Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions

September 10, 2014 — William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers Blog
Great news for California subcontractors and suppliers! “Type I” Indemnity provisions in California construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013 are not enforceable. This change in the law prevents owners and general contractors from shifting enormous exposure and costs of litigation downstream to the little guy, namely subcontractors and suppliers. In October 2011, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 474 into law, which represented a major legislative victory for subcontractors and suppliers. The new law also imposed exacting limitations on contractors that attempt to require their subcontractors and suppliers to cover their defense fees and costs in litigation. New Law Prevents Indemnity or Cost of Defense for Active Negligence Under a "Type I" indemnity provision, the downstream subcontractor agrees to indemnify the owner or contractor, even against liability caused by the upstream owner/contractor's own "active negligence." A “Type I” indemnity provision in general contractors’ subcontracts often require their subcontractors to defend and indemnify them from liability regardless of whether the general contractor is partially at fault. Subcontractors and suppliers historically have complained that they have little bargaining power when entering into these contracts and these types of provisions can result in ruinous liability for those in the construction industry that are most vulnerable-subcontractors and suppliers. Before this change, the law allowed a general contractor who is 99 percent at fault for an injury or damage to shift the entire risk to a subcontractor who is only one percent at-fault or a subcontractor who is not at fault at all, but tangentially involved in the claim. Subcontractors and suppliers joined forces and lobbied the legislature. The legislature and Governor Brown agreed. Under the new law, such "Type I" indemnity provisions will no longer be enforceable. SB 474 adds Civil Code section 2782.05 that precludes indemnity where the party to be indemnified is "actively negligent" and makes void and unenforceable these types of clauses. Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

10 Year Anniversary – Congratulations Greg Podolak

November 23, 2016 — Edwin L. Doernberger – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
2016 marks 10 years of successful practice for SDV Partner, Gregory Podolak. Greg has spent his entire professional career with Saxe, Doernberger & Vita, rising up the ranks from Summer Associate to Managing Partner of SDV’s first satellite office located in Naples, FL. Greg also manages SDV’s Cyber Risk group and is a nationally recognized author and speaker on the topic. Over the past decade, Greg has been honored with numerous awards, including the Connecticut Law Tribune’s 2015 New Leaders in the Law, and for the past five years in a row has been chosen as a Super Lawyers® Rising Star. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Edwin L. Doernberger, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Doernberger may be contacted at eld@sdvlaw.com

I-35W Bridge Collapse may be Due to “Inadequate Load Capacity”

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Crookston Times reports that the I-35W Bridge collapse that occurred five years ago in Minneapolis, Minnesota, killing 13 people and injuring another 145, may have been caused by “inadequate load capacity.” The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report stated that it is “a simple design flaw in metal plates that help connect one steel beam to another.” Due to the findings, “the NTSB set new safety recommendations for bridge design plans, bridge inspection and training of bridge inspectors.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Panel Declares Colorado Construction Defect Laws Reason for Lack of Multifamily Developments

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Dennis Huspeni writing for the Denver Business Journal provided reactions from panelists at a ULI Colorado event on January 9th at the Embassy Suites Denver – Downtown/Convention Center hotel regarding a report on “Emerging Trends in Real Estate.” According to Huspeni’s article, panelists discussed “the lack of for-sale multifamily development and attributed it to Colorado’s construction defect laws.” John Beeble, chairman and CEO of Saunders Construction, one of the panelists, said that Saunders does not build condos because of Denver’s construction defect laws: “We’ve been in business for 42 years and never been sued for construction defects,” Beeble said, according to the Denver Business Journal. “But the odds are close to 100 percent that we’d be in court defending ourselves if we did condos.” Jeff Hawks, principal at ARA Colorado, claimed, “Colorado has some of the worst construction defect laws in the country. It’s stupid to try and build a condo development until that changes,” as reported by the Denver Business Journal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Whose Lease Is It Anyway: Physical Occupancy Not Required in Landlord-Tenant Dispute

February 07, 2018 — Afua Akoto – SDV Case Alert
In September 2017, a Texas Federal district judge ruled that that Personal and Advertising Injury coverage in a CGL policy did not require physical occupancy in a landlord-tenant dispute. In the underlying lawsuit, restaurant owner Ziggy Gruber alleged that John Dunn, the landlord of a Houston shopping center, wrongfully interfered with his right of occupancy at the shopping center by failing to complete the negotiation of a lease and preventing his occupancy of the space. Gruber further alleged that he had acquired a direct interest in the premises and became a rightful tenant but as a result of Dunn’s interference, he was never able to open his restaurant. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Afua Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com

Who is a “Contractor” as Used in “Unlicensed Contractor”?

June 08, 2020 — Taylor Orgeron - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
A recent Georgia Court of Appeals case established a rule concerning the effect of an unlicensed contractor failing to disclose that he is unlicensed. In Fleetwood v. Lucas,[1] the contractor was hired by the homeowners to perform renovations on two homes. One of the projects went over budget, and the homeowners failed to pay the remaining balances on both projects. Following their failure to pay, the contractor sued the homeowners for breach of contract, and the jury delivered a verdict in his favor. The homeowners appealed on the grounds that the contractor was barred from bringing suit because the contractor did not have a license to perform the work. Generally, if a contractor does not have a residential or general contractor’s license but performs work when a license is required, the contract is unenforceable. O.C.G.A. § 43-41-17(b). However, under O.C.G.A. § 43-41-17(g), a contractor may perform repair work without a license if the contractor discloses that he does not have a license, and the work does not affect the structural integrity of the project. In this case, the contractor failed to disclose that he did not have a license. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Taylor Orgeron, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Orgeron may be contacted at orgeron@ahclaw.com

New York Team’s Win Limits Scope of Property Owners’ Duties to Workers for Hazards Inherent in Their Work

May 20, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
New York, N.Y. (May 9, 2024) - New York Partners Jennifer Oxman and Andrew Harms recently secured dismissal of a personal injury plaintiff’s complaint on summary judgment in Queens County, with a state judge accepting their argument that a porter who allegedly tripped and fell on loose wood in a stairwell had no cause of action against the property owner because it was his job to clean the stairs in the first instance. The porter was not an employee of the property owner, but rather an employee of a property management company. Therefore, the workers compensation bar did not apply to the employee’s claims. In a four-page decision, Justice Chereé A. Buggs of Queens County Supreme Court found that plaintiff’s duties as a porter included cleaning the stairwell and that he saw and cleaned loose pieces of wood on occasions prior to his accident. Justice Buggs held that while the wood debris likely came from an “outside source”, i.e. a contractor performing work at a neighboring building, the source of the debris was not relevant. Rather, what mattered was the fact that the hazard upon which plaintiff tripped was “inherent in or related to” plaintiff’s work responsibilities. By contrast, Justice Buggs held that the contractor who allegedly was the source of the wood was not entitled to summary judgment under the same legal theory because it arguably caused and created the hazard upon which plaintiff tripped. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

It’s All a Matter of [Statutory] Construction: Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets the Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Requirements in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co.

May 30, 2018 — Erinn Contreras & Joy O. Siu - Sheppard Mullin Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
On May 14, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., No. S231549, slip. op. (Cal. Sup. Ct. May 14, 2018). In it, the Court narrowly construed the “good faith” exception to the general rule that a direct contractor must make retention payments to its subcontractors within 10 days of receiving any retention payment. The exception provides that “[i]f a good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and a subcontractor, the direct contractor may withhold from the retention to the subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount.” Cal. Civ. Code section 8814(c). Reprinted courtesy of Erinn Contreras, Sheppard Mullin and Joy O. Siu, Sheppard Mullin Ms. Contreras may be contacted at econtreras@sheppardmullin.com Ms. Siu may be contacted at jsiu@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES