Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

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

A Win for Policyholders: California Court of Appeals Applies Vertical Exhaustion for Continuous Injury Claims

August 24, 2020 — Celia B. Waters - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Fresh off the heels of the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Super. Ct. of L.A. Cty. (“Montrose III”),1 policyholders scored another victory as another California court rejected horizontal exhaustion in the context of continuous injury cases. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, in SantaFe Braun Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., adopted a rule of vertical exhaustion, holding that “[absent an explicit policy provision to the contrary] the insured becomes entitled to the coverage it purchased from the excess carriers once the primary policies specified in the excess policy have been exhausted.”2 The dispute in SantaFe Braun began in 1992 when asbestos-related claims were first filed against Braun. In 1998, Braun’s three primary insurers agreed in writing to defend and settle the underlying claims against Braun while resolving allocation among themselves. In 2004, Braun filed the current suit against its excess insurers, seeking a declaration that the excess insurers were obligated to help cover the costs of the underlying asbestos-related lawsuits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Celia B. Waters, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Waters may be contacted at cbw@sdvlaw.com

Subcontractor Exception to "Your Work" Exclusion Does Not Apply to Coverage Under Subcontractor's Policy

January 26, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Arizona Court of Appeals overturned the trial court's determination that the general contractor was entitled to coverage under the subcontractor's exception to the "Your Work" exclusion. Double AA Builders v. Preferred Contrs. Ins. Co., 2016 Ariz. App. LEXIS 294 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2016). Harkins Theatres hired Double AA Builders, Ltd. to serve as general contractor to build a theater complex. Double AA subcontracted with Anchor Roofing, Inc. to install the roof. Anchor was the "Named Insured" under a policy issued by Preferred Contractors Insurance Company, LLC. Double AA was an "Additional Insured" under the Preferred 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

Bankruptcy on a Construction Project: Coronavirus Edition

May 25, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Experts are warning of a wave of bankruptcies in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. In some industries, such as the hard hit retail sector, that rising tide has already begun as J. Crew and Neiman Marcus filed for bankruptcy protection this past week. While the federal government’s stimulus package, including the $660 billion Paycheck Protection Program which is part of the larger 2.2 trillion CARES Act, may help to stem the tide of bankruptcies, Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings increased 26% in April over the same period last year. How the pandemic will impact the construction industry is uncertain. Anecdotally, we’ve been hearing from clients that some project owners are stalling projects that are still in the planning stages as they evaluate the situation, which suggests long term impacts that can be ridden out rather than short term impacts that can devastate on-going construction projects. Nevertheless, with 24-7 coverage of the pandemic, project owners, contractors, material suppliers, and equipment lessors are understandably concerned with the impact a bankruptcy might have on a construction project. So, here’s a primer on bankruptcies on a construction project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Construction Recovery Still Soft in New Hampshire

May 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The latest building news out of New Hampshire is somewhat mixed. Yes, there has been an increase of seventeen percent in the value of future residential construction on the state. But that’s not enough to offset the general slide in the value of future construction overall. The New Hampshire Business Review reports that the state saw a four percent drop in the cost of planned construction, comparing March 2012 to March 2013. The total value of the drop was shared between the twelve percent drop in nonresidential construction and the fifty-two percent drop in infrastructure building, each of which were more than $4 million less than in the prior year. The rise in residential construction could not make up the loss in other areas. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Co-Founding Partner Jason Feld Named Finalist for CLM’s Outside Defense Counsel Professional of the Year

March 19, 2024 — Linda Carter - Kahana Feld
Kahana Feld congratulates Co-Founding Partner Jason Daniel Feld, Esq., for being named one of three finalists for Claims & Litigation Management Alliance (CLM) Outside Defense Counsel Professional of the Year. Mr. Feld is a nationwide leader in construction claims and an active industry speaker, serving as panel counsel for many prominent insurance carriers, and personal counsel to multiple national and regional homebuilders, developers, and general contractors. Co-Founding Partner, Amir Kahana, states, “Jason is incredibly deserving of this recognition. When he joined our firm, we were 3 lawyers in one city, and seven years later, we are a national firm with over 65 attorneys in 10 cities and 6 states. Jason is a natural leader who is highly respected. He has earned the trust of his carrier clients, as well as his colleagues in the industry. In addition to everything he does for Kahana Feld, he also works tirelessly on behalf of CLM and has been a great leader in the Orange County Chapter. I am thrilled to see Jason receive the recognition he richly deserves.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Linda Carter, Kahana Feld
Ms. Carter may be contacted at lcarter@kahanafeld.com

An Insurance Policy Isn’t Ambiguous Just Because You Want It to Be

December 20, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to insurance contracts, there is a rule of law that states, “where interpretation is required by ambiguity in insurance contracts[,] the insured will be favored.” Pride Clean Restoration, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2584a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (citation and quotation omitted). Stated another way: ambiguities in insurance contracts will be interpreted in favor of the insured and against the insurer. With this rule of law in mind, insureds oftentimes try to argue ambiguity even when there is not one. This was the situation in Pride Clean Construction. In this case, the property insurance policy contained a mold exclusion that stated the policy did NOT insure for “a. loss caused by mold, mildew, fungus, spores or other microorganism of any type, nature, or description including but not limited to any substance whose presence poses an actual or potential threat to human health; or b. the cost or expense of monitoring, testing, removal, encapsulation, abatement, treatment or handling of mold, mildew, fungus, spores or other microorganism as referred to in a) above.” Not only did the policy not insure for loss caused by mold, it went further to state it was NOT insuring for any mold testing or abatement. 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

Courts Will Not Second-Guess Public Entities When it Comes to Design Immunity

May 13, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It was a bizarre confluence of events. Jorgen Stufkosky was driving on SR-154 in Santa Ynez, California. Martha Aguayo was driving on the same highway ahead of Stufkosky when she struck a deer causing it to fly across the centerline into traffic from the opposite direction. The deer struck a SUV causing its driver to lose control. The driver of the SUV crossed the same centerline where he collided head on with Stufkosky, killing him. Stufkosky’s children later sued the California Department of Transportation in the case Stufkosky v. California Department of Transportation, 97 Cal.App.5th 492 (2023), alleging that their father’s death was due to Caltrans’ negligent design of SR-153, inadequate number of deer crossing signs, and its high posted speed limit. While in the trial court, Caltrans filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Caltrans was immune from liability under Government Code section 830.6, the so called “design immunity” statute. The trial court agreed and the Stufloskys appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES