FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

February 11, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
These days in construction, and other pursuits, teaming agreements have become a great method for large and small contractors to work together to take advantage of various contract and job requirements from minority participation to veteran ownership. With the proliferation of these agreements, parties must be careful in how they draft the terms of these agreements. Without proper drafting, the parties risk unenforceability of the teaming agreement in the evewnt of a dispute. One potential pitfall in drafting is an “agreement to agree” or an agreement to negotiate a separate contract in the future. This type of pitfall was illustrated in the case of InDyne Inc. v. Beacon Occupational Health & Safety Services Inc. out of the Eastern District of Virginia. In this case, InDyne and Beacon entered into a teaming agreement that provided that InDyne as Prime would seek to use Beacon, the Sub, in the event that InDyne was awarded a contract using Beacon’s numbers. The teaming agreement further provided:

The agreement shall remain in effect until the first of the following shall occur: … (g) inability of the Prime and the Sub, after negotiating in good faith, to reach agreement on the terms of a subcontract offered by the Prime, in accordance with this agreement.

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 Insurance Costs for New York Schools is Going Up

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The cost of construction insurance for New York City’s School Construction Authority is about to go up and the city’s scaffold law is to blame. As the cost of possible injuries has gone up, so has the cost of covering the insurance. The SCA’s current policy ends at the end of the year, and it’s expected that its insurance costs will triple, with the next two years costing about $650 million. The rising cost of insurance was compared by authority officials to the cost of 10 new schools. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

2019 Legislative Session

June 03, 2019 — Steve Heisdorffer – Colorado Construction Litigation
Two bills under consideration as the end of the session nears contain significant changes to Colorado’s Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”). The bills broaden remedies, make more conduct a breach of the CCPA, and include purely private transactions in the type of conduct that falls within the scope of the CCPA. The bills are House Bill 19-1289 (“House Bill”) and Senate Bill 19-237 (“Senate Bill”). As of April 29, 2019, the House Bill has passed the House. The Senate Bill has not progressed past introduction. It is unclear if both houses of the legislature will have an opportunity to vote on either or both bills before the session ends. The House Bill makes a person liable for CCPA violations based on conduct engaged in “recklessly,” not just knowing conduct. No definition of the term “recklessly” is provided in the House Bill, but Colorado’s attorney general testified “recklessly” “means a company or person acted with reckless disregard for the truth.” (Page 2). No explanation was given of what the word “reckless” in the definition of “recklessly” meant in this context. Another provision of the House Bill adds a “catch all” prohibition that labels as a deceptive trade practice knowingly or recklessly engaging in any unfair, unconscionable, deceptive, deliberately misleading, false or fraudulent act or practice. There is no indication how a person could “recklessly” engage in “deliberately misleading” acts or practices. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Steve Heisdorffer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. Heisdorffer may be contacted at heisdorffer@hhmrlaw.com

---

Federal Energy Regulator Approves Rule to Speed Clean Energy Grid Links

August 28, 2023 — Mary B. Powers & Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-Record
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission unanimously passed a sweeping rule at its July 27 open meeting meant to eliminate U.S. transmission system bottlenecks for new power generation and storage. But stakeholders worry that more needs to be done to add needed and viable clean energy projects to the grid. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Texas Court Construes Breach of Contract Exclusion Narrowly in Duty-to-Defend Case

September 10, 2018 — Lorelie S. Masters & Tae Andrews - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In a victory for policyholders, a recent decision from the Western District of Texas narrowly construed a common breach-of-contract exclusion and held that the insurer had a duty to defend its insured against an underlying lawsuit over construction defects. The allegations potentially supported a covered claim, as the conduct of the insured’s subcontractor could have been an independent, “but for” cause of the property damage at issue, thereby triggering the insurer’s duty to defend. In Slay, the insured – a construction company – was hired by a city to design and construct a municipal sports complex, including Little League baseball fields, a softball field, parking lots, and a swimming pool. The construction company hired a subcontractor to perform various services on the project, including paving parking lots and laying the cement for the pool. After completing the project, one of the construction company’s employees noticed cracking in the parking lot and the pool. The construction company notified the city and tried to work out a repair plan, but the city refused and eventually sued, alleging construction defects and asserting claims for breach of contract and negligence. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Tae Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Andrews may be contacted at tandrews@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Changes to Va. Code Section 43-13: Another Arrow in a Subcontractor’s Quiver

November 02, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As is always the case here in Virginia, our General Assembly has made some legislative changes that affect construction contracting. One of these changes is an amendment to Va. Code 43-13 found in the mechanic’s lien section of the Virginia Code. This section of the code has always required that any money paid to a contractor must first go toward paying its subcontractors, suppliers and laborers prior to being used for any other purpose. Prior to 2020, the only remedy for violaiton of Va. Code 43-13 was to go to the local Commonwealth’s Attorney and request a prosecution of the wrongdoer. For various reasons, including that such action did not get the subcontractor or supplier that remained unpaid under this section paid, this remedy was not often pursued except in the most egrigious cases. A key change in the statute occurred during the 2020 legislative session states as follows:

Any breach or violation of this section may give rise to a civil cause of action for a party in contract with the general contractor or subcontractor, as appropriate; however, this right does not affect a contractor’s or subcontractor’s right to withhold payment for failure to properly perform labor or furnish materials on the project. Any contract or subcontract provision that allows a contracting party to withhold funds due under one contract or subcontract for alleged claims or damages due on another contract or subcontract is void as against public policy.

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

---

2017 Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure

March 01, 2017 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
As a part of our 80 acts of Kindness commitment, Haight has registered a team to walk/run in the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure Event taking place Saturday, March 11, 2017 at Dodger Stadium from 7:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. We have a great group of partners, associates, and staff joining the Haight team to walk or run in support of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. For over 30 years, the Foundation’s efforts have funded life-saving breast cancer research and provided support to the thousands of women and men battling the disease. For 80 years, Haight Brown & Bonesteel has been one of California’s leading full service law firms. To commemorate our 80 years in business, we are giving back to the community. Throughout 2017, we will demonstrate our commitment to those in need through 80 different acts of kindness. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

---

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa M. Rolle, Eric D. Suben, and Justyn Verzillo Secure Dismissal of All Claims in a Premises Liability Case

November 16, 2023 — Lisa M. Rolle, Eric D. Suben & Justyn Verzillo - Traub Lieberman
On an appeal of an order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint in a slip-and-fall action commenced in Kings County Supreme Court, Traub Lieberman attorneys Lisa M. Rolle, Eric D. Suben, and Justyn Verzillo successfully secured dismissal of all claims by the Appellate Division, Second Department, on behalf of Traub Lieberman’s client. The lawsuit sought to recover damages arising out of injuries the Plaintiff allegedly sustained when she slipped and fell in the shower of a rental property owned by the Defendant, a limited liability company. Plaintiff alleged that the subject shower was defective, and the Defendant negligent, based on the absence of non-slip surfacing and grab bars in the shower. Aside from premises liability (negligence), Plaintiffs asserted eight other causes of action, including gross negligence, breach of warranty of habitability, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, alter-ego liability, loss of consortium, and for declaratory judgment. The judge in Supreme Court denied Traub Lieberman’s motion to dismiss on behalf of Defendant, citing as the sole reason that the affidavits submitted with the motion were unsigned, and ignoring Traub Lieberman’s arguments pointing out the glaring facial deficiencies of Plaintiff’s pleading and that the signed affidavits were in fact submitted before the return date. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman, Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman and Justyn Verzillo, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com Mr. Verzillo may be contacted at jverzillo@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---