla. 1998). This 5-year statute of limitations on performance-type surety bonds has recently been explained by the Second District in Lexicon Ins. Co. v. City of Cape Coral, Florida, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2521a (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), a case where a developer planned on developing a single-family subdivision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Insurance Litigation Roundup: “Post No Bills!”

April 02, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A company which is in the business of posting “advertising signs on temporary construction sites on behalf of clients” was “sued for trespass, conversion, and other torts” when it entered a site to remove posters. The company sought to have its insurance carrier cover the cost of its defense but was refused. A federal court lawsuit in California against the insurer ensued. The insurer prevailed on a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, and the insured appealed. At issue: had an “occurrence” under the CGL policy taken place – that is, an “accident,” an “unexpected, unforeseen, or undesigned happening or consequence from either a known or unknown cause?” The appellate court noted that the company’s contractor “intended” to enter the work site and remove posters, which gave rise to the trespass claim. For its part, the company urged that the contractor’s actions “were based on erroneous information… [a] mistaken belief that it had the right or duty to enter the site and remove the posters….” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Withdrawal Liability? Read your CBA

July 10, 2018 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
Withdrawal liability is a huge issue facing unionized employers. According to Bloomberg, 93% of the Top 200 largest pension plans are underfunded by a combined $382 billion. Contractors that withdraw from a multi-employer pension plan can face hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in assessed withdrawal liability. However, employers may be able to avoid that liability, plus the legal and consulting fees to fight it, by simply reading their collective bargaining agreement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Washington First State to Require Electric Heat Pumps

May 23, 2022 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
A new ruling in Washington state that will require all new commercial buildings to use electric heat pumps is supported by environmentalists but opposed by several construction industry interests. The opposition fears the rule will have a negative impact on the cost and volume of real estate development. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Judgment Stemming from a Section 998 Offer Without a Written Acceptance Provision Is Void

March 22, 2021 — Arezoo Jamshidi, Stevie B. Newton & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Mostafavi Law Group, APC v. Larry Rabineau, APC (B302344, Mar. 3, 2021), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (Los Angeles), addressed an issue of first impression: whether the purported acceptance of a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (“section 998”) offer lacking an acceptance provision gives rise to a valid judgment. The appellate court held that a section 998 offer to compromise (“998 Offer”) without an acceptance provision is invalid and any judgment stemming from it is void. In Mostafavi Law Group, plaintiffs sued defendants for defamation per se, among other claims, which was litigated at-length over several years. Defendants served plaintiffs with a written 998 Offer, offering to settle the action for the sum of $25,000.01. The 998 Offer did not specify the manner in which plaintiffs were to accept the offer. Within the statutory time period for acceptance, plaintiffs’ counsel hand-wrote the following onto the 998 Offer: “Plaintiff Mostafavi Law Group, APC accepts the offer.” That day, plaintiffs also filed a notice of acceptance of the 998 Offer, along with proof thereof, and sent a copy to defendants. The next day, having received the notice of acceptance, defendants advised plaintiffs that they would “draft and send . . . a settlement agreement for . . . signature” before paying the settlement funds. Reprinted courtesy of Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, Stevie B. Newton, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com Mr. Newton may be contacted at snewton@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

#2 CDJ Topic: Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools

December 30, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In July of this year, Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP analyzed the results of the Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools case, in which “a California appeals court held that equities favor an insurer seeking equitable subrogation over a subcontractor that agreed to defend and indemnify claims arising out of its performance of work under the subcontract.” Read the full story... In the article, “General Liability Insurer Entitled to Subrogate Against its Insured’s Indemnitor,” Matthew S. Foy and Michael A. Pursell of Gordon & Rees LLP also discussed the details of the Valley Crest v. Mission Pools case that involved installing a swimming pool on a St. Regis hotel property: “In Valley Crest Landscape Development, Inc. v. Mission Pools of Escondido, Inc., the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that an insurer was entitled to equitably subrogate a breach of express indemnity claim against its insured’s indemnitor.” Read the full story... This month, Graham C. Mills of Newmeyer & Dillion reported on the decision by the Court of Appeals regarding the Valley Crest case, which “reinforces the right of a general contractor to defense and indemnity by a subcontractor when the parties have contractually allocated risk to the subcontractor. To ensure compliance with that right, the Valley Crest court imposed a strong penalty against a subcontractor that defaulted on its obligation.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Who Needs Them”

August 28, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
Who needs them? So argued a surety pursuing recovery under its general agreement of indemnity when the indemnitors urged a Louisiana federal court to dismiss the surety’s complaint for failure to join various allegedly required parties as defendants in the litigation. As part of its court action, the surety moved for preliminary injunction to enforce its collateral security rights. In response thereto, the indemnitors informed the court that if the injunction were to be granted, the indemnitors would “be forced to sell assets that are encumbered by security interests senior to those held by” the surety. In connection therewith, the indemnitors demanded that the other creditors be joined in the action or the lawsuit dismissed. The indemnitors also urged that the public project owner be joined as a party because the surety was seeking proceeds from the project that were still in the possession of the project owner. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Impact of Lis Pendens on Unrecorded Interests / Liens

September 15, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a previous article, I discussed the importance of recording a lis pendens in a construction lien foreclosure action. There is another noteworthy point relating to the impact of lis pendens that can provide quite a bit of consternation. Florida Statute 48.23(1)(d) provides: Except for the interest of persons in possession or easements of use, the recording of such notice of lis pendens, provided that during the pendency of the proceeding it has not expired pursuant to subsection (2) or been withdrawn or discharged, constitutes a bar to the enforcement against the property described in the notice of all interests and liens, including, but not limited to, federal tax liens and levies, unrecorded at the time of recording the notice unless the holder of any such unrecorded interest or lien intervenes in such proceedings within 30 days after the recording of the notice. If the holder of any such unrecorded interest or lien does not intervene in the proceedings and if such proceedings are prosecuted to a judicial sale of the property described in the notice, the property shall be forever discharged from all such unrecorded interests and liens. If the notice of lis pendens expires or is withdrawn or discharged, the expiration, withdrawal, or discharge of the notice does not affect the validity of any unrecorded interest or lien. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES