FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: J. PAUL ALLEN

May 28, 2024 — Jessica Knox - The Dispute Resolver
Company: Fischer Homes Email: paul@jpaulallen.com Law School: Chase College of Law at Northern Kentucky University (JD 1992) States Where Company Operates/Does Business: Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Missouri, Florida Q: Describe your background and the path you took to becoming in-house counsel. A: I started at a large Cincinnati firm straight out of law school. I moved in-house for a client of the firm after about 8 years and have remained in-house ever since. The in-house experience has been rewarding and varied over the last 24 years. I have worked for a Fortune 500, publicly traded steel company, a private equity led construction products company, and, finally, a family-owned residential homebuilder. I had the good fortune to be General Counsel at the last 2 in-house companies and was able to establish a legal department from scratch at Fischer Homes. As time went on and I gained experience, I stayed in-house because of the ability to work for a single client and have a greater impact on the business side of things. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jessica Knox, Stinson LLP
Ms. Knox may be contacted at jessica.knox@stinson.com

---

Chinese Telecommunications Ban to Expand to Federally Funded Contracts Effective November 12, 2020

September 21, 2020 — Lori Ann Lange & Sabah Petrov - Peckar & Abramson
In our previous alert, we discussed the Federal Government’s Ban (the “Ban”) on certain Chinese covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment and services in federal government contracts. The ban prohibits government contractors and subcontractors from supplying to the Federal Government or using in their own internal operations certain telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services produced by Huawei Technologies Company, ZTE Corporation, Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, and Dahua Technology Company, as well as their subsidiaries and affiliates. The Ban currently applies to companies contracting directly with the Federal Government. Soon, however, the Ban – at least in part – will expand to contractors and subcontractors who are awarded certain federally assisted contracts and subcontracts. On August 13, 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) published Final Guidance revising its grants and agreements regulations (2 CFR Part 200) to prohibit recipients and subrecipients from using loan or grant funds to purchase or obtain covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment or services. Effective November 12, 2020, recipients and subrecipients are prohibited from obligating or expending loan or grant funds to:

1. Procure or obtain;
2. Extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain; or
3. Enter into a contract (or extend or renew a contract) to procure or obtain equipment, services, or systems that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system.

Reprinted courtesy of Lori Ann Lange, Peckar & Abramson and Sabah Petrov, Peckar & Abramson Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com Ms. Petrov may be contacted at spetrov@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Automated Weather Insurance Could Offer Help in an Increasingly Hot World

July 10, 2023 — Michelle Ma - Bloomberg
Carlos José Báez experienced the full brunt of Hurricane Maria when it made landfall in Puerto Rico as a catastrophic storm in 2017. The auto paint shop owner, who lives in Aguas Buenas, Puerto Rico, saw his home badly damaged by Maria’s ferocious winds and rain. Despite submitting claims to his homeowner’s insurance policy for over $25,000, Báez ultimately received a payout of $11,000. “We had a lot of property damage and insurance, but they didn’t want to pay,” Báez said in an interview in Spanish. More than $1.6 billion in insurance claims remained unresolved more than two years after Maria while others were denied completely. The latter happened to Jonathan González’s mother, who waited nearly a year for an adjuster to come take photos of water damage and a broken wheelchair ramp only for the claim to be denied six months later. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Ma, Bloomberg

---

Are Construction Defect Claims Covered Under CGL Policies?

January 27, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Courts have ruled differently as to whether a construction defect is or is not an “occurrence,” according to the publication Business Insurance. Four states—Colorado, Arkansas, Hawaii and South Carolina—have sought to remove ambiguity by passing statutes that define construction defect claims as occurrences. Colorado, the first state to create such a statue, passed H. B. 10-1394 in May 2010. The state legislature passed the statute “because of the complex and lengthy endorsements and exclusions facing construction professionals, according to the bill” reported Business Insurance. The article stated that “incongruous court decisions over whether construction defect claims are covered under CGL policies continue to drive uncertainty in coverage and increase litigation costs.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court Finds That $400 Million Paid Into Abatement Fund Qualifies as “Damages” Under the Insured’s Policies

November 21, 2022 — Lorelie S. Masters & Yaniel Abreu - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, et al., the Court of Appeals for Ohio’s Eighth District reversed the lower court, finding that money paid by the insured into an abatement fund was “damages” as that undefined term was used in the policyholder’s insurance policies. 2022-Ohio-3031, ¶ 1. Sherwin-Williams is a cautionary tale about how insurers may try to narrow the meaning of undefined terms in their insurance policies. The dispute in Sherwin-Williams focused on coverage for $400 million that the policyholder and other defendants were ordered to pay into an abatement fund to be used by California cities and counties to mitigate the hazards caused by lead paint in homes. Id. ¶ 1. Although the underlying litigation proceeded in California, Ohio law governed coverage, which raised issues of first impression in Ohio. Id. Among other things, the insurers argued that the money paid into the abatement fund did not qualify as “damages” under the policies. Id. ¶ 57. The insured argued that, because the insurers did not define “damages” in the policies, the term had to be given its ordinary meaning. Id. ¶ 56. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Complying With Data Breach Regulations in the Construction Industry

November 24, 2019 — Ryan Bilbrey - Construction Executive
Recent data breach incidents—like the massive Capital One cyberattack, where a former employee accessed more than 100 million customer accounts and credit card applications—have left many users questioning how safe their information really is in the hands of companies. There is reason to be concerned. More than 4.1 billion records were exposed in nearly 4,000 data breaches reported in the first half of 2019 alone, according to the 2019 MidYear QuickView Data Breach Report. Construction companies are not immune. As the industry becomes more reliant on technology—using augmented reality, Building Information Modeling and drones on construction sites, for example—construction companies are becoming greater targets for hackers looking to gain a financial or strategic advantage. Instead of assuming a company will never experience a breach (or rather, denying that it will ever happen), it’s important to be aware of possible threats and establish data breach response policies to minimize potentially catastrophic fallout. Reprinted courtesy of Ryan Bilbrey, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Bilbrey may be contacted at rbilbrey@biaprotect.com

---

Angela Cooner Appointed Vice-Chair of Arizona’s Inaugural Board of Legal Specialization Construction Defect Law Advisory Commission

June 20, 2022 — Angela Cooner - Lewis Brisbois
Phoenix, Ariz. (May 17, 2022) - Phoenix Partner Angela Cooner has been appointed as the vice-chair of the State Bar of Arizona’s inaugural Board of Legal Specialization Construction Defect Law Advisory Commission. The commission was created pursuant to the Arizona Supreme Court’s recent administrative order recognizing construction defect law as a new area of specialization. The commission will, among other things, create the application, examination, and interview process that Arizona attorneys will be required to complete to earn the construction defect law specialized certification. Ms. Cooner will serve a two-year term that will end on January 31, 2024. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Angela Cooner, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Cooner may be contacted at Angela.Cooner@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Connecticut Court Clarifies a Limit on Payment Bond Claims for Public Projects

May 15, 2023 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
In All Seasons Landscaping, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., No. DBD-CV21-6039074-S, 2022 WL 1135703 (Conn. Super. Ct. April 4, 2022) the plaintiff, a subcontractor on a state project, commenced a lawsuit against the surety who issued a payment bond on the project two years after the subcontractor last performed any original contract work on the project. The defendant surety moved to dismiss the action based on the one-year statute of limitation in Connecticut General Statute § 49-42. The plaintiff countered that it complied with that deadline because it also performed warranty inspection work after the contract was completed and within the limitation period in section 49-42. The issue of whether warranty work or minor corrective work can extend the limitations period in section 49-42 had not previously been addressed by a Connecticut court. Section 49-42(b) governs the limitation period on payment bond claims on public projects. It provides in relevant part that “no … suit may be commenced after the expiration of one year after the last date that materials were supplied or any work was performed by the claimant.” Section 49-42 provides no guidance on what “materials were supplied or any work was performed” by the claimant means, nor is there any direct appellate-level authority in Connecticut on this issue. What is clear under well-established law in Connecticut is that the time limit within which suit on a payment bond must be commenced under Section 49-42 is not only a statute of limitation but a jurisdictional requirement establishing a condition precedent to maintenance of the action and such limit is strictly enforced. If a plaintiff cannot prove its suit was initiated within this time constraint, the matter will be dismissed by the court as untimely. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

---