Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Difficulty in Defending Rental Supplier’s Claim Under Credit Application

October 11, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In construction, one of the easiest claims to prove from a burden of proof standpoint is that of a supplier, particularly a rental equipment supplier. Oftentimes, these claims are more in the realm of a collection claim because a rental supplier will generally be able to establish that a party opened an account with them, signed a credit application and personal guaranty, and equipment was rented and even delivered to a specific jobsite during set dates. Defending these claims is not so easy. And even if there is a defense as it relates to some amounts, there needs to be an upside challenging those amounts when factoring in the attorney’s fees, costs, and interest on the other amounts and on continuing the dispute. An example of the difficulty in defending these claims from rental suppliers can be found in the recent case of Custom Design Expo, Inc. v. Synergy Rents, Inc., 2021 WL 4125806 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021). Here, a contractor rented equipment (e.g, forklifts) from a supplier. The equipment was rented on an open account and the contractor signed a personal guaranty. The supplier sued the contractor for about $81,000 that remained unpaid. The supplier appeared to waste no time and moved for summary judgment with an affidavit from its credit manager. The credit manager affirmed that the contractor executed a credit application for purposes of renting equipment on an open account, the application contained a personal guaranty, and the credit application formed the basis of a contract. The credit manager authenticated the credit application and affirmed that the contractor owed it about $81,000 in unpaid amounts for rental equipment that was furnished under the credit application. 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

El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors

April 25, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFF

The city of El Paso has recently increased surety bonds required of contractors from $10,000 to $50,000, according to the El Paso Times. Proponents of the increase believe it was necessary to protect homeowners from fly-by-night builders, while opponents argue that the increase will have an adverse effect on an industry in that is already suffering due to the economic slowdown.

Arguments for and against the increase have been flooding the blogosphere with their views. Christian Dorobantescu on the Small Business Entrepreneur Blog claims that “only about 15% of the city’s 2,500 contractors had been able to secure a higher bond to remain eligible for work after the new requirements were announced.” However, insurance companies have a different take. “From a surety broker standpoint, most contractors will be able qualify for the bond; some will just have to pay higher premium rates to obtain it,” a recent post on the Surety1 blog argues.

While the increased bond may help homeowners deal with construction defect claims, it is not clear what effect it will have on builders in El Paso.

Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increased 4.3% in November

January 28, 2015 — Victoria Stilwell – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- Home prices in 20 U.S. cities rose at a slower pace in the year ended in November, a sign the industry struggled to find momentum even amid low mortgage rates. The S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values increased 4.3 percent from November 2013 after rising 4.5 percent in the year ended in October, the group said Tuesday in New York. The median projection of 28 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 4.3 percent year-over-year advance. Nationally, prices rose 4.7 percent after a 4.6 percent gain in the year ended in October. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Victoria Stilwell, Bloomberg
Ms. Stilwell may be contacted at vstilwell1@bloomberg.net

Contractors Can No Longer Make Roof Repairs Following Their Own Inspections

July 02, 2018 — Jason Feld & Alex Chazen - Kahana & Feld LLP
California law mandates that any person who conducts roof inspections for a fee can no longer effectuate the actual repairs to the same property. Effective January 1, 2018, Business & Professions Code Section 7197 (Unfair Business Practices) deems it to be an unfair business practice for a home inspector who charges a homeowner a monetary fee for inspecting the property, to perform or offer to perform additional repairs due to the inherent financial interest and conflict raised by identifying alleged defects necessitating repairs. The new law is a result of California AB 1357, which was signed into law on October 5, 2017. The goal of the new law is to disincentivize a roof inspector from creating a report for the sole purpose of obtaining a bid to perform those documented repairs. The roof contractor can perform repairs identified in their report only after a twelve month “cooling period” which provides the homeowner an opportunity to obtain multiple bids/estimates for repairs based upon the inspector’s report. The new law also discourages home inspectors from providing a list of contractors who provide monetary referral fees back to the home inspector upon receiving repair work from the homeowner based exclusively on the home inspection report. The California Business & Professions Code Section 7195(a)(1) defines a “home inspection” as a “non-invasive, physical examination, performed for a fee in connection with the transfer…of the real property…or essential components of the residential dwelling.” Home inspection includes “any consultation regarding the property that is represented to be a home inspection or any confusingly similar term.” Business & Professions Code section 7195(a)(2) further defines a “home inspection” as including energy efficiency and solar. A “home inspection report” is a written report prepared for a fee issued after an inspection. Business & Professions Code section 7195(c). It is noted that a home inspector does not have to be a licensed architect, professional engineer, or general contractor with a Class “B” license issued by the California Contractors State License Board, but “it is the duty of a home inspector who is not licensed as a general contractor, structural pest control operator, or architect, or registered as a professional engineer to conduct a home inspection with the degree of care that a reasonably prudent home inspector would exercise. Business & Professions Code section 7196. Reprinted courtesy of Jason Feld, Kahana & Feld LLP and Alex Chazen, Kahana & Feld LLP Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanalaw.com Mr. Chazen may be contacted at achazen@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Burlingame Construction Defect Case Heading to Trial

December 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A condominium association in the Aspen, Colorado area will likely go to trial over its claims of construction defects, reports Aspen Daily News Online. According to the suit, siding and trim were improperly manufactured and installed. The homeowners engaged experts to determine the appropriate remedy, and then sought bids from contractors. Shaw Construction, which built the condos, responded with a counteroffer. Chris Rhody, the lawyer for the homeowners, said there was “a big difference” between the association’s request and the builder’s counteroffer. According to Mr. Rhody, settlement is still possible, but seems unlikely. A date for the trial is yet to be set. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Uniwest Rides Again (or, Are Architects Subject to Va. Code Section 11-4.1?)

October 16, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In 2010, the Virginia Supreme Court held in Uniwest Const., Inc. v. Amtech Elevator Servs., Inc., that Va. Code Sec. 11-4.1 renders completely void and unenforceable any indemnification provision in a construction contract between a contractor and subcontractor that seeks to indemnify the indemnified party from its own negligent acts. In short, the Virginia Supreme Court stated that such overly broad provisions violate Section 11-4.1. A recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia Federal District Court examined a provision in a contract between a designer/architect and a contractor or owner on a project. In Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn. v. Lessard Design Inc. the Court examined the application of Section 11-4.1 to the following provision of a design contract where Lessard, the indemnitor, agreed to:

[i]ndemnify, defend and hold the Owner, Owner’s Developer, and Owner’s and Owner’s Developer’s wholly owned affiliates and the agents, employees and officers of any of them harmless from and against any and all losses, liabilities, expenses, claims, fines and penalties, costs and expenses, including, but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs relating to the services performed by the Architect hereunder . . .

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Homeowner's Claim for Collapse Survives Summary Judgment

September 20, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer failed to present adequate evidence on summary judgment that damage caused by the collapse of a swimming pool was not covered. Klein v. State Farm Ins. Co., 2017 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3030 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. July 11, 2017). Klein notified State Farm that his in-ground pool collapsed on February 5, 2014, with a side wall falling into the pool, causing damage to brick, borders and the patio around the pool. Upon inspection, State Farm's agent found that the cover of the pool had partially fallen into the pool, and that the vinyl pool liner had a tear. State Farm covered the damage to the pool liner, but denied coverage for the in-ground swimming pool walls, the brick border and the patio surrounding the pool. State Farm maintained that the loss was due to a "collapse," which was excluded under the homeowner's policy. 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

A Year Later, Homeowners Still Repairing Damage from Sandy

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The New York and New Jersey coastal communities are still in the thick of rebuilding and repairing after hurricane Sandy struck almost a year ago. Newsday reports that in the eight months following the October 2012 storm, more than 23,000 building permits were issued in Long Island communities, an 11 percent rise over the previous year. The town of Long Beach, New York has waived fees and hired more staff in order to encourage people to rebuild, in order to rebuild the town’s tax base. Homeowners aren’t going it alone, New York expects to fund more than $1 billion of rebuilding for homeowners who are unable to afford repairing their homes. At this point, the state is still processing more than five thousand requests for grants. The money is still in the state’s coffers. Other homeowners are still filing insurance claims. While towns are busy issuing building permits, contractors are busy too. Bill Sims of Sims Steel said that his business has changed from commercial construction to raising homes higher to put them above future floods. “There’s probably been more homes raised this last year than in the previous 20 years,” he told Newsday. Another contractor, Pat Gordon said that he is “only taking what we can handle.” He described Long Beach as “a traffic jam of construction trucks that has never been seen before.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES