Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Meet Orange County Bar Associations 2024 Leaders

April 08, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to share that CEO/Founding Partner Nicole Whyte and Orange County Bar Association’s (“OCBA”) leaders are featured in the Orange County Lawyer (“OCL”) publication, Who’s Who In The OCBA, that was released earlier this month. To see this year’s 2024 board of directors, section leaders, committee chairs, task forces, and charitable fund board, please click here. Nicole Whyte provides individualized counseling and representation in all areas of Family Law. She has served on various OCBA legal committees and boards for over two decades and was elected to OCBA’s Board of Directors in 2024. She is committed to supporting the needs of the OCBA and its thriving and diverse OC legal community. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Contract Not So Clear in South Carolina Construction Defect Case

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
The South Carolina Court of Appeals has reversed a partial summary judgment issued by one of the lower courts in the case of The Retreat at Edisto Co-Owners Association v. The Retreat at Edisto. The underlying issues of the case deal with a construction defect complaint. The lower court had concluded “Developer’s ‘First Amendment’ to the Master Deed required the Developer to satisfy the provision in the paragraph labeled ‘Master Deed Amendment or Phase II’ as a condition precedent to its election to proceed with the development of Phase II.” The appeals court found that “the language of the First Amendment to the Master Deed is susceptible to more than one interpretation.” The court additionally concluded that the “Developer presented the requisite scintilla of evidence on the question of its intent in order to establish a genuine issue of material fact. As the material facts were in dispute, the appeals court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Motions to Dismiss, Limitations of Liability, and More

January 23, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Remember BAE Sys. Ordnance Sys. V. Fluor Fed. Sols? I examined that case on two occasions previously here at Construction Law Musings. Previously the discussions were about the mix (or lack thereof) between fraud and contract and about how careful contract drafting is key. In the most recent opinion in this ongoing litigation from March of 2022, the Court examined various motions to dismiss the Complaint and Counterclaim in the matter. As a reminder, the basic facts are as follows. The US Army Joint Munitions Command (“Army”) contracted with BAE Systems OrdnanceSystems, Inc. (“BAE”) to operate and maintain the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (“RFAAP”)under a basic ordering agreement (“BOA”). Under BOA Task Order 002, BAE contracted to replace the legacy NC facility at the RFAAP with a newer one (the “NC Project”). Initially, BAE subcontracted the NC Project to Lauren Engineers & Constructors (“Lauren”), but later terminated Lauren. Despite terminating Lauren, BAE’s timeline to complete the NC Project remained unchanged and BAE was required to use Lauren’s design for the NC Project. BAE gave interested bidders access to the Lauren design and other related documents and required the selected subcontractor to perform in accordance with the 85% complete Lauren design, that the Lauren design could be relied on for accuracy, and the selected subcontractor only had to complete the unfinished parts. Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC (“Fluor”) submitted a request for information (“RFI”) asking BAE about the standards referenced in the SOW. Fluor was unable to determine the completeness of the Lauren design but relied on BAE’s assertion that the design was 85% complete. BAE rejected Fluor’s initial bid as being too high given what BAE had already paid Lauren for its design and told Fluor to lower its bid because the design was close to complete. Fluor lowered its price and submitted another bid proposal that outlined a firm-fixed-price design/build that forecasted 32 months to complete the NC Project. BAE awarded Fluor an Undefinitized Contract Action (“UCA”) in the amount of $9 million dollars, later increased to $32 million. Under the UCA, Fluor began procuring materials and physical construction before a formal subcontract was agreed upon. On December 17, 2015, BAE and Fluor agreed to a fixed-price design and build subcontract (the “Subcontract”) in which Fluor agreed to design, construct, and partially commission the NC Project for $245,690,422.00, which included money spent already in the UCA. When this litigation began, Fluor was scheduled to complete its work by December 2020, 2.5 years beyond the originally agreed-upon completion date. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Retroactive Application of a Construction Subcontract Containing a Merger Clause? Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal Answers in the Affirmative

September 07, 2017 — Sanjo S. Shatley - Florida Construction Law News
Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal recently addressed the issue of retroactive application of a construction subcontract on the basis of a merger clause in Don Facciobene, Inc. v. Hough Roofing, Inc.[1] In the case, in late 2010, Don Facciobene, Inc. (“DFI”), a licensed general contractor, contracted with Digiacinto Holdings, LLC, an owner of a home built in 1905 in Melbourne, Florida, known as the Nannie Lee House or the Strawberry Mansion, to perform various renovations in preparation for a restaurant to be opened on the premises. One of the renovations included a new roof. DFI subcontracted the roofing work to Hough Roofing, Inc. (“HRI”), a licensed roofing subcontractor. In mid-March 2011, HRI submitted an estimate and proposed statement of work to DFI. DFI’s project manager signed HRI’s proposal on April 5, 2011, as well as an additional expanded proposal six days later. According to the proposals, payment was due on completion. HRI began work on the roof on April 15, 2011, without a signed subcontract. However, DFI and HRI ultimately executed a subcontract on June 8, 2011, even though HRI had mostly finished its work by the end of May. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sanjo S. Shatley, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Mr. Shatley may be contacted at sanjo.shatley@csklegal.com

Ritzy NYC Tower Developer Says Residents’ Lawsuit ‘Ill-Advised’

January 17, 2022 — Chris Dolmetsch - Bloomberg
The developers of a Manhattan skyscraper that has become one of New York City’s toniest residences said the condo board is trying to squeeze money out of them with a lawsuit that claims bogus design flaws. The board is seeking $250 million from builders of the 1,396-foot residential tower at 432 Park Avenue that opened in 2015 on the so-called Billionaire’s Row. Their suit alleges the company that developers CIM Group and Macklowe Properties formed to build the structure failed to take into account its unusual height, leading to flooding, noise, vibrations and elevators that are prone to malfunctions. In a response to the suit filed Wednesday, the company called the building “a treasure” and the suit was “ill-advised.” While the structure needed to be “fine-tuned” when residents started to move in, the board stopped the builders from accessing the facilities and finishing the job “while manufacturing an ever-increasing list of demands,” most of which were not required, according to court filings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chris Dolmetsch, Bloomberg

Insurer’s Broad Duty to Defend in Oregon, and the Recent Ruling in State of Oregon v. Pacific Indemnity Company

January 02, 2024 — Keith Sparks - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Oregon law mandates a broad duty to defend, requiring insurers to provide legal representation to their policyholders whenever there is a potential for coverage under the policy. The significance of this broad interpretation means that an insurer has a duty to defend an insured even in situations where the alleged facts only imply a covered claim, and even in situations where the underlying claim is ultimately not covered by the policy. The insurer’s duty to defend is triggered if the allegations of the complaint, reasonably interpreted, could result in the insured being held liable for damages covered by the policy. This is referred to as the “four-corners” rule; it is also sometimes referred to as the eight-corners rule (for the four corners of the complaint plus the four corners of the policy). Oregon’s adoption of a broad interpretation of the duty to defend affirmatively places the onus on insurers to err on the side of coverage. This broad duty to defend is based on the principle that an insured should not have to bear the expense of defending a lawsuit that the insurer may ultimately have to pay for. The duty to defend is also important because it helps ensure that insureds have access to legal representation when faced with a lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Keith Sparks, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Sparks may be contacted at keith.sparks@acslawyers.com

No Coverage for Foundation Collapse

November 08, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Coverage for the collapse of a foundation was not covered under the contractor's builder's risk policy. Taja Investments LLC v. Peerless Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19855 (4th Cir. Oct. 11, 2017). Taja Construction LLC was renovating a row house owned by Taja Investments LLC when the east wall of the property collapsed. Taja submitted a claim for repair costs in the amount of $400,000. Peerless denied coverage because the collapse was caused by Taja's failure to support the building's foundation properly while excavating the basement. The policy excluded coverage for defects in construction or workmanship. The claim was also denied under the earth movement exclusion. 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

What If There Is a Design Error?

October 30, 2023 — Scott L. Baker - Los Angeles Litigation Blog
Many challenges can crop up when working on a construction project. Among these challenges, errors are the last thing that contractors or project owners want to face. Yet, they are not uncommon as you navigate the process. Design errors or mistakes are one such issue that can result in serious construction disputes and delays. It is important to determine who is liable when it comes to defects and design errors. So, who is responsible for design errors? Many might assume the architect – or the person who created the project design – is responsible for design errors. That is not necessarily true. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott L. Baker, Baker & Associates
Mr. Baker may be contacted at slb@bakerslaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES