Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Blackstone to Buy Cosmopolitan Resort for $1.73 Billion

May 19, 2014 — Hui-yong Yu – Bloomberg
Deutsche Bank AG (DBK) agreed to sell the Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas hotel and casino to Blackstone Group LP (BX) for $1.73 billion in cash, ending a six-year money-losing venture into casino development. “The bank is committed to reducing its non-core legacy positions in a capital-efficient manner which benefits shareholders,” Pius Sprenger, head of the Frankfurt-based lender’s non-core operations unit, said in a statement today. The division is selling and winding down assets that Deutsche Bank doesn’t consider to be central to its business. Germany’s largest lender foreclosed on the Cosmopolitan after developer Ian Bruce Eichner defaulted on a construction loan in January 2008, and has labeled it a temporary investment. The company was seeking more than $2 billion for the property, a person familiar with the situation said last month. Two others said it was valued at closer to $1.5 billion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hui-yong Yu, Bloomberg
Hui-yong Yu may be contacted at hyu@bloomberg.net

Charles Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation

October 12, 2020 — Michael Velladao - Lewis Brisbois
In Carter v. Pulte Home Corp., __Cal.App.5th__(July 23, 2020), the California Court of Appeal affirmed the entry of judgment in favor of subcontractors in connection with a Complaint for Intervention based on equitable subrogation filed by Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”) seeking to recover defense costs incurred in defending Pulte Home Corporation (“Pulte”) in an underlying construction defect lawsuit. The parties’ dispute arose out of Travelers’ defense of Pulte as an additional insured under policies issued to four subcontractors involved in the underlying construction defect lawsuit. Several subcontractors involved in the underlying construction defect lawsuit refused to defend Pulte based on the indemnity clauses in their subcontracts. Such clauses promised to indemnify Pulte as follows: “all liability, claims, judgments, suits, or demands for damages to persons or property arising out of, resulting from, or relating to Contractor’s performance of work under the Agreement (“Claims”) unless such Claims have been specifically determined by the trier of fact to be the sole negligence of Pulte. . . .” Pulte eventually settled the construction defect lawsuit and its claims against all of the subcontractors. Travelers ultimately paid $320,491.82 for Pulte’s defense and recovered $164,400 from some of the subcontractors. Travelers’ intervention in the underlying lawsuit was intended to recover the remaining $156,091.82 from the subcontractors that refused to indemnify Pulte for the defense of the construction defect lawsuit. In the underlying trial, Travelers argued that the subcontractors were obligated to pay defense costs on a joint and several basis (minus what Travelers had already recovered). The trial court did not agree and held that Travelers was not entitled to equitable subrogation for the remaining defense costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Velladao, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Velladao may be contacted at Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com

Case Alert Update: SDV Case Tabbed as One of New York’s Top Three Cases to Watch

January 10, 2018 — Richard W. Brown - SDV Blog
Argument before the Court of Appeals has now been scheduled for February 7, 2018, in Gilbane Building Co. v. St. Paul Insurance, with a long anticipated decision by New York’s highest court to be issued shortly thereafter. In its September 18, 2017 edition, Law360.com highlighted three major cases with significant implications on insurance coverage that will soon be decided by the New York Court of Appeals. Gilbane presents an opportunity for the Court to address the growing number of divergent decisions regarding the prerequisites for qualifying as an additional insured, as it considers an Appellate Division’s holding that a construction manager is not entitled to coverage as an additional insured under a contractor’s policy because the two companies did not enter into a direct contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com

An Uncharted Frontier: Nevada First State to Prohibit Defense-Within-Limits Provisions

July 10, 2023 — Geoffrey B. Fehling & Andrew S. Koelz - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Nevada recently became the first state to prohibit defense-within-limits provisions in liability insurance policies. Defense-within-limits provisions—resulting in what’s called “eroding” or “wasting” policies—reduce the policy’s applicable limit of insurance by amounts the insurer pays to defend the policyholder against a claim or suit. These provisions are commonly included in errors and omissions (E&O), directors and officers (D&O) and other management liability policies. This is in contrast to other policies, most commonly commercial general liability policies, which provide defense “outside of limits” where defense costs do not reduce the policy’s limit. Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Andrew S. Koelz, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Mr. Koelz may be contacted at akoelz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Back to Basics: What is a Changes Clause?

July 18, 2018 — J. Cole Phillips – Smith Currie
The Changes Clause is one of the most important, perhaps the most important, provision in any construction contract. Project designs are rarely perfect. A Changes Clause provides a mechanism for dealing with such imperfections as well as allowing project owners the flexibility to update a project’s design as the project progresses. A good Changes Clause specifies when an owner can change the original scope of the contract, how the parties should resolve the value of the changed scope and when payment should be made to the contractor or a credit given to the owner. A good Changes Clause will also provide a mechanism for the contractor to notify the owner when it believes a change order is due and specify the time within which such notice must be given. For the contractor, failure to pay attention to the requirements of the Changes Clause can lead to forfeiture of the right to seek an adjustment to the contract value or contract completion date. For an Owner, failure to pay attention to and enforce the requirements of the Changes Clause can result in unnecessary payments to the Contractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of J. Cole Phillips, Smith Currie
Mr. Phillips may be contacted at jcphillips@smithcurrie.com

The Construction Project is Late—Allocation of Delay

November 17, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
The construction project is late. Very late. The owner is upset and notifies the contractor that it is assessing liquidated damages. The contractor, in turn, claims that the project is late because of excusable, compensable delays and, perhaps, excusable, noncompensable delays. This is a common and unfortunate story between an owner and contractor on any late construction project. Now the fun begins regarding the allocation of the delay! Through previous articles, I discussed that in this scenario the burden really falls on the contractor to establish that the liquidated damages were improperly assessed against it and, thus, it is entitled to additional time and/or extended general conditions as a result of excusable delays. Naturally, this requires the contractor to develop a critical path analysis (time impact analysis) allocating the impacts / delays (and the reasons for the impacts/ delays) to the project completion date. The reason the burden really falls on the contractor is because the owner’s burden is relatively easy – the project was not complete on time pursuant to the contract and any approved changed orders. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

When OSHA Cites You

April 22, 2024 — Michael Metz-Topodas - Construction Executive
With the strong bonds that form among construction project teams, workers looking out for each other helps keep safety foremost in everyone’s mind. But sometimes, even the very best intentions alone can’t prevent an occasional misstep—a forgotten hard hat, a sagging rope line—which can and often does result in an OSHA citation. These regulatory reminders can bring unfortunate consequences: penalties, higher insurance premiums, potential worker injury claims, loss of bidding eligibility, loss of reputation and even public embarrassment, because citations are published on OSHA’s website. Due to citations’ adverse effects, contractors have incentives to minimize them. They can do this by asserting available defenses, because a citation is only an alleged violation, not a confirmed one. But making defenses available begins well before a citation is issued, well before OSHA arrives to a construction site and well before a violation even occurs. Instead, contractors’ ongoing safety programs should incorporate the necessary measures to preserve OSHA citation defenses in three key areas: lack of employee exposure, lack of employer knowledge and impossibility. EMPLOYEE EXPOSURE To sustain a citation against an employer, OSHA must not only identify an applicable standard that the company violated but also show that the violation exposed employees to hazards and risk of injury. Absent evidence of actual exposure, OSHA often makes this showing by asserting that performing job functions necessarily exposes employees to the cited hazard. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Metz-Topodas, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Metz-Topodas may be contacted at michael.metz-topodas@saul.com

Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment Based Upon Vandalism Exclusion

June 18, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's breach of contract claim because there was a disputed issue of fact regarding the applicability of the vandalism exclusion. Poole v. Untied Servs. Auto. Assn., 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2394 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 16, 2014). The plaintiff rented a residence to tenants. The tenants performed repairs to the residence which resulted in damage in excess of $126,000. The tenants vacated the residence. The plaintiff submitted a claim to USAA for benefits under her homeowners' policy. USAA denied coverage based upon exclusions for damage caused by, among other things, faulty workmanship, renovation and remodeling. Plaintiff sued and USAA moved for summary judgment. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES