Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Massachusetts Pulls Phased Trigger On Its Statute of Repose

December 21, 2020 — Kyle Rice - The Subrogation Specialist
In D’Allesandro v. Lennar Hingham Holdings, LLC, 486 Mass 150, 2020 Mass. LEXIS 721, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts answered a certified question regarding how to apply the Massachusetts statute of repose, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 2B, in regards to phased construction projects. The court held that, in this context, the completion of each individual “improvement” to its intended use, or the substantial completion of the individual building and the taking of possession for occupancy by the owner or owners, triggers the statute of repose with respect to the common areas and limited common areas of that building. Additionally, the court held that where a particular improvement is integral to, and intended to serve, multiple buildings (or the development as a whole), the statute of repose is triggered when the discrete improvement is substantially complete and open to its intended use. In D’Allesandro, the action arose out of the construction, marketing, sale and management of the Hewitts Landing Condominium (the Condominium) project. Ultimately, 150 units were constructed over 24 phases of construction, enclosed in 28 different buildings. Throughout construction, the project’s architect submitted declarations to the Town of Hingham swearing that the individual units were “substantially complete” and could be occupied for their intended use. The Town of Hingham then issued certificates of occupancy for the unit or building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Rice, White and Williams
Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricek@whiteandwilliams.com

They Say Nothing Lasts Forever, but What If Decommissioning Does?

June 10, 2019 — Stella Pulman - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The looming decommissioning liabilities of offshore energy producers have been a focus of the federal government in recent years. One recent case out of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Taylor Energy v. United States, highlights the tension between the federal government’s desire to maintain financial security for decommissioning activities, and that of an operator whose security is tied up indefinitely while the government awaits technological advances to allow for safe decommissioning. The case relates to a trust agreement between Taylor Energy and the United States, established to secure Taylor’s decommissioning liabilities for 28 wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Taylor completed certain decommissioning work for which it was reimbursed by the trust. However, with over $400 million remaining in the trust, Taylor and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) concluded that the ecological benefits of further decommissioning would be outweighed by the ecological risks. But despite recognizing that the limitations of current technology made the environmental impacts of further decommissioning work unjustifiable, the BSEE declined to release Taylor from its decommissioning obligations and instead decided to await “changes in technology and a better understanding of the undersea environment.” Because Taylor’s decommissioning obligations remained in place, the U.S. refused to release the remaining funds in the trust. Taylor claimed that the United States should release the remaining funds in the trust because “decommissioning the remaining wells is not ‘currently technologically feasible.’” Taylor asserted that Louisiana law applied to the trust agreement, and that under Louisiana law every contract must be completed within an ascertainable term. By holding the trust funds until decommissioning was complete, Taylor argued that the government was essentially holding the funds in perpetuity given the technological infeasibility of completing decommissioning. Taylor also asserted that the agreement was premised on an impossibility (the full decommissioning of the wells), and/or a mutual mistake of the parties (that the wells could be decommissioned). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stella Pulman, Pillsbury
Ms. Pulman may be contacted at stella.pulman@pillsburylaw.com

Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole

August 06, 2019 — Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation Strategist
Arkansas employs the “made whole” doctrine, which requires an insured to be fully compensated for damages (i.e., to be “made whole”) before the insurer is entitled to recover in subrogation.[1] As the Riley court established, an insurer cannot unilaterally determine that its insured has been made whole (in order to establish a right of subrogation). Rather, in Arkansas, an insurer must establish that the insured has been made whole in one of two ways. First, the insurer and insured can reach an agreement that the insured has been made whole. Second, if the insurer and insured disagree on the issue, the insurer can ask a court to make a legal determination that the insured has been made whole.[2] If an insured has been made whole, the insurer is the real party in interest and must file the subrogation action in its own name.[3] However, when both the insured and an insurer have claims against the same tortfeasor (i.e., when there are both uninsured damages and subrogation damages), the insured is the real party in interest.[4] In EMC Ins. Cos. v. Entergy Ark., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14251 (8th Cir. May 14, 2019), EMC Insurance Companies (EMC) filed a subrogation action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas alleging that its insureds’ home was damaged by a fire caused by an electric company’s equipment. EMC never obtained an agreement from the insureds or a judicial determination that its insureds had been made whole. In addition, EMC did not allege in the complaint that its insureds had been made whole and did not present any evidence or testimony at trial that its insureds had been made whole. After EMC presented its case-in-chief, the District Court ruled that EMC lacked standing to pursue its subrogation claim because “EMC failed to obtain a legal determination that its insureds had been made whole . . . prior to initiating this subrogation action.” Thus, the District Court granted Entergy Ark., Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and EMC appealed the decision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

My Construction Law Wish List

December 31, 2014 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
I’ve been good this year. Not great mind you, but good, and good is the standard, right? So, here’s my construction law wish list this holiday season: 1.More Transparency. So much uncertainty and resultant litigation exists for the simple reason that contractors and subs don’t know when a higher tiered contractor or owner (on a lender financed project) has been paid for their work. So how about a requirement that owners, contractors and subcontractors of all tiers be required to disclose when payment applications are submitted, when payments are made and in what amount, and what pay applications have been paid. And because I’m pretty sure I’m at least within the 20th percentile of “good” this year how about a requirement that this information be provided through an online database accessible by all persons working on projects valued at over a certain dollar amount, say $500,000. 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

Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Sub-Contracted Electrical Company

February 14, 2023 — Colleen E. Hastie - Traub Lieberman
In a case brought before the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County, Plaintiff alleged injury while performing work at a commercial premises in Brooklyn when he rolled his ankle on a jackhammered/chopped cellar floor slab while carrying a metal pipe from the main floor to the cellar on the subject premises. The property was owned by New York City entities, who were listed as Defendants in the underlying suit. A Construction Company was hired as the general contractor and construction manager for the work, who hired the Electrical Contractor to perform the main electrical fit out for the subject premises. The Electrical Contractor then hired Traub Lieberman’s client, the Electrical Subcontractor, to work on cellar-level conduit, cabling, backboxes, and lighting control systems. The Electrical Contractor, as Second Third-Party Plaintiff, brought suit against the Electrical Subcontractor, as Second Third-Party Defendant, for damages related to the underlying suit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Colleen E. Hastie, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Hastie may be contacted at chastie@tlsslaw.com

Spain Risks €10.6 Billion Flood Damage Bill, Sanchez Says

November 25, 2024 — Rodrigo Orihuela, Macarena Munoz Montijano & Jorge Zuloaga - Bloomberg
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez announced the first financial package for victims of the storms that killed more than 200 people in the country’s eastern region of Valencia. Spain will earmark as much as €10.6 billion ($11.5 billion) for its first relief package and more will be announced in the future, Sanchez said in a press conference Tuesday in Madrid. The package includes direct aid for households, self-employed workers and firms; state-backed credit guarantees for companies and residents; and funds for city governments to pay for repairs and reconstruction. Reprinted courtesy of Rodrigo Orihuela, Bloomberg, Macarena Munoz Montijano, Bloomberg and Jorge Zuloaga, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Following My Own Advice

October 21, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
I often advise clients on the use of E-Verify and the importance of getting policies and in place to ensure compliance. This is particularly true for clients that do federal and state work. Now it’s my turn to follow my own advice. I was recently appointed to represent the Nebraska Board of Engineers and Architects. As such, I am a contractor for the State of Nebraska. That means I have to use E-Verify. Here is a refresher of “our” E-Verify obligations as a contractor for the State. Nebraska adopted an E-Verify law in 2009. Nebraska statute section 4-114 requires all contractors that are awarded a contract by a state agency or political subdivision to register with ta federal immigration verification system. Although not explicit in the statute, the Department of Labor has indicated that the obligation to E-Verify applies only to new employees that will be working on the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

Caution to GCs! An Exception to Privette Can Leave You Open to Liability

February 01, 2023 — Nicole Whyte - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
In a recent important decision, Brown v. Beach House Design & Development the Court of Appeal addressed an issue that frequently arises under the Privette doctrine—the extent to which a general contractor can be held liable for injuries to a subcontractor’s employee. The injuries in Brown arose when a window casing subcontractor’s employee fell from a scaffold erected by a plastering subcontractor at a construction site. According to evidence offered by the plaintiff in opposition to a motion for summary judgment filed by the general contractor, the scaffold was not properly secured to the building where the work was being performed. As a result the scaffold was defective and failed, causing the injuries. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicole Whyte, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Ms. Whyte may be contacted at nwhyte@bremerwhyte.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES