Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Bright-Line Changes: Prompt Payment Act Trends

September 16, 2024 — Stephanie L. Cooksey - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Untimely payment by the owner for contract work and additional work on construction projects can place an unfair financial burden on contractors and subcontractors. Most states have attempted to eliminate or mitigate this inequity in construction contracting through Prompt Payment Acts that govern payment deadlines and provide remedies for untimely payment. This article addresses the legislative trends aimed at minimizing the risk of non-payment, overdue payment, and withholding retainage in favor of downstream parties to a construction contract. Fortifying Contractor Protections with “Bright-Line” Language Over the last decade, states have been tightening prompt payment laws by replacing broad, general statutory language with bright-line rules. What is a bright-line rule? A specific or definite figure, a quantifiable marker—i.e., something owners, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers should be aware of. Practically speaking, the more bright-line a prompt payment statute is, the greater the likelihood it will affect a construction project in your state. A standard form construction contract, if not reviewed carefully, can create conflicts or confusion if it gives a party more leeway on payment deadlines than the applicable Prompt Payment Act. For example, consider an owner-issued Construction Change Directive (“CCD”) that requires a contractor to commence additional work immediately while a formal change order is negotiated. Consequently, a CCD can push financial burdens downstream, whether inadvertently or not, and may conflict with statutory payment deadlines. Nevertheless, an owner can be justified in its utilization of a CCD to maintain the project schedule. How should the parties competing interests be resolved? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C.

Duuers: Better Proposals with Less Work

July 21, 2018 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Small contractors, consultants, and design professionals have a love–hate relationship with responding to RFPs. Duuers, a Finnish startup, wants to turn this struggle into an inspiring experience. “We followed a day in the life of a hand-picked group of entrepreneurs,” says Paula Viinamäki, co-founder of Duuers. “We were flies on the wall, observing how small business owners wrestle with their daily tasks. Proposal-writing seemed to be an especially painful and time-consuming, yet vital, job.” Defining the Scope through Experiments After discovering this poorly supported but essential job that had to be done, Viinamäki and Jussi Paanajärvi, the other co-founder of Duuers, realized that they might be onto something. Consequently, they decided to start working on a prototype app for proposal-writing in the spring of 2017. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

U.S. Supreme Court Allows Climate Change Lawsuits to Proceed in State Court

May 01, 2023 — George Leahy - Lewis Brisbois
Washington, D.C. (April 25, 2023) - On Monday, April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear appeals by several major energy companies that sought to remove lawsuits filed by state and local governments from state court into federal court. The Court’s certiorari denials reject companies’ appeals in five separate cases, which involved claims brought by municipalities in Colorado, Maryland, California, Hawaii, and Rhode Island. Each municipality claims that it has been harmed by the effects of climate change, allegedly attributed to the companies’ carbon emissions. The Court’s denials effectively allow the lawsuits to continue in state court, often seen as favorable for plaintiffs due to a greater potential for jury trials and associated damages awards than might be available in federal court. Following a 2021 Supreme Court ruling in a related case that granted the companies an additional chance to argue that their cases should be heard in federal court, the lower federal appeals courts in each of the five cases concluded that the companies had not established sufficient grounds to establish proper venue and jurisdiction in federal court. The Supreme Court’s April 24 denial leaves those decisions unaltered, allowing the lawsuits to continue in state court for further consideration. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of George Leahy, Lewis Brisbois

Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers List

January 29, 2024 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight attorneys have been selected to the 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers list. Congratulations to:

Bruce Cleeland
Peter A. Dubrawski
Angela S. Haskins
Gary L. LaHendro
Denis J. Moriarty
Jennifer K. Saunders

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation

May 16, 2018 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In All Green Electric v. Security National Ins. Co. (No. B279456, filed 3/19/18, ord. pub. 4/17/18), a California appeals court ruled that the impaired property exclusion barred coverage for a claim based on the insured’s failure to tighten a loose bolt that resulted in stray magnetic fields interfering with operation of an MRI machine and allegedly threatening the health of personnel. All Green was an electrical contractor hired to perform wiring for an MRI unit installation. Stray magnetic fields interfered with the unit’s operation. Efforts to remediate the problem included installing shielding and ultimately relocating the unit to another room. An expert finally determined that a bolt left loose by All Green was causing the magnetic field, which disappeared when the bolt was properly tightened. The facility sought damages for negligence, including costs for unnecessary modifications and repairs, payments to outside sources for substitute mammography testing, operational costs and expenses, damage to reputation, lost profits, and the loss of an HMO contract. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Road to Rio 2016: Zika, Super Bacteria, and Construction Delays. Sounds Like Everything is Going as Planned

July 28, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Athletes began to arrive at the Olympic Village in Rio de Janeiro on Sunday in anticipation of the 2016 Summer Olympics which begin on August 5th. Perhaps the most closely watched event, however, has already begun; and it has no medals. And that is whether Brazil can successfully pull off the Olympics at all. For a city known for its Carnival the months leading up to the Olympics have been just as crazy and chaotic as the days leading up to Mardi Gras. There’s the Zika virus, the discovery of a “super” bacteria, the impeachment of its President, and Brazil’s worst recession in 100 years. And that’s just a partial list. And then, of course, there’s the construction. Cities bidding to host the Olympics often cite revenue from tourism and long-term capital improvements which will benefit its populace long after the games have ended as economic justification for hosting the Olympics. However, the cost to host the Olympics is often underestimated and Rio is no exception, running an estimated $6 billion over budget. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Alleged Negligent Misrepresentation on Condition of Home is Not an Occurrence Causing Property Damage

December 17, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found that even if the insured's negligent misrepresentations constituted an accident, the disclosures did not cause physical damage to the property. Wood v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180624 (D. S.C. Sept. 12, 2024). The insured, Clinton Wood, purchased a townhome in January 2014. After the purchase, Wood experienced leaks and significant water intrusion, as did other townhome owners in the same development. Wood and the other owners retained an engineer to evaluate the cause of the water damage. The engineer determined that the water intrusion was caused by defects in the design and construction of the residence. The engineer told Wood that the proposed repairs would not adequately address and resolve the water intrusion and leaks, and that the problems would continue even if repairs were made. 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

The Double-Breasted Dilemma

July 18, 2022 — Lauren E. Rankins & Saloni Shah - ConsensusDocs
What Is A Double-Breasted Operation? A double-breasted operation is when a firm has two entities, and one entity performs work under collective bargaining agreements and the other does not. While this type of operation is not outright prohibited, it is often subject to a variety of challenges and scrutiny. To legally run a double-breasted operation, the two companies must remain separate and distinct. If the companies are not sufficiently separate and distinct from one another, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) or a court may find that the two companies are operating as a single entity or that the non-union company, or also known as the open shop, is merely an alter ego of the union company and, therefore, bound by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. In order to determine whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct, the two entities must pass either the single employer test or the alter ego test depending on the nature of the double-breasted operation. Typically, the single employer test is used when the two entities run parallel operations, and the alter ego test is used when the open shop replaces the union company. Under the single employer test, the NLRB or courts will generally consider four factors: (1) the interrelation of operations; (2) common management; (3) common control of labor relations; and (4) common ownership. The alter ego test does not require a finding that the companies are a single bargaining unit, but analyzes to what extent the two entities have substantially identical management, business operation and purpose, business equipment, customers, and ownership. While common ownership is a factor considered under both the single employer and alter ego tests, common ownership alone is not dispositive of whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct. In other words, the NLRB and courts do not simply look for common ownership to determine whether the double-breasted operation is lawful. It is merely one of many factors to consider. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lauren E. Rankins, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Rankins may be contacted at lrankins@watttieder.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES