Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Indemnification Against Release/“Disposal” of Hazardous Materials

May 18, 2020 — Brian S. Wood & Miranda R. Millerick - ConsensusDocs
It is very common, if not nearly an industry standard, for construction contracts and subcontracts to contain provisions addressing the discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials. Many of these provisions require a contractor or subcontractor to discontinue work where hazardous materials are discovered. An example of such a clause can be found in the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Document A201 (2017), Section 10.3.1, which states in part:

If the Contractor encounters a hazardous material or substance not addressed in the Contract Documents and if reasonable precautions will be inadequate to prevent foreseeable bodily injury or death to persons resulting from a material or substance, including but not limited to asbestos or polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), encountered on the site by the Contractor, the Contractor shall, upon recognizing the condition, immediately stop Work in the affected area and notify the Owner and Architect of the condition.

A similar clause in ConsensusDocs does not require the contractor to stop work, but provides that the “Contractor shall not be obligated to commence or continue work until any Hazardous Material discovered at the Work site has been removed, rendered or determined to be harmless by the Owner as certified by an independent testing laboratory and approved by the appropriate government agency.” Reprinted courtesy of Brian S. Wood, Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP and Miranda R. Millerick, Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP Mr. Wood may be contacted at bswood@smithcurrie.com Ms. Millerick may be contacted at mrmillerick@smithcurrie.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Property Insurance Exclusion: Leakage of Water Over 14 Days or More

July 10, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The recent opinion of Whitley v. American Integrity Ins. Co. of Florida, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D1503a (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), as a follow-up to this article on the property insurance exclusion regarding the “constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water…over a period of 14 or more days,” is a beneficial opinion to insureds. In this case, the insured had a vacation home. A plumbing leak occurred that caused water damage to the home. The plumbing leak occurred during a period of time that lasted approximately 30 days. For this reason, the property insurer denied the claim per the exclusion that the policy does not cover loss caused by repeated leakage of water over a period of 14 or more days from a plumbing system. Summary judgment was granted by the trial court in favor of the insurer based on this exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Less Than Valiant Effort”

June 21, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A Miller Act claimant in federal court in New Jersey in relation to a VA medical center project found itself on the wrong end of the law and was sent packing by the court. The claimant had supplied products for the project to general contractor Valiant Group, LLC, pursuant to a purchase order from the GC. The general contractor allegedly refused to pay the supplier, leading to the claim against the GC and its payment bond surety in the amount of $126,900. The supplier also sought recovery under the federal Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3901-07. State law claims were asserted as well. Chipping away at the federal law claims – the claims forming the asserted basis for federal court jurisdiction for the case – the court first dispensed with the Prompt Payment Act claim. According to the court, allegations that the general contractor had “wrongfully and improperly withheld remuneration… despite [having] ‘received payment from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’" – whether or not accurate – did not trigger the Act. The court wrote: “The Prompt Payment Act was enacted ‘to provide the federal government with an incentive to pay government contractors on time by requiring agencies to pay penalties . . . on certain overdue bills . . . [and] was later amended to include provisions applicable to subcontractors.’… Absent from the Act, however, are ‘any explicit provisions for subcontractor enforcement if the prime contractor fails to make timely payment.’… This is because the Act ‘merely requires that the prime contractor's contract with the subcontractor include the specified payment clause. [It] does not require the prime contractor to actually make payments to the subcontractor[.]’… The Act, therefore, does not ‘give subcontractors an additional cause of action for an alleged breach by a general contractor of a subcontract.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Fourth Circuit Holds that a Municipal Stormwater Management Assessment is a Fee and Not a Prohibited Railroad Tax

April 22, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On February 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. City of Roanoke, et al.; the Chesapeake Bay Foundation was an Intervenor-Defendant. The Fourth Circuit held that a large stormwater management fee (stated to be $417,000.00 for the year 2017) levied by the City of Roanoke against the railroad to assist in the financing of the City’s permitted municipal stormwater management system was a permissible fee and not a discriminatory tax placed on the railroad. The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 specifically provides that states and localities may not impose any tax that discriminates against a rail carrier, 49 U.S.C. § 11501. Accordingly, the issue confronting the Fourth Circuit was whether the assessment was fee and not a tax. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

First Lumber, Now Drywall as Canada-U.S. Trade Tensions Escalate

November 30, 2016 — Katia Dmitrieva – Bloomberg
A new trade dispute has broken out between Canada and the U.S. that threatens to raise prices in Canada’s already overheated housing markets. The Canada Border Services Agency imposed a provisional tariff as high as 277 percent on U.S. drywall imports in September after ruling that manufacturers were dumping the product, or selling it below the price in their home market, undercutting local suppliers. The tariff has raised the price of drywall, or gypsum board as it’s also called, by as much as 30 percent and is causing “chaos” and delays as contractors scramble for alternative sources. Some builders say the tariff could add as much as C$13,000 ($9,671) to the cost of a new home, which would amount to a C$2.6 billion increase to the roughly 200,000 homes built in Canada each year. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Katie Dmitrieva, Bloomberg
Ms. Dmitrieva may be followed on Twitter @katiadmi

Fall 2024 Legislative Update:

October 28, 2024 — Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Review of (a) RCW 60.30.010-020, (b) RCW 49.17.530, (c) RCW 19.95.020, (d) RCW 39.116.005, et seq., (e) RCW 36.70B.080, and (f) RCW 39.12.010 and .13 While much of the focus on the recent legislative updates has been on RCW 39.04.360, a number of other legislative changes may also have significant impacts on Washington’s construction industry. Six of these changes are summarized below. A. RCW 60.30.010 and .020 (SSB 6108) – Concerning Retainage on Private Construction, Effective June 6, 2024 Last year, ESSB 5528 imposed restrictions and obligations related to retainage and timing of final payment on private (non-public works) projects. It capped retainage at 5%, required prompt payment on final payments, and required owners to accept a retainage bond on private construction projects, excluding single-family residential construction less than 12 units. This year, SSB 6108 adds suppliers to the statutes (RCW 60.30.010 and 0.020) pertaining to retainage on private construction projects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

ASBCA Validates New Type of Claim Related to Unfavorable CPARS Review [i]

May 03, 2017 — John P. Ahlers - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
For government contractors, an unfavorable performance rating review posted to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”) can be extremely costly. Many of the government-negotiated solicitations include past performance as an important, and sometimes even primary, evaluation factor for contract award. An unfavorable CPARS review on a past contract can cause the contractor to incur substantial extra costs in addressing the unfavorable review with contracting officers on future solicitations, and, in some instances, the contractor saddled with an unfair or inaccurate CPARS may have to challenge the review and recover some of these costs. Both the Federal Court of Claims and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) have held that they have jurisdiction to hear Contract Dispute Act claims regarding unfair and/or inaccurate CPARS review. The relief available to contractors until this year was a declaration from the Court of Claims or Board that an unfair or inaccurate CPARS review was arbitrary and capricious. Neither the Board nor the Court had the authority or power to order the contracting officer to change the unfavorable review. The contractor who received a declaration from the Court or the Board regarding an unfavorable CPARS review may use it in the future to explain the unfavorable review when bidding new government work; however, the unfavorable review remains in the CPARS system and shows up on all future solicitations, the Board or Court decision notwithstanding. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

What ‘The Curse’ Gets Wrong About Passive House Architecture

April 02, 2024 — Teresa Xie - Bloomberg
In the fifth episode of Showtime’s The Curse, two potential buyers are touring a boutique house in Española, a soon-to-be gentrified Santa Fe neighborhood when one of them makes a remark about the temperature. “Sorry, can I get a water? It’s just really hot in here,” he says, airing out his sweat-stained shirt. The quirky home’s architect-slash-developer, played by Emma Stone, says, “Sure!” and without skipping a beat, continues to explain the virtues of her passive house design: The home functions like a thermos, with no need for air conditioning — unless any air escapes the house. Then it takes five to seven hours for the room to recover. Owning a passive house sounds like a nightmare, right? If you’re buying a one-of-a-kind, mirror-clad spec house from Stone and co-star Nathan Fielder, it may well be. On The Curse, the two play a do-gooder couple attempting to make an HGTV series (with Benny Safdie) about turning regular houses into carbon-neutral passive homes. Odd things happen to Stone and Fielder over the show’s first season: trouble with the laws of gravity, the trials of a failing marriage and a literal curse from a small child. But the weirdest might be the show’s portrayal of passive house design, an energy-efficient design standard that has been around since the 1970s. Passive building, which has its origins in Europe, relies on advanced construction methods to seal a structure in an airtight envelope, thereby reducing energy consumption for heating and cooling by as much as 75%. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Teresa Xie, Bloomberg

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES