Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

First-Party Statutory Bad Faith – 60 Days to Cure Means 60 Days to Cure

October 19, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a first party bad-faith lawsuit, such as a bad faith claim against an insured’s property insurer, there are three requirements that must be met before the bad faith lawsuit is filed: “‘(1) determination of the insurer’s liability for coverage; (2) determination of the extent of the insured’s damages; and (3) the required notice must be filed under section 624.155(3)(a).’” Fortune v. First Protective Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2092a (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (citation omitted). The third requirement is for the insured to file a Civil Remedy Notice (known as a “CRN”) as a condition precedent to filing a statutory bad faith lawsuit giving the insurer 60 days’ notice of the bad faith violation and to cure the violation, i.e., pay the claim if the violation is payment. A very common bad faith payment violation is the assertion that the insurer did NOT attempt “in good faith to settle claims when, under the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly towards its insured and with due regard for his or her interests.” Fla. Stat. s. 624.155(1)(b)(1). 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

Modified Plan Unveiled for Chicago's Sixth-Tallest Tower

February 15, 2018 — Jeff Yoders – ENR
The Chicago Plan Commission on Jan. 18 approved a $700-million development that, as presented, would include the city’s sixth-tallest building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com

Landmark Towers Association, Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A. or: One Bad Apple Spoils the Whole Bunch

May 12, 2016 — Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction Litigation
On April 21, 2016, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued an opinion that immediately drew the ire of the greater real estate development industry and those concerned about affordable housing in a state in the midst of unprecedented soaring rent and housing prices. The Landmark Towers Assn., Inc. v. UMB Bank, N.A., 2016 COA 61, decision is the result of protracted litigation arising out of construction and sale of the ill-fated European Village (“Village”) residential community. For a thorough summary of the origins of the development and the unfortunate story of the man behind the curtain, review the Denver Post’s article titled “Zachary Davidson, Denver Landmark developer, and his fall from grace.” (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22656011/fall-from-grace-zach-davidson-landmark denver) Despite the unique facts and circumstances relating to the questionable dealings by the developer, Mr. Zachary Davidson, the decision now stands to turn the Colorado real estate development business on its head. Specifically, a group of condominium owners, who did not live in the Village, learned that their properties had been included in a special district, the Marin Metropolitan District (“District”), to finance the Village. Prior to their purchase, Mr. Davidson failed to disclose to the condominium owners that they would be responsible for financing the Village’s development through previously issued bonds by the District to be paid for through their property taxes. Understandably frustrated by this discovery the condominium owners, through the Landmark Towers Association, Inc. (“Landmark HOA”), investigated the origin of these unforeseen property taxes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Meyer may be contacted at meyer@hhmrlaw.com

Thoughts on New Pay if Paid Legislation

March 28, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Recently, the Virginia General Assembly closed its session having passed legislation essentially banning “pay if paid” clauses in construction contracts, both public and private. Assuming that Governor Youngkin signs the bill into law on or before his deadline of April 11, 2022, the following new requirement will be grafted into any Virginia construction contract:

Such contract shall require such higher-tier contractor to pay such lower-tier subcontractor within the earlier of (i) 45 days of the satisfactory completion of the portion of the work for which the subcontractor has invoiced or (ii) seven days after receipt of amounts paid by the owner to the general contractor or by the higher-tier contractor to the lower-tier contractor for work performed by a subcontractor pursuant to the terms of the contract.

This is the main operative language (the 45-day payment requirement is also applied to project owners), but the legislation also imposes certain other notice duties upon both the owner and any higher-tier contractor on a construction project. Interestingly, the legislation does not include a provision making it only effective for those contracts entered into after its effective date. More on that later. 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

Montana Federal Court Holds that an Interior Department’s Federal Advisory Committee Was Improperly Reestablished

December 09, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On August 13, 2019, in a case that may have an impact on the leasing of federal lands for energy development in the future, the U.S. District Court for the Missoula, Montana Division, issued a ruling in the case of Western Organization of Resource Councils v. Bernhardt, which involves the application of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to the Department of the Interior’s Royalty Policy Committee. This advisory committee, initially established in 1995 to provide advice to the Secretary on issues related to the leasing of federal and Indian lands for energy and mineral resources production, is subject to the provisions of FACA, codified at 5 U.S.C. app. Sections 1-16. The plaintiffs challenged the operations of this advisory committee, which was reestablished for two years beginning in 2017, because it allegedly “acts in secret and works to advance the goals of only one interest: the extractive industries that profit from the development of public gas, oil, and coal.” More specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that this advisory committee violated FACA because: (a) it was not properly established as provided in the implementing GSA rules (which are located at 41 CFR Section 102-3); (b) did not provide public notice of its meetings and publicly disseminate its materials; (c) ensure that its membership was fairly balanced; and (d) failed to exercise independent judgment without inappropriate influences from special interests. 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

Not Remotely Law as Usual: Don’t Settle for Delays – Settle at Remote Mediation

May 25, 2020 — Victor J. Zarrilli, Robert G. Devine & Michael W. Horner - White and Williams LLP
The emergence and rapid spread of COVID-19 has created extraordinary circumstances that have significantly impacted how we go about living, working and interacting with one another. The practice of law is no exception. While most cases have been postponed and some extended indefinitely, the issues and disputes that first triggered the litigation remain. In fact, the burdens created by social distancing and other responses to the COVID-19 outbreak have served to only increase these disputes and create an urgent need in some for quick resolution. In our previous article, we summarized some of the best practices that should be applied when taking and defending depositions in a remote, virtual setting. That technology can also offer the same benefits for alternative dispute resolutions. If planned properly, the use of technology allows remote mediations to be conducted as seamlessly as in-person mediations and, in some circumstances, affords additional benefits that can achieve the best possible resolution for all sides. This article summarizes the opportunities technology has created by which parties can attempt to resolve their disputes through alternative dispute resolution methods, even in a time of social distancing. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Victor J. Zarrilli, Robert G. Devine and Michael W. Horner Mr. Zarrilli may be contacted at zarrilliv@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Horner may be contacted at hornerm@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Quick Note: Independent Third-Party Spoliation Of Evidence Claim

June 18, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In an earlier posting I discussed the difference between first-party spoliation of evidence and third-party spoliation of evidence. There is NO independent cause of action for first-party spoliation of evidence because that can be dealt with directly in the underlying lawsuit. This deals with the assertion that an actual party to a lawsuit spoiled evidence. 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

California Pipeline Disaster Brings More Scandal for PG&E

September 17, 2014 — Mark Chediak – Bloomberg
A deadly pipeline explosion that shattered a California town four years ago continues to rip through the state agency weighing a record penalty for the disaster. The president of the California Public Utilities Commission asked his chief of staff to resign and recused himself from the case after “inappropriate e-mail exchanges” with PG&E Corp. (PCG) raised questions about bias, according to a statement from the commission yesterday. The CPUC may decide within weeks whether to levy a proposed $1.4 billion penalty -- the biggest safety fine in the state’s history -- against PG&E for the 2010 explosion of a natural gas pipeline that killed eight people in San Bruno. Commission President Michael Peevey, who has been accused by San Bruno officials and consumer advocates of being too close to the utility, said in the statement he would not take part in penalty deliberations to eliminate any appearance of impropriety. The move is a step toward regaining credibility for the CPUC after two years of political infighting has created an ongoing climate of scandal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mark Chediak, Bloomberg
Mr. Chediak may be contacted at mchediak@bloomberg.net

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES