Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

A “Flood” of Uncertainty; Massachusetts SJC Finds Policy Term Ambiguous

August 26, 2024 — Michael S. Levine & Torrye Zullo - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The highest court in Massachusetts recently held that term “Flood” and the associated phrase “surface waters,” as used in two all-risk insurance policies, is ambiguous in the context of water that accumulated on a parapet roof and rooftop courtyard, thereby negating the insurers’ attempt to limit coverage to a sublimited coverage for “Flood.” Background In June 2020, a severe storm caused damage to Norwood Hospital, owned by Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (“MPT”) and leased to Steward Health Care System (“Steward”), the policyholders. The relevant portion of the damage included damage from rain that accumulated on the rooftop courtyard and seeped into the interior of the building causing damage to the building and its contents. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Torrye Zullo, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Zullo may be contacted at tzullo@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Attorney’s Fees Entitlement And Application Under Subcontract Default Provision

May 06, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Many subcontracts contain a provision in the default section that reads something to the effect: “Upon any default, Subcontractor shall pay to Contractor its attorney’s fees and court costs incurred in enforcing this Subcontract or seeking any remedies hereunder.” Oftentimes, a party may wonder as to the enforceability of the provision and how it is applied in the context of a dispute between a contractor and its subcontractor where both parties have asserted claims against the other. In an opinion out of the Middle District of Georgia, U.S. f/u/b/o Cleveland Construction, Inc. v. Stellar Group, Inc., 2019 WL 338887 (M.D.Ga. 2019), a subcontractor and prime contractor on a federal construction project each asserted claims against the other in the approximate amount of $4 Million, meaning there was a potential $8 Million swing in the dispute. The subcontract contained a provision entitling the contractor to recover attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing the subcontract or seeking remedies under the subcontract upon any default, identical to the provision above. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Congratulations to Las Vegas Team on Their Successful Motion for Summary Judgment!

May 06, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
This case arose from an alleged trip and fall on an uneven surface in a parking lot outside of BWBO’s client’s restaurant. Plaintiff alleged more than $385,000 in past medical specials (with high potential for future care and treatment) with exposure in excess of $1,000,000.00. The Plaintiff named as Defendants BWBO’s client as well as several entities related to their landlord. Early in the case, Las Vegas Partner Jeffrey W. Saab and Senior Associate D. Ryan Efros moved for summary judgment based on terms of the restaurant’s lease. They argued that based on the lease, the duty to maintain the surface of the parking lot fell exclusively to the landlord, rather than the restaurant’s client. Plaintiff opposed the motion arguing that the prevailing case law held that any agreement between a tenant and its landlord does not preclude a plaintiff from asserting either or both defendants breached their duties of care. Jeff and Ryan distinguished that case and successfully persuaded the Court that there could be no contractual duty and no common law duty to maintain the parking surface, clearing the way for the court to grant summary judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Utah Supreme Court Allows Citizens to Block Real Estate Development Project by Voter Referendum

June 10, 2019 — Sean M. Mosman & Mark O. Morris - Snell & Wilmer Under Construction
The Utah Supreme Court recently decided Baker v. Carlson, 2018 UT 59, which considered a developer’s ongoing effort to build a mixed-use, part-residential and part-commercial development on the site of the long-defunct Cottonwood Mall located in Holladay, Utah. On November 28, 2018, the Supreme Court affirmed the Third District Court’s ruling that a voter referendum to block the development was valid. This ruling calls into question the certainty of investment-backed real estate decisions in Utah and thus could carry negative implications for the Utah construction and real estate development communities. The Cottonwood Mall opened in the early 1960s, and for several decades was a popular regional shopping destination. But the mall fell on financial hard times in the mid-1990s, and since 2007 the 57-acre lot has sat vacant. Around that time, the owner of the lot made plans to redevelop it, and asked Holladay City to rezone the site to permit mixed uses. In response, the City rezoned the lot as Regional/Mixed-Use (R/M-U). The City also created a process to control the development of an R/M-U zone, requiring prospective builders to first submit a site development master plan—which sets forth guidelines for the overall development and design of the site—to the City for approval. After the City approves a master plan, the developer must enter into a development agreement with the City, giving the developer certain rights and addressing other development-related issues. Reprinted courtesy of Sean M. Mosman, Snell & Wilmer and Mark O. Morris, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Mosman may be contacted at smosman@swlaw.com Mr. Morris may be contacted at mmorris@swlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Competition to Design Washington D.C.’s 11th Street Bridge Park

May 07, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Architect Magazine, eighty landscape architecture and architecture firms (forty teams) submitted proposals to design the $25-million Washington D.C. 11th Street Bridge Park project. A jury has shortlisted six design teams: “Wallace Roberts & Todd (WRT)/Next Architects, Piet Oudolf with Glenn LaRue Smith/PUSH Studio/WXY Architecture + Urban Design, OLIN/OMA, Workshop: Ken Smith Landscape/Davis Brody Bond, Stoss Landscape Urbanism/Höweler + Yoon Architecture, and Balmori Associates/Cooper, Robertson & Partners.” The “nonprofit Building Bridges Across the River at THEARC (Town Hall Education Arts Recreation Campus) and the District's Office of Planning” launched the competition in March of this year. Architect Magazine stated that “the goal of” the project is to unify “what some call a ‘long-divided city,’ by connecting Capitol Hill and Anacostia, the neighborhoods on either side of the river.” 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

Safety, Compliance and Productivity on the Jobsite

November 18, 2019 — Matthew Ramage - Construction Executive
With any project, managing a large contingency of workers—all with varying levels of security clearance—can be a logistical headache. On the majority of construction sites, managers lack the resources to quickly and accurately identify all onsite personnel and ensure the right labor, equipment and materials are in the right place at the right time. Equally important, construction managers need to know if worker certifications are current and only allow access to authorized areas. Multiple factors compound the need for better transparency across the workforce, including:

Safety. Construction work is inherently dangerous. In 2017, nearly 1,000 fatalities occurred on construction sites. This means that the industry accounted for more than 20% of private sector fatalities across all industries.
Regulatory. The Federal government has a heightened awareness of jobsite dangers and is targeting companies that are not making every effort to maximize the workers’ safety.
Security. Sites in urban environments require round-the-clock protection from urban explorers, thieves and the general public.
Employee wage disputes. Lawsuits and disputes over wages and hourly employment are increasing.
Reduced productivity. It can be difficult to measure and track productivity in construction.

Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Ramage, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Job is Substantially Complete, the Subcontract was Never Signed, the Subcontractor Wants to be Paid—Now What?

July 28, 2016 — John P. Ahlers – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
A recent case in North Carolina illustrates the types of problems created when a general contractor accepts a subcontractor’s bid and then allows the subcontractor to perform the work without obtaining a signed subcontract.[i] In this case, the general contractor (Choate Construction Company – “Choate”) accepted a bid from a foundation subcontractor (Southeast Caissons, LLC – “SEC”). Choate sent the subcontract to SEC. SEC provided its changes in a “Proposed Addendum” to the subcontract stating, “[SEC] hereby accepts the terms of the attached Subcontract, subject to and conditioned upon Choate[’s] acceptance of the terms set forth in this Addendum[.]” After that, Choate called SEC and exchanged emails concerning the subcontract terms, but did not reach an agreement. SEC then performed its subcontract and sought payment, and acknowledged it had not signed the subcontract. Choate agreed it owed SEC something, but refused to pay because SEC did not have a signed subcontract, asserting the subcontract was not binding on Choate. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES