Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Formal Request for Time Extension Not Always Required to Support Constructive Acceleration

April 25, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Does a constructive acceleration claim require the contractor to always request an extension of time which is then denied by the owner? While this is certainly the preference and the contractor should be requesting an extension of time as a matter of course for an excusable delay, the answer is NO! in certain circumstances. This is conveyed in the factually detailed case discussed below where a formal request for an extension of time was not required for the contractor to support its constructive acceleration claim. But first, what is constructive acceleration: Constructive acceleration “occurs when the government demands compliance with an original contract deadline, despite excusable delay by the contractor.” The Federal Circuit in Fraser defined the elements of constructive acceleration as follows: (1) that the contractor encountered a delay that is excusable under the contract; (2) that the contractor made a timely and sufficient request for an extension of the contract schedule; (3) that the government denied the contractor’s request for an extension or failed to act on it within a reasonable time; (4) that the government insisted on completion of the contract within a period shorter than the period to which the contractor would be entitled by taking into account the period of excusable delay, after which the contractor notified the government that it regarded the alleged order to accelerate as a constructive change in the contract; and (5) that the contractor was required to expend extra resources to compensate for the lost time and remain on schedule. Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba v. U.S., 2022 WL 815826, *42 (Fed.Cl. 2022) quoting Fraser Constr. Co. v. U.S., 384 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted). 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

Haight’s Sacramento Office Has Moved

April 17, 2019 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP has moved its Sacramento office to a new location. Effective March 18, 2019, Haight’s new Sacramento office address is: 500 Capitol Mall Suite 2150 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.702.3200 F: 916.570.1947 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

In a Win for Property Owners California Court Expands and Clarifies Privette Doctrine

March 28, 2018 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
We’ve written before about the Privette doctrine, which generally holds that a higher-tiered party is not liable for injuries sustained by employees of a lower-tiered party under the peculiar risk doctrine, here, here, here and here. We’ve also talked about some of the exceptions to the Privette doctrine, including the non-delegable duty doctrine and the negligent exercise of retained control doctrine, which provide that a hirer cannot rely on the Privette doctrine if it owed a non-delegable duty to an employee of an independent contractor or if it retained control over the work of an employee of an independent contractor and negligently exercised that control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to injuries to that employee. In the next case, Delgadillo v. Television Center, Inc., Second District Court of Appeals, Case No. B270985 (February 2, 2018), the Court examined whether a property owner could be held liable under the non-delegable duty doctrine and negligent exercise of retained control doctrine for failing to provide structural anchor bolts on its buildings which led to the death of an employee of window washing company. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rose, Black, & Dean, LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Court Agrees to Stay Coverage Matter While Underlying State Action is Pending

October 29, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court granted the insured's motion to stay the coverage action while the construction defect case was pending in state court. Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Essex Homes Southeast, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133120 (D. S.C., Sept. 23, 2014). The homeowners sued Essex Homes in state court for construction defects in a home built and sold to them by Essex Homes. The suit sought damages for property damage based on negligence, breach of implied warranty, and breach of express warranties arising out of the alleged construction defects. The complaint alleged that a water leak in the house caused water damage and resulted in mold growth that was not discovered for several years. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion

May 20, 2019 — Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine & Alexander D. Russo - Hunton Andrews Kurth
The Southern District of Georgia recently ruled that Evanston Insurance Company is not entitled to summary judgment on whether its policies’ pollution exclusion bars coverage for the release of nitrogen into a warehouse. The case stems from an incident at Xytex Tissue Services, LLC’s warehouse, where Xytex stored biological material at low temperatures. Xytex used an on-site “liquid nitrogen delivery system” to keep the material properly cooled. This system releases liquid nitrogen, which would vaporize into nitrogen gas and cool the biological material. On February 5, 2017, a Xytex employee, Deputy Greg Meagher, entered the warehouse to investigate activated motion detectors and burglar alarms. Deputy Meagher was overcome by nitrogen gas and died as a result. Following Deputy Meagher’s death, his heirs filed suit against Xytex and other defendants. Evanston denied coverage based on the pollution exclusion in its policy. Evanston then brought a declaratory judgment action to confirm its coverage position. In denying Evanston’s summary judgment motion, the Southern District of Georgia reasoned that the type of injury sustained is essential in analyzing whether the pollution exclusion applies. Specifically, Xytex argued, and the court agreed, that the underlying lawsuit alleged that the bodily injury was caused by a lack of oxygen, not exposure to nitrogen. The court also distinguished prior decisions, explaining that injury caused by a lack of oxygen is not a contamination or irritation of the body in the same way as injury resulting from exposure to carbon monoxide or lead. The court also found that Xytex “reasonably expected that liability related to a nitrogen leak would be insured.” Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine and Alexander D. Russo Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Russo may be contacted at arusso@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contract Should Have Clear and Definite Terms to Avoid a Patent Ambiguity

December 11, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you need more of a reason to have contracts with clear and definite terms, this case is it. This case exemplifies what can happen if the contract, not only does not have clear and definite terms, but contains a patent ambiguity. The contract will be deemed unenforceable which will make one of the contracting parties very unhappy! In Bowein v. Sherman, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D2208a (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), the buyer and seller entered into a real estate transaction. The transaction was for $2 Million. The purchase-and-sale agreement included the address and legal description of a parcel to be sold. However, there was a section in the agreement called “Other Terms and Conditions” which identified that the offer was actually for four properties that were being sold by the seller. When it came to closing time, the seller refused to close because the seller disputed that the $2 Million purchase price was for all four of his properties. The buyer sued the seller for specific performance to force the sale which the trial court agreed in favor of the buyer. However, the appellate court did not. First, the appellate court held that “[t]he equitable remedy of specific performance may be granted only where the parties have actually entered into a definite and certain agreement.” Bowein, supra (quotation and citation omitted). 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

Shaken? Stirred? A Primer on License Bond Claims in California

July 14, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Shaken? Stirred? A bit hot under the tuxedo collar perhaps? Maybe it’s time for a martini. Or two. When your project’s a mess, your contractor isn’t returning your calls, and you don’t have a license to kill it’s only natural that you would want to go after that other license: the contractor’s license bond. However, except for smaller claims, or situations where you discover that the contractor is or might be judgment-proof, going after a contractor’s license bond isn’t necessarily the panacea many might hope it to be. Read on to learn why. What is a license bond? First, a license bond is not insurance. While insurance is typically limited to property damage and personal injury, a license bond covers a contractor’s violation of the Contractors State License Law. All California contractors are required to have on file a license bond (or, alternative, such as a cash deposit) with the California Contractors State License Board (“CSLB”). 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

Location, Location, Location—Even in Construction Liens

October 28, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
We all know the importance of filing a construction lien within 120 days of your last work. Nebraska Construction Lien Act, § 52-137. But, equally, if not more important is filing the construction lien on the correct property. Often times on a construction project, the exact address of the project may not be known. And, if there are a few buildings going up on the same general site, it is difficult to determine which property or building address you are working on. Sometimes you can look at the contract. For example, the AIA family of documents lists the address on the first page. But, what if the wrong address is listed? What if the wrong owner is listed? 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES