Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Pennsylvania Modular Home Builder Buys Maine Firm

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Excel Homes, a modular home builder based in Liverpool, Pennsylvania, has bought Keiser Homes, a modular home builder based in Oxford Hills, Maine. Excel sought to increase their capacity, which acquisition of the Oxford Hills facility allows. Excel had previously shown an interest in the property of an Oxford Hills modular home builder that had closed, Oxford Homes, but a decrease in sales of modular homes lead Excel to reconsider the purchase. Excel Homes plans on doubling the current output of the Oxford Hills facility and will be hiring additional employees. The purchase included all of Keiser’s machinery, trucks, trailers, equipment, and the customer list. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 Not Just for Individual Homeowners Anymore?

March 22, 2017 — Maggie Stewart - Colorado Construction Litigation
On March 9, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals announced its decision in Broomfield Senior Living Owner, LLC v. R.G. Brinkmann Company, No. 16CA0101, 2017 COA 31 (Colo. App. Mar. 9, 2017). As a matter of first impression, the Court evaluated whether a senior living facility constitutes “residential property” protected by the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 ("HPA") provision of the Construction Defect Reform Act (CDARA). In 2007, Plaintiff Broomfield entered into a contract with Defendant Brinkmann for construction of a senior assisted and independent living facility. The contract contained warranty provisions related to the quality of construction and cautioned that Plaintiff’s failure to provide Defendant with prompt notice of any defects would result in waiver of any claim for breach. The contract also limited Defendant Brinkmann’s liability by identifying three separate accrual provisions that would determine the time period in which Plaintiff could bring a claim. The project was completed in 2009. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Maggie Stewart, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Stewart may be contacted at stewart@hhmrlaw.com

Busting Major Alternative-Lending Myths

July 22, 2024 — Warren Miller - Construction Executive
Alternative capital is a broad term for financing provided by institutions or firms that typically fall outside of the purview of the larger, regulated institutions (i.e., not traditional banks). While these funding sources may not always be the first option for many businesses, alternative lending is a perfect option for many small and mid-sized capital-intensive companies, like construction companies, which often require fast access to capital that is incompatible with the stringent and laborious processes imposed by traditional banks. Construction companies should take a closer look at alternative financing, understand its benefits, and evaluate its usefulness for achieving their unique funding requirements. REALITY 1: ALTERNATIVE LENDING IS SAFE AND PROVEN Private lending has been around for a long time, and has become increasingly common since the 1990s, when major consolidation took place in the banking industry. As the large, consolidated banks set their sights on providing loans to large enterprises, they left a gap in the small and mid-size market that was filled by alternative lenders. By 2000, alternative lenders had overtaken traditional banks for the majority of corporate loans. Stricter regulation of banks following the Global Financial Crisis of 2007 intensified underwriting standards for bank loans and further diminished banks’ appetites for SMB lending. Reprinted courtesy of Warren Miller, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

COVID-19 Response: Essential Business Operations: a High-Stakes Question Under Proliferating “Stay at Home” Orders

April 27, 2020 — Karen C. Bennett, Katherine I. Funk & Jane C. Luxton - Lewis Brisbois
An ever-expanding number of states and local government authorities are issuing “shelter in place” or “stay at home” orders that restrict the movement of employees of non-essential businesses. These orders have prompted many businesses to question whether they qualify as “essential,” requiring employees to continue working. With substantial differences among the stay at home orders – and even potential conflicts between state and local directives – it is a matter of extreme urgency for businesses to determine whether they fall within the definition of “essential,” particularly as many of these orders include civil and criminal penalties. Developments are unfolding very quickly, and clients we are advising are encountering law enforcement visits and threats of criminal prosecution as a consequence of decisions to stay open. As these designations are heavily fact-specific, and being revised, advance preparation and advice of counsel are essential. Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois attorneys Karen C. Bennett, Katherine I. Funk and Jane C. Luxton Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Funk may be contacted at Katherine.Funk@LewisBrisbois.com Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Miller Act and “Public Work of the Federal Government”

March 01, 2017 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
The Miller Act applies to the “construction, alteration, or repair of any public building or public work of the Federal Government.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3131. A recent opinion out of the Northern District of Oklahoma sheds light on what the Miller Act means regarding its application to any public work of the Federal Government. See U.S. v. Bronze Oak, LLC, 2017 WL 190099 (N.D.Ok. 2017). If the project is not a public works project of the Federal Government, the Miller Act does not apply. In this case, the Department of Transportation entered into an agreement with the Cherokee Nation where the Department would provide lump sum funding and the Nation would use the money to fund transportation projects. Based on the federal funding, the Nation issued a bid for a transportation project in Mayes County, Oklahoma and the project was awarded to a prime contractor. The prime contractor provided a payment bond that identified the United States as the obligee (as a Miller Act payment is required to do) and stated that it was issued per the Miller Act. Thereafter, the Nation and Mayes County, Oklahoma entered into a Memorandum of Understanding where the County would assume responsibility for the construction and maintenance of the project and the Nation would pay the County an agreed amount upon the completion of the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Developer Sues TVA After It Halts Nuke Site Sale

December 19, 2018 — Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record
The multibillion-dollar completion of a nuclear unit at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s unfinished 1,260-MW Bellefonte plant in Alabama is in limbo after the federal power producer refused to complete its sale to Nuclear Development LLC, which has since filed a breach of contract complaint in federal district court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Federal Court Requires Auto Liability Carrier to Cover Suit Involving Independent Contractor Despite “Employee Exclusion”

August 30, 2017 — H. Scott Williams & Brendan Holt - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
A recent federal court decision rendered in July of 2017 highlights the importance of worker classification in the transportation industry and the potential insurance implications. In Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Kailey, 1 the court determined that an “employee exclusion” in a motor carrier’s automobile liability insurance policy did not exclude coverage for liability resulting from the bodily injury of an independent contractor operating the motor carrier’s tractor-trailer. In April of 2014, a team of two drivers hired by the motor carrier, Kailey Trucking Line (KTL), were involved in a collision while operating KTL’s truck. The passenger in the truck, who was not operating the vehicle at the time, was killed in the accident. Subsequently, the spouse of the decedent filed suit against KTL as well as the driver of the truck. KTL sought coverage for the suit under its automobile liability insurance policy, issued by Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Group, Incorporated (Spirit). However, Spirit took the position that it had no duty to defend or indemnify KTL, and ultimately filed a declaratory judgment action in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The policy issued to KTL provided coverage for damages due to bodily injury or property damage caused by an accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance, or use of a covered auto. However, the policy excluded from coverage any bodily injury to an employee or fellow employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of employment of the insured. Accordingly, to the extent that the decedent qualified as an “employee” of KTL, Spirit had no duty to indemnify KTL in the litigation. Reprinted courtesy of H. Scott Williams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Brendan C. Colt, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Holt may be contacted at bch@sdvlaw.com Mr. Williams may be contacted at hsw@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Causing Property Damage to Insured's Product Only

October 07, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Nebraska court found there was no coverage for rebar that did not meet specifications and did not cause property damage to other portions of the construction project. Drake-Williams Steel, Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 2016 Neb. LEXIS 116 (Neb. Aug. 5, 2016). The general contractor was hired by the city to build an arena. Drake-Williams Steel, Inc. (DWS) was hired to supply rebar for the arena. The rebar was improperly bent when it was fabricated by DWS and did not conform to the terms of the contract. The rebar was incorporated into three components of the arena: the columns, the grade beams, and the pile caps. The pile caps were made of concrete with reinforcing rebar and were installed below ground level on top of the concrete piles that extended to the bedrock. The grade beams were also made of concrete and rebar. The beams formed an oval around the arena and connected different pile caps together and were also installed below ground level. No corrections were made to the grade beams. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES