Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Reminder: Your MLA Notice Must Have Your License Number

November 26, 2014 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Remember a couple of years ago when the Virginia mechanic’s lien rules changed to require inclusion of a claimant’s contractor’s license number (where a license is required)? If not, then this is a reminder of that particular wrinkle in the strictly interpreted mechanic’s lien statute. This requirement applies to all mechanic’s lien memoranda and, like all parts of this crazy statute, will invalidate a lien if not met. Well, another change to the statute happened with a bit less fanfare. The change back in 2013 that came along with the license number requirement for a lien memorandum is a change in the mechanic’s lien agent notice requirement that applies to residential construction. The basic requirement, namely that those performing residential construction must notify any mechanic’s lien agent (“MLA”) listed on a building permit within 30 days of starting work that they are on the job and could file a lien, has not changed. What the amendments to the lien statutes in 2013 added was a requirement that the notice, like a lien memorandum, must include the contractor’s or subcontractor’s license number. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

General Contractor Supporting a Subcontractor’s Change Order Only for Owner to Reject the Change

December 09, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The opinion in Westchester Fire Ins. Co, LLC v. Kesoki Painting, LLC, 260 So.3d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) leads to a worthy discussion because it involves a common scope of work occurrence on construction projects involving a general contractor and subcontractor. The contractor submits a subcontractor’s change order request to the owner and the owner rejects the change order. What happens next is a scope of work payment dispute between the general contractor and subcontractor. Yep, a common occurrence. In this case, a general contractor hired a subcontractor to perform waterproofing and painting. A scope of work issue arose because the specifications did not address how the window gaskets should be cut and then sealed. The owner wanted the window gaskets cut at a 45-degree angle and the subcontractor claimed this resulted in increased extra work. The general contractor agreed and submitted a change order to the owner to cover these costs. The owner rejected the change order claiming it was part of the general contractor’s scope of work even though the cutting of window gaskets at a 45-degree angle was not detailed in the specifications. After the subcontractor filed a suit against the general contractor’s payment bond surety, the project architect further rejected the change order because gasket cutting was part of the specification requirements. (Duh! What else was the architect going to say? It was not going to concede there was an omission that resulted in a change order to the owner, right?) 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

More Regulations for Federal Contractors

October 08, 2014 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has been busy. In the last several weeks, the OFCCP has proposed regulations that will require contractors and subcontractors to provide summary compensation data and another rule prohibiting federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against employees or applicants who inquire about, discuss, or disclose their own compensation or the compensation of another employee or applicant. Equal Pay Report The OFCCP has proposed Summary Compensation regulations which would require federal contractors and subcontractors with more than 100 employees to “provide summary data on the compensation paid to employees by sex, race, ethnicity, specified job categories, and other relevant data points.” Covered employers would have to submit three types of information: 1. the total number of workers within a specific EEO-1 job category by race, ethnicity and sex; Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net

California Supreme Court Raises the Bar on Dangerous Conditions on Public Property Claims

February 16, 2016 — Roger Hughes – California Construction Law Blog
Earlier we wrote about the affirmative defense of “design immunity” which can be used by public entities to shield themselves from personal injury claims dangerous conditions on public property. Under the design immunity doctrine a public entity can avoid liability for dangerous conditions on public property if it can show: 1.A causal relationship between the plan or design and the accident; 2.Discretionary approval of the plan or design prior to construction; and 3.Substantial evidence supporting the reasonableness of the plan or design. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

Mediation Scheduled for Singer's Construction Defect Claims

February 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A judge has scheduled mediation and trial over the claims of Rihanna that her Beverley Hills home suffers from construction defects. The singer claims that the previous owners, Adriana and Heather Rudomin, did not disclose construction defects which lead to flooding from water leaks in January 2010. The Rudomins did not appear at the February 7th hearing, and the judge fined them $500. They will be required to explain their absence on March 12. The mediation will begin on May 7. The trial has been scheduled for February 24, 2014, and is expected to last three weeks. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Big Three: The 9th Circuit Joins The 6th Circuit and 7th Circuit in Holding That Sanctions For Bad-Faith Litigation Tactics Can Only Be Awarded Against Individual Lawyers and Not Law Firms

September 03, 2015 — Christopher B. Lloyd & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Law v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2015 S.O.S. 13–56099 – filed August 27, 2015), the Ninth Circuit joined the shortlist of Circuit Courts to hold that sanctions for bad-faith litigation tactics under 28 U.S.C. section 1927 can only be sought against individual attorneys and not law firms. Section 1927 authorizes sanctions against “[a]ny attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States … who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously….” On behalf of the client, an attorney with Kaass Law filed a complaint against ten different defendants, including Wells Fargo Bank, which moved to dismiss under F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(6). Rather than responding to the motion to dismiss, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the initial complaint; Wells Fargo Bank filed a notice of non-opposition. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher B. Lloyd, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr.Lloyd may be contacted at clloyd@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Why Federal and State Agencies are Considering Converting from a “Gallons Consumed” to a “Road Usage” Tax – And What are the Risks to the Consumer?

August 26, 2015 — Roger Hughes – California Construction Law Blog
“‘We’re going to have to find another way to finance the upkeep of the roads,’ Gov. Jerry Brown said earlier this year in rolling out his 2015 budget. Governor Brown gave no specifics, but last fall he signed a law that set up a commission to study a ‘road usage charge’ with a call to ‘establish a pilot program by Jan. 1, 2017…'” – San Jose Mercury News, January 27, 2015 This Change, It’s a Coming (Maybe) Many states and the federal government are seriously considering converting from a “gallons consumed” tax levy to a “miles driven” program for determining gasoline tax. There are several compelling reasons for such a change. First, our roads are falling apart while revenue from current highway taxes fall woefully short of our current and projected needs. In the meantime, the number of miles driven by all-electric cars that pay no gas tax, is increasing rapidly; and by hybrids that pay substantially reduced tax; and worse for the taxing authorities, by increasingly efficient gas-powered cars. All of this means rapidly dropping gas tax revenues. Seeing this trend, local, state and the federal governments are making a major push to convert from a consumption based tax to a “miles driven” tax. This a good thing for those of us that believe increased investment in our transportation infrastructure is of high national concern. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

California Court Confirms Broad Coverage Under “Ongoing Operations” Endorsements

December 01, 2017 — Kevin C. Brantley - Payne & Fears
A California Court of Appeal has confirmed that additional insured endorsements (“AIE”) granting coverage for liability arising out of a named insured’s “ongoing operations,” and in effect during those “ongoing operations,” do not require that the liability arise while the named insured is performing work. McMillin Mgmt. Servs., L.P. v. Financial Pacific Ins. Co., Cal. Ct. App., November 14, 2017, Case No. D069814. In McMillin, a construction defect insurance coverage action, Lexington Insurance Company argued that McMillin had no liability to homeowners until after their homes closed escrow; thus, McMillin did not face liability while the named insureds’ work was ongoing. The Court of Appeal rejected Lexington’s argument, finding that the “ongoing operations” AIEs provide only that McMillin’s liability “be ‘linked’ through a ‘minimal causal connection or incidental relationship’ with [the named insureds’] ongoing operations.” (internal citations omitted). The Court reasoned that Lexington had not established that all of the damage in the underlying action occurred after the named insureds completed their work, thus Lexington had not established as a matter of law that there was no potential for coverage for McMillin under the policies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin C. Brantley, Payne & Fears
Mr. Brantley may be contacted at kcb@paynefears.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES