Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Cold Stress Safety and Protection

February 27, 2023 — The Hartford Staff - The Hartford Insights
The best time to think about cold stress safety isn’t when it’s about to snow – it’s actually when it’s still warm out. “Construction firms and other businesses may start to think about protecting workers against the cold when frigid temperatures and the winter are right around the corner. But we’ve found that oftentimes, that may be too late to start thinking about cold stress prevention,” said Chris O’Hala, director of construction Risk Engineering at The Hartford. “Thinking about cold protection months ahead can prevent serious injuries, illnesses or even death.” O’Hala added that possible solutions for cold-related risks, like planning for temporary heat or building temporary enclosures, “require very specific planning, equipment and materials.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights

BWB&O is Recognized in the 2024 Edition of Best Law Firms®!

November 16, 2023 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is honored to announce the firm has been recognized for its fourth consecutive year in the 2024 edition of Best Law Firms® and is ranked by Best Lawyers® regionally in three practice areas. To read the publication, please click here. Regional Tier 1 Las Vegas: Litigation – Construction Orange County: Litigation – Construction Regional Tier 2 Orange County: Family Law Regional Tier 3 Orange County: Commercial Litigation Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Sierra Pacific v. Bradbury Goes Unchallenged: Colorado’s Six-Year Statute of Repose Begins When a Subcontractor’s Scope of Work Ends

November 03, 2016 — Luke Mecklenburg – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
It’s official: the October 20, 2016 deadline to petition for certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals on its decision in Sierra Pacific Industries, Inc. v. Bradbury has passed, so it appears that decision will stand. In Sierra Pacific, the Court of Appeals held as a matter of first impression that the statute of repose for a general contractor to sue a subcontractor begins to run when a subcontractor’s scope of work is substantially complete, regardless of the status of the overall project. Sierra Pac. Indus., Inc. v. Bradbury, 2016 COA 132, ¶ 28, ___ P.3d ___. The Court of Appeals interpreted the statute of repose in C.R.S. section 13-80-104, which requires that “all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of any improvement to real property” must be brought within six years of substantial completion of that improvement. C.R.S. § 13-80-104(1)(a). Recognizing that “an improvement may be [to] a discrete component of an entire project” under Shaw Construction, LLC v. United Builder Services, Inc., 296 P.3d 145 (Colo. App. 2012), the Court of Appeals determined that “a subcontractor has substantially completed its role in the improvement at issue when it finishes working on the improvement.” Sierra Pac., 2016 COA at ¶¶ 20, 28. In doing so, it rejected Sierra Pacific’s argument that the statute could be tolled under the repair doctrine “while others worked to repair [the subcontractor’s] ‘improper installation work and flawed repair work.’” Id. at ¶ 29. Because six years had undisputedly passed since the subcontractor completed its scope of work when Sierra Pacific filed suit against it, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting the subcontractor’s motion for summary judgment under Section 13-80-104(1)(a). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors

August 13, 2019 — Ira M. Schulman & Emily D. Anderson - ConsensusDocs
Payment bonds have been a staple of public construction projects since 1874, when the U.S. Congress first passed the Heard Act, which required that contractors obtain payment bonds for public projects to ensure that subcontractors and material suppliers have a way to recover their damages if an upstream contractor fails to pay for work performed and materials furnished on the project. The 1874 Heard Act has since been replaced by the 1935 Miller Act, and the concept has been expanded to construction projects funded by the states through state statutes known as “Little Miller Acts.” But the structure remains the same: On most public projects where the project’s cost exceeds $100,000, the prime contractor (the bond principal) is required to obtain a payment bond from a surety equal to the contract price to guarantee to subcontractors and material suppliers (the bond obligees) that the surety will pay for labor and materials under certain statutory or contractual conditions should the contractor fail to make payment. A surety is jointly and severally liable with the contractor to the subcontractor, which means that the subcontractor may seek recovery against either the contractor or the surety or both, and the contractor and surety will be liable for the damages together. Put another way, in most states and in federal court, an unpaid subcontractor has the right to sue only the surety on the payment bond without joining the contractor because a contract of suretyship is a direct liability of the surety to the subcontractor.1 When the contractor fails to perform, the surety becomes directly responsible at once — it is unnecessary for the subcontractor to establish that the contractor failed to carry out its contract before the obligation of the surety becomes absolute. Reprinted courtesy of Ira M. Schulman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Emily D. Anderson, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Schulman may be contacted at schulmani@pepperlaw.com Ms. Anderson may be contacted at andersone@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Irma

September 07, 2017 — Stephen H. Reisman – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
While Hurricane Irma boils in the Atlantic and seems to be aiming towards Florida, storm preparations are well underway. As contractors are busy organizing efforts to secure their job sites, we at Peckar & Abramson offer some quick reminders that may prove helpful when the dust finally settles:

Review your contracts, particularly the force majeure provisions, and be sure to comply with applicable notice requirements.
Even if not expressly required at this point in time, consider providing written notice to project owners that their projects are being prepared for a potential hurricane or tropical storm and that productivity and the progress of the work will be affected, with the actual time and cost impact to be determined after the event.
Consult your hurricane plan (which is often a contract exhibit) and confirm compliance with all specified safety, security and protection measures.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephen H. Reisman, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Reisman may be contacted at sreisman@pecklaw.com

COVID-19 Business Interruption Lawsuits Begin: Iconic Oceana Grill in New Orleans Files Insurance Coverage Lawsuit

April 20, 2020 — Jeffrey J. Vita & William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
On Monday, the iconic New Orleans restaurant, Oceana Grill, filed the first Coronavirus-related business interruption insurance coverage lawsuit in a US jurisdiction. The declaratory judgment action styled Cajun Conti, LLC, et. al. d/b/a Oceana Grill v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London was filed in Louisiana state court for the Parish of Orleans. As a direct result of the government-mandated closures and restrictions on public gatherings implemented by the City of New Orleans and State of Louisiana, Oceana Grill’s petition anticipates a significant loss of business income. Based on allegations in the petition, there are several aspects of Oceana Grill’s policy that make this a good test case for business interruption coverage stemming from the Coronavirus. Although the specific policy language is not quoted in the petition, coverage provisions are categorically identified throughout. As a preliminary matter, the policy at issue appears to be written on an “all risks” basis, meaning the insuring agreement of the policy would likely be triggered generally by all risks of “physical loss or damage” unless specifically excluded. This basis for coverage, which is common in property policies, is advantageous to policyholders, as it limits the insured’s burden of proof to establishing that there was physical loss or damage while leaving the burden of applying any more specific exclusion to the insurance company. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Just Decided – New Jersey Supreme Court: Insurers Can Look To Extrinsic Evidence To Deny a Defense

September 05, 2022 — Randy J. Maniloff - White and Williams LLP
Last week, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided Norman International, Inc. v. Admiral Insurance Company, No. 086155 (N.J. Aug. 11, 2022). At issue was coverage for a work-site injury and the interpretation of a policy exclusion for operations or activities performed by an insured in certain counties in New York. The case is significant in terms of addressing causation for purposes of the application of exclusions. But the more wide-reaching issue has nothing to do with the scope of the exclusion. The real story from Norman is the New Jersey high court’s pronouncement that an insurer, in certain circumstances, can use extrinsic evidence to deny a defense to its insured. New Jersey duty to defend law has been a jungle land and in need of more supreme court guidance. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Randy J. Maniloff, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Maniloff may be contacted at maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com

A Few Construction Related Bills to Keep an Eye On in 2023 (UPDATED)

February 20, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
The annual General Assembly session is now well underway here in the Commonwealth of Virginia. As is always the case, those in our fine state legislature have introduced with varying success a few construction-related bills. This post will list just a few without comment, and a big one at the end that will likely spur a post or two down the road here at Construction Law Musings: HB1490: Virginia Public Procurement Act; certain construction contracts; performance and payment bonds. Allows localities to allow a contractor of indefinite-delivery or quantity contracts, defined in the bill, who is otherwise required to furnish performance and payment bonds in the sum of the contract amount to the public body with which he contracted to furnish such bonds only the dollar amount of the individual tasks identified in the underlying contract. Such contractors shall not be required to furnish the sum of the contract amount if the governing locality has adopted such an ordinance. UPDATE: Passed the House and is being considered in the Senate UPDATE 2: A substitute bill has passed both the House and the Senate. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES