Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Investigation of Orange County Landslide

June 02, 2016 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
On May 29th, a landslide occurred in Newport Beach, California “about 100 yards below homes on Tidal Surf, Newport Beach Battalion Chief Justin Carr” according to the Orange County Register. Carr stated that the “slide measured about 150 yards wide and about 40 feet in length.” A building inspector and a geologist inspected the site to determine the danger, if any, to the homes in the neighborhood. The Orange County register reported that it has not been determined whether a recent earthquake in the area caused the landslide. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

November 21, 2017 — Jesse Witt - The Witt Law Firm
Originally published by CDJ on September 7, 2017 Colorado’s new construction defect law officially takes effect this month. Although HB 17-1279 was passed in May, the statutory text provides that it only applies “with respect to events and circumstances occurring on or after September 1, 2017.” With that date now upon us, practitioners should be mindful of the law’s new requirements. The law applies to any lawsuit wherein a homeowner association files a construction defect action on behalf of two or more of its members. “Construction defect action” is defined broadly to include any claims against construction professionals relating to deficiencies in design or construction of real property. Before an association may commence such an action, its board must follow several steps. First, the board must deliver notice of the potential construction defect action to all homeowners and the affected construction professionals at their last known addresses. This requirement does not apply to construction professionals identified after the notice has been mailed, or to construction professionals joined in a previously-approved lawsuit. The notice must include a description of the alleged construction defects with reasonable specificity, the relief sought, a good-faith estimate of the benefits and risks involved, and a list of mandatory disclosures concerning assessments, attorney fees, and the marketability of units affected by construction defects. The notice must also call a meeting of all homeowners. The notice should be sent to the construction professionals at least five days before the homeowners. Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Documenting Contract Changes in Construction

December 07, 2020 — J.D. Holzheauser - Construction Executive
Construction projects are almost inevitably subject to changes in the contract. A fundamental understanding of construction changes, how those changes are governed and what is necessary to ensure a complete change are of paramount importance to all parties involved in a construction project. This article is not a treatise on construction contract changes; rather, it provides advice on actions a contractor can take during construction that will help the contractor recover time or money when a contract’s schedule or scope of work needs to be changed. Changes Defined Changes to a construction project affect two broad spheres—timing and scope of work. Changes usually present themselves as either a change order or a change directive. Each may go by a different name depending on the contractual scheme in the project’s prime contract, but they essentially have the same characteristics. The difference between a change order and a change directive is one of agreement. A change order (in the owner-prime contractor context) occurs when the contractor and the owner agree to a change in the timing or scope of work in the contract. Normally, the change order is a written agreement to change the contract and is executed by the contractor and owner. Reprinted courtesy of J.D. Holzheauser, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Holzheauser may be contacted at jdholzheauser@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Additional Insured Coverage Confirmed

February 23, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Texas Court of Appeals found that Exxon Mobil Corporation was an additional insured under the CGL policy for Exxon's service provider. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 12757 (Tex. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2015). Exxon contracted with Wyatt Field Service Company to perform "services" as set forth in various work orders from Exxon's affiliates. The contract also required Wyatt to maintain $5 million of commercial general liability insurance. The contract provided that the policies must cover Exxon and its affiliates "as additional insureds in connection with the performance of Services." In 2008, Wyatt was assigned to work on a flexicoker unit at Exxon's refinery. Wyatt was to reinstall dummy nozzles and chains. It completed this service in October 2008. Three years later, one of the dummy nozzles pulled free, and the escaping steam and coke burned three individuals who were working on the unit. After the accident, it was discovered that the safety chain had been installed in the wrong location so that it did not properly secure the dummy nozzle. 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

Arizona Supreme Court Confirms Eight-Year Limit on Construction Defect Lawsuits

July 18, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Acting on the case of Albano v. Shea Homes Ltd. Partnership, the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that Arizona’s eight-year statute of repose applies. The case was referred to the court by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which had asked for a clarification of Arizona law. The case focused on three questions:

1. Does the filing of a motion for class certification in an Arizona court toll the statute of limitations for individuals, who are included within the class, to file individual causes of action involving the same defendants and the same subject matter?2. If so, does this class-action tolling doctrine apply to statutes of repose, and more specifically, to the statute of repose for construction defects set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") § 12-552?3. If the doctrine applies to statutes of repose, and specifically § 12-552, may a court weigh the equities of the case in determining whether, and to what extent, an action is tolled?

The litigation at hand has a lengthy history, starting with a case referred to as “Hoffman” in 2003. The Albano plaintiffs were not able to join in Hoffman, and they filed their own lawsuit in 2006. An additional lawsuit was filed by the Albano plaintiffs in 2007. The courts decided that the Albano plaintiffs’ lawsuit was untimely.

The Arizona Supreme Court concluded that the statute of repose was the appropriate standard for this case. They noted that “the eight-year statute of repose period began to run on November 6, 1997, the date of the Town of Gilbert’s final inspection. Albano II was filed on November 5, 2007.”

The court found that the plaintiffs had waited too long for start their suit. As a result, they found it unnecessary to answer the first or third questions. Justice A. John Pelander of the Arizona Supreme Court wrote the opinion, dated June 30, 2011.

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Do Construction Contracts and Fraud Mix After All?

October 27, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
On several occasions here at Construction Law Musings, I’ve discussed the fact that, with a few exceptions, fraud claims and written construction contract based claims do not mix. One of the exceptions to the so called “economic loss rule” that would seem to preclude both fraud and contract claims in the same lawsuit is where fraud is used to induce the contract in the first place. This exception would only apply where an independent duty, wholly outside of the duties created by the contract, is properly plead and proven to the court. For the same reason, namely a separate duty outside of the contract, the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (“VCPA”) may allow for an exception that would allow a cause of action under this statute. Up until recently, the courts of Virginia have used these exceptions sparingly. However, the recent Loudoun County, VA Circuit Court opinion in Interbuild, Inc. v. Sayers (opinion also found at Virginia Lawyers Weekly) may signal a broadening of these exceptions. In the Interbuild case, the Court considered a claim for fraud in the inducement and breach of the VCPA. The basic facts plead by the plaintiffs were that Interbuild induced them into the contract through statements that it had been an established business since 1981, the project did not require a building permit, it had obtained all necessary subcontractor prices and would provide full-time project supervision, the project would be completed within 16 weeks, 4000 PSI concrete would be used for the project and that the project would be located in the agreed-upon area depicted and that they reasonably relied on these representations in deciding to enter into the contract to build their recreational facility. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

September 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Missouri Court of Appeals has ruled in Ball v. Friese Construction Co., finding that Mr. Ball’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

Mr. Ball hired Friese Construction Company to build a single-family home. The sale was completed on March 29, 2001. That December, Mr. Ball complained of cracks in the basement floor. SCI Engineering, n engineering firm, hired by Friese, determined that the home’s footing had settled and recommended that Mr. Ball hire a structural engineer to determine if the footings were properly designed and sized. In September 2002, the structural engineer, Strain Engineering, determined that the cracks were due to slab movement, caused in part by water beneath the slab, recommending measures to move water away from the foundation. In 2005, Mr. Ball sent Friese correspondence “detailing issues he was having with the home, including problems with the basement slab, chimney structure, drywall tape, and doors.” All of these were attributed to the foundation problems. In 2006, Friese stated that the slab movement was due to Ball’s failure to maintain the storm water drains.

In 2009, Ball received a report from GeoTest “stating the house was resting on highly plastic clay soils.” He sued Friese in May, 2010. Friese was granted a summary judgment dismissing the suit, as the Missouri has a five-year statute of limitations. Ball appealed on the grounds that the extent of the damage could not be determined until after the third expert report. The appeals court rejected this claim, noting that a reasonable person would have concluded that after the conclusion of SCI and Strain Engineering that “injury and substantial damages may have occurred.”

The court concluded that as there were not “continuing wrongs causing new and distinct damages,” he should have filed his lawsuit after the first two expert reports, not waiting seven years for a third expert to opine.