Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

DIR Reminds Public Works Contractors to Renew Registrations Before January 1, 2016 to Avoid Hefty Penalty

December 17, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
I know. You’re busy. Perhaps even a bit overwhelmed. You’ve got trees to trim, halls to deck with boughs of holly, and when you throw in (the office, your kids’ school, and the bowling league’s) holiday parties, you’re at the point where you’ve got visions of sugar plums (although it may vary) dancing through your head. Well, the DIR has come to give you its own yuletide greeting. Think of it as a Christmas card of sorts. Merry Christmas. The Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) announced today that a mandatory renewal deadline is approaching for contractors who bid or work on public works projects in California. Contractors whose public works contractor registration expired June 30, 2015, and have ongoing public works projects or plan to bid on new ones, must pay the $300 renewal fee before January 1, 2016 or face an additional $2,000 late penalty after that date. 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

Shifting the Risk of Delay by Having Float Go Your Way

July 05, 2021 — Christopher J. Brasco & Matthew D. Baker - ConsensusDocs
Critical path delay plays a central role in allocating responsibility for project delay. The interrelated concept of concurrency is also frequently determinative of entitlement on a range of claims including by owners for liquidated damages and by contractors for delay damages. What constitutes critical/concurrent delay, however, is hotly debated by scheduling experts. The lack of real consensus regarding how critical/concurrent delay should be determined and analyzed has created significant uncertainty in scheduling disputes. Indeed, courts have adopted differing and at times conflicting theories of concurrency that can produce divergent outcomes for the parties. In an effort to reduce uncertainty, stakeholders have increasingly adopted specialized contractual provisions and scheduling techniques which have significant implications for the evaluation of the companion concepts of criticality and concurrency. One such mechanism is float sequestration. Regardless of whether float sequestration is ultimately in the construction industry’s broader interest, stakeholders must be able to recognize its use and appreciate the implications for delay disputes on their projects. Simply defined, float is the number of days an activity can be delayed before affecting the project’s critical path (i.e., the longest chain of activities which determines the project’s minimal duration). Typically, only delays affecting the critical path can produce concurrent delay. Consequently, the concept of float is integral to understanding and resolving issues of both criticality and concurrency. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher J. Brasco, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP and Matthew D. Baker, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP Mr. Brasco may be contacted at cbrasco@watttieder.com Mr. Baker may be contacted at mbaker@watttieder.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Final Frontier Opens Up New Business Opportunities for Private Contractors

August 26, 2024 — Jessica S. Allain - ConsensusDocs
Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Defense (“DOD”) issued its Commercial Space Integration Strategy. While arguably still in the early stages of implementation, this policy shows a significant shift in creating new opportunities for contractors to work with and sell commercial solutions to DOD. This creates big opportunities for the construction industry. DOD’s current construction budget is over $2.9 billion,[1] and seeking to increase funding and projects with the private sector also increases the need for construction of facilities to house those partnerships. For contractors who may be able to take advantage of these opportunities and the facilities that support them, it is worth having an understanding of what a prospective contractor would need to do to participate and what pitfalls may be attached to these programs. In an effort to call out the elephant in the room, the timing of these policies coming out in the year before an election should not be ignored. While grounded in the 2022 National Defense Strategy and other established departmental policies, a change in administration could create change in how these prospective opportunities are handled. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jessica S. Allain, Jones Walker
Ms. Allain may be contacted at jallain@joneswalker.com

Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations

November 01, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Under the Miller Act, a claim against a Miller Act payment bond must be commenced “no later than one year after the date on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the action.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(4). Stated another way, a claimant must file its lawsuit against the Miller Act payment bond within one year from its final furnishing on the project. Filing a lawsuit too late, i.e., outside of the one-year statute of limitations, will be fatal to a Miller Act payment bond claim. This was the outcome in Diamond Services Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America, 2022 WL 4990416 (5th Cir. 2022) where a claimant filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit four days late. That four days proved to be fatal to its Miller Act payment bond claim and lawsuit. Do not let this happen to you! In Diamond Services Corp., the claimant submitted a claim to the Miller Act payment bond surety. The surety issued a claim form to the claimant that requested additional information. The claimant returned the surety’s claim form. The surety denied the claim a year and a couple of days after the claimant’s final furnishing. The claimant immediately filed its payment bond lawsuit four days after the year expired. The claimant argued that the surety should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations in light of the surety’s letter requesting additional information. (The claimant was basically arguing that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled.) The trial court dismissed the Miller Act payment bond claim finding it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that equitable estoppel did not apply. 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

Dealing with Abandoned Property After Foreclosure

April 10, 2019 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
California landlords must follow very specific steps before disposing of property that is clearly abandoned, left on real estate which has been the subject of court proceedings such as eviction or foreclosure, or otherwise left behind. Following the statutory procedures relating to abandoned property protects landlords from potential liability for an improper “conversion.” Former tenants/owners and others “reasonably believed” to be owners of the apparently abandoned personal property must be given proper written notice of the right to reclaim the abandoned property. The tenant is presumed to be the owner of any “records” remaining on the property. The California Code of Civil Procedure provides a template for such notice. The notice to be provided to former tenants/owners must be in “substantially” the same form provided in the California Code of Civil Procedure and must contain the following information:

A description of the abandoned property in a manner reasonably adequate to permit the owner of the property to identify it;
The location where the tenant can claim the property;
The time frame that the tenant has to claim the property. The date specified in the notice shall be a date not less than fifteen (15) days after the notice is personally delivered or, if mailed, not less than eighteen (18) days after the notice is deposited in the mail;
A statement that reasonable storage costs will be charged to the tenant/owner and the tenant/owner must pay those costs before claiming the property; and

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Construction Wall Falls, Hurts Three

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A construction wall collapsed on November 1 during heavy rainfall in New York City. Two women were briefly trapped under the rubble, while other bystanders worked to free them. Einstein Construction Group, a contractor based in Texas, was remodeling the first floor for a new tenant, a Japanese restaurant. The company, which disclaims responsibility for the occurrence, were cited for violations and a stop work order was issued. Just prior to the incident, high winds whipped through the area. The construction wall allegedly had not been securely attached to the building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

First Look at Long List of AEC Firms Receiving PPP Loans

July 20, 2020 — Tom Ichniowski & Scott Blair - Engineering News-Record
Thousands of construction and design firm from all parts of the U.S. appear on lists of companies that have received federal Paycheck Protection Program forgivable loans, according to federal documents just made public. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record and Scott Blair, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Mr. Blair may be contacted at blairs@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

In South Carolina, Insurer's Denial of Liability Does Not Waive Attorney-Client Privilege for Bad Faith Claim

October 14, 2019 — Ashley L. Cooper & Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Determining the scope of discovery can be challenging, particularly when an insurance bad faith claim is involved. Courts often face the difficult decision of weighing the importance of preserving attorney-client privilege with the public policy rationale of protecting an insured against their insurer’s bad faith behavior. The Supreme Court of South Carolina recently recognized this dilemma by rejecting a hardline approach to bad faith discovery disputes and adopting a case-by-case analysis. The case, In re Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.,1 arose out of a construction defect claim. ContraVest Construction Company (“ContraVest”) constructed a development in South Carolina and was later sued for alleged defective construction. ContraVest sought coverage for the lawsuit from its insurers, including Mount Hawley Insurance Company (“Mount Hawley”), which had provided excess commercial liability insurance to ContraVest during the relevant timeframe. Mount Hawley denied the claim, which prompted ContraVest to sue it for bad faith, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Reprinted courtesy of Ashley L. Cooper, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Cooper may be contacted at alc@sdvlaw.com Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES