FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

BHA has a Nice Swing Donates to CDCCF

May 21, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Bert L. Howe & Associates (BHA) would like to congratulate the winners of the BHA Has a Nice Swing golf game for charity. With the help of the participants, BHA was able to donate $1800 to the Construction Defect Community Charitable Foundation (CDCCF). CDCCF was established to provide financial assistance for active members of the construction defect community who have uninsured expenses because of a disability, sickness, and/or the death of a community member or their immediate family member. BHA would also like to congratulate their booth’s raffle winners. Prizes included an iPad Air, four sets of Dodger tickets, a Day at the Del Mar Races, and Best Buy gift cards. Read how the CDCCF assists the construction defect community... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Supreme Court of New Jersey Reviews Statutes of Limitation and the Discovery Rule in Construction Defect Cases

July 18, 2018 — David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
Robert Neff Jr. of Wilson Elser analyzed the recent case, Palisades at Fort Lee Condo. Ass’n v. 100 Old Palisade, LLC, 2017 N.J. Lexis 845, 169 A.3d 473 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, September 14, 2017), and states that this ruling “gives defendants the ability to defend against the assertion that the statute of limitations was tolled until the most recent owner (and plaintiff) discovered the cause of action.” Neff concludes that a statute of limitations test needs to be conducted at the beginning of each case: “In Palisades, the motions to dismiss based on the statute of limitations were filed at the conclusion of all discovery. While an initial analysis might yield the conclusion that certain discovery will be needed to ascertain the appropriate accrual date (or dates, in the case of multiple defendants), counsel will then know what discovery to seek during the discovery period.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Court of Appeal Holds That the Right to Repair Act Prohibits Class Actions Against Manufacturers of Products Completely Manufactured Offsite

February 06, 2019 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Kohler Co. v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. App. 5th 55 (2018), the Second District of the Court of Appeal of California considered whether the lower court properly allowed homeowners to bring class action claims under the Right to Repair Act (the Act) against a manufacturer of a plumbing fixture for alleged defects in the product. After an extensive analysis of the language of the Act, the court found that class action claims under the Act are not allowed if the product was completely manufactured offsite. Since the subject fixture was completely manufactured offsite, the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision. The court’s holding establishes that rights and remedies set forth in the Right to Repair Act are not available for class action claims alleging defects in products completely manufactured offsite. In Kohler Co., homeowners instituted a class action against Kohler, the manufacturer of water pressure and temperature regulating valves that were installed into their homes during original construction. The class action was filed on behalf of all owners of residential dwellings in California in which these Kohler valves were installed as part of original construction. The complaint asserted, among other claims, a cause of action under the Act. Kohler filed a motion for anti-class certification on the ground that causes of actions under the Act cannot be certified as a class action. The trial court denied the motion with respect to the Act but certified its ruling for appellate review. Kohler filed a petition with the Court of Appeals, arguing that certain sections of the Act explicitly exclude class action claims under the Act. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Texas Couple Claim Many Construction Defects in Home

October 08, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A Galveston, Texas couple has claimed that their new home has “many” defects and are suing the seller. John Klein and Cheri Harmon-Klein state that they were told that the house was built in conformance with the International Residential Code and that the all hurricane damage had been repaired. Instead, they characterized the house as “unfit for human habitation.” The couple claims that the defects were not evident at inspection prior to their purchase. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

No Duty to Indemnify Where No Duty to Defend

February 08, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Montana Supreme Court held that because there was no duty to defend the insureds' intentional acts, the insurer had no duty to defend. Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Wessel, 2020 Mont. LEXIS 2617 (Mont. Dec. 22, 2020). The insureds' property was accessed by Turk Road. Turk Road was also used by the neighbors to access their land. The insureds asked for permission to snowmobile across the neighbors' property. Permission was denied because the property was in a conservation easement which prohibited motorised used. The insureds' thereafter retaliated by not allowing the neighbors to use Turk Road. The neighbors then purchased an easement from another landowners to construct a new driveway which did not traverse the insureds' property. The insureds built snow berms and gates, felled trees, and created other obstacles to prevent the neighbors from using the new driveway. Physical threats were also made by the insureds. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Motions to Dismiss, Limitations of Liability, and More

January 23, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Remember BAE Sys. Ordnance Sys. V. Fluor Fed. Sols? I examined that case on two occasions previously here at Construction Law Musings. Previously the discussions were about the mix (or lack thereof) between fraud and contract and about how careful contract drafting is key. In the most recent opinion in this ongoing litigation from March of 2022, the Court examined various motions to dismiss the Complaint and Counterclaim in the matter. As a reminder, the basic facts are as follows. The US Army Joint Munitions Command (“Army”) contracted with BAE Systems OrdnanceSystems, Inc. (“BAE”) to operate and maintain the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (“RFAAP”)under a basic ordering agreement (“BOA”). Under BOA Task Order 002, BAE contracted to replace the legacy NC facility at the RFAAP with a newer one (the “NC Project”). Initially, BAE subcontracted the NC Project to Lauren Engineers & Constructors (“Lauren”), but later terminated Lauren. Despite terminating Lauren, BAE’s timeline to complete the NC Project remained unchanged and BAE was required to use Lauren’s design for the NC Project. BAE gave interested bidders access to the Lauren design and other related documents and required the selected subcontractor to perform in accordance with the 85% complete Lauren design, that the Lauren design could be relied on for accuracy, and the selected subcontractor only had to complete the unfinished parts. Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC (“Fluor”) submitted a request for information (“RFI”) asking BAE about the standards referenced in the SOW. Fluor was unable to determine the completeness of the Lauren design but relied on BAE’s assertion that the design was 85% complete. BAE rejected Fluor’s initial bid as being too high given what BAE had already paid Lauren for its design and told Fluor to lower its bid because the design was close to complete. Fluor lowered its price and submitted another bid proposal that outlined a firm-fixed-price design/build that forecasted 32 months to complete the NC Project. BAE awarded Fluor an Undefinitized Contract Action (“UCA”) in the amount of $9 million dollars, later increased to $32 million. Under the UCA, Fluor began procuring materials and physical construction before a formal subcontract was agreed upon. On December 17, 2015, BAE and Fluor agreed to a fixed-price design and build subcontract (the “Subcontract”) in which Fluor agreed to design, construct, and partially commission the NC Project for $245,690,422.00, which included money spent already in the UCA. When this litigation began, Fluor was scheduled to complete its work by December 2020, 2.5 years beyond the originally agreed-upon completion date. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary

January 06, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

November 2011 marked the first anniversary of the Construction Defect Journal. During the first year our staff and contributors in the insurance and legal communities have compiled several hundred articles of interest to the construction defect and claims community.

Each of these articles are maintained in the CDJ archives, and are accessible at http://www.constructiondefectjournal.com/archives.html. Each story in the archives is listed in the order it was posted to the archives. Each story in the archives opens up in its own page, so you can easily locate topics and articles of interest.

If you’re new to Construction Defect Journal, or just want peruse past articles, please take a moment to visit the CDJ Archives page. Also please feel encouraged to submit your firm’s articles or legal publications of interest to the CD community at http://www.constructiondefectjournal.com/submitStory.html.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Supreme Court Raises the Bar on Dangerous Conditions on Public Property Claims

February 16, 2016 — Roger Hughes – California Construction Law Blog
Earlier we wrote about the affirmative defense of “design immunity” which can be used by public entities to shield themselves from personal injury claims dangerous conditions on public property. Under the design immunity doctrine a public entity can avoid liability for dangerous conditions on public property if it can show: 1.A causal relationship between the plan or design and the accident; 2.Discretionary approval of the plan or design prior to construction; and 3.Substantial evidence supporting the reasonableness of the plan or design. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

---