FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Amazon Hits Pause on $2.5B HQ2 Project in Arlington, Va.

March 27, 2023 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
Amazon is tapping the brakes on its $2.5-billion HQ2 second headquarters project in Arlington County, Va., announcing an indefinite delay to the start of the program’s 2.8-million-sq-ft second phase, known as PenPlace. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Withdrawal of an Admission in California May Shift Costs—Including Attorneys’ Fees—Incurred in Connection with the Withdrawal

January 24, 2018 — Tony Carucci – Real Estate Litigation Blog
Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300, a court may permit a party to withdraw an admission made in response to a request for admission upon noticed motion. The court may only do so, however, “if it determines that the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and that the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300(b). The court may also “impose conditions on the granting of the motion that are just, including, but not limited to . . . (2) An order that the costs of any additional discovery be borne in whole or in part by the party withdrawing or amending the admission.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300(c). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

---

Construction Litigation Roundup: “You May Want an Intervention …”

June 10, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
You may want an intervention … but you are not getting one! So said a federal court in New Orleans to a masonry supplier seeking to intervene in in an upstream subcontractor’s lawsuit against a payment bond surety for allegedly unpaid subcontract sums. It all seems so obvious: the masonry supplier indicates it is unpaid, and the subcontractor to which it supplied materials is saying the same thing and pursuing monies from the general contractor’s surety. Eventually, if the subcontractor prevails against the surety, monies ought to flow to the supplier – a set of facts lending itself to an intervention. The federal district court disagreed, however. Referring to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) and prior United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case law the topic, the court opined that the masonry supplier lacked an interest in the subcontractor’s potential recovery that was “related to the property or transaction that forms the basis of the controversy…an interest that is ‘direct, substantial, [and] legally protectable.’" 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

---

Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Collapse Coverage Fails

March 22, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly.- Insurance Law Hawaii

The insurer's motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the insured's claim for collapse coverage was rejected by the Supreme Court of New York. Parauda v. Encompass Ins. Co. of Am., 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 269 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 25, 2018).

The insureds submitted a claim to Encompass for damage to the brick siding, or façade, of their home, which was bulging near the front door. Encompass hired H2M Architects and Engineers to inspect the home and issue a report. H2M determined that the brick façade near the front door was separated from the house. Photos showed that the bricks had separated, the mortar joints were cracked, and there were cracks and deterioration in the mortar. H2M concluded that the brick façade was in poor condition and need repairs and/or replacement. H2M concluded that the separation of the brick façade was caused by water infiltration behind the wood trim and brick façade, occurring over a several year period. Encompass denied the claim based upon exclusions for "freezing, thawing," "wear and tear," and "inadequate maintenance."

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

---

School’s Lawsuit over Defective Field Construction Delayed

October 08, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The lawsuit from an Oregon school district over the faulty installation of an artificial playing field has been postponed. The chief financial officer of the Hillsboro School District noted that there is no new date set. Drainage problems caused depressions in the soccer field, leading to damage of the artificial turf. The district subsequently repaired the playing field. Two defendants, Mahlum Architects and American Sport Product Group, have already settled with the school district. The two final defendants are Robinson Construction and Geocon Northwest Inc. Robinson Construction built the field. None of the parties have released information about the settlements. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Contract Clauses Only a Grinch Would Love – Part 4

November 30, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Scope, time and cost provisions may be the most important clauses in your construction contract but they’re not the only ones which can impact your bottom line. The fourth and final part in a multi-part series, here are some other important construction contract clauses that can put a damper on your holidays.

Provision: Warranty Provisions

• Typical Provision: “Subcontractor warrants to Contractor that all materials and equipment furnished shall be new unless otherwise specified and that all Work performed shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner, of good quality and free from defects, and in conformance with industry standards, manufacturer’s recommendations and the Contract Documents. All work not conforming to these requirements, including substitutions not properly approved, shall be considered defective. Subcontractor agrees to promptly make good any and all defects due to faulty workmanship, materials and/or equipment which may appear within the Contract Documents, and if no such period is stipulated in the Contract, then for a period of one year from the date of acceptance by the Owner. Nothing herein shall shorten or limit any applicable periods of limitations including, but not limited to, those set forth in Civil Code, Part 2, Title 2, Chapter 3.”
• What it Means: Warranty periods are subject to the agreement of the parties. However, warranties are different than limitations periods, such as California’s 4 year statute of repose for patent defects and 10 year statute of repose for latent defects (note: a statute of repose is different than a statute of limitation. A statute of repose sets a deadline based on an event. So, for example, under the 10 year statute of repose for latent defects a claimant must bring a latent defect claim within 10 years following substantial completion even if the latent defect wasn’t discovered until 10 years and 1 month following substantial completion. A statute of limitation, in contrast, sets a deadline based on the occurrence of an injury or damage. So, for example, California has a 2 year statute of limitation for personal injuries, which sets a deadline of 2 years from the date of injury to bring a personal injury claim). Warranty periods are also different from limitations periods because most warranties require work to be corrected at no cost, and because many contracts include attorney’s fee provisions, breach of a warranty can give rise to claim for attorney’s fees as well.
• What You Can Do: Lower-tiered parties should examine warranty provisions to see if they are reasonable, and if not reasonable, should seek to either eliminate or limit those provisions, such as by reducing the warranty period or providing different warranty periods for different components of work, etc.

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

---

Georgia Court of Appeals Upholds Denial of Coverage Because Insurance Broker Lacked Agency to Accept Premium Payment

December 07, 2020 — Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine & Rachel E. Hudgins - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In American Reliable Insurance Company v. Lancaster, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a property insurer’s summary judgment motion concerning the insurer’s denial of a fire loss claim. The basis of the denial was that the policyholders had failed to pay the policy premium. The policyholders, Charlie and Wanda Lancaster, claimed that they had paid their policy premiums for several years to their insurance agent, Macie Yawn. In October 2014, American Reliable mailed a renewal notice to the Lancasters notifying them that premium payments had to be made directly to the insurer. After it did not receive payment from the Lancasters, American Reliable sent them a cancellation notice in December 2014, again notifying them that payments be made directly to the insurer. The Lancasters denied having received either notice from American Reliable, but the record included a receipt for certificate of mailing. After the Lancaster’s home burned down in 2015, American Reliable denied coverage on the grounds that the policy had been cancelled for nonpayment of premium. In the subsequent coverage action, the trial court denied American Reliable’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that a factual issue existed as to the actual and apparent agency of the insurance agent, Yawn. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in deciding that there was a factual issue concerning Yawn’s agency. Specifically, the Court of Appeals ruled that the record showed American Reliable had terminated Yawn’s agency to accept policy premiums, and that the Lancaster’s received notice of that termination in the renewal and cancellation notices. In addition to determining that Yawn was not an actual agent, the Court held that Yawn did not have apparent agency, because the notices sent to the Lancasters stated that the premium payment was to be paid to American Reliable, not to the agent. Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California to Build ‘Total Disaster City’ for Training

July 30, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
California is building a “world-class $56 million training facility in eastern Sacramento County that would pit fire crews against a variety of realistic, pressure-packed simulated disasters,” according to the Sacramento Bee. Construction has begun on the Emergency Response Training Center in Mather Field in Rancho Cordova. “The project is a joint effort between Henke’s fire department, the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and the Sacramento Fire Department,” reported the Sacramento Bee. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---