Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Two Things to Consider Before Making Warranty Repairs

January 21, 2019 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
In my last article, “What a construction defect ‘win’ looks like for a builder,” I made the point that builders should go to great lengths to work with homeowners to resolve legitimate problems through the entire statute of repose, in order to prevent the homeowners from involving attorneys. Again, happy homeowners do not call attorneys and do not bring construction defect claims. In this article, I want to address the ramifications of this strategy that builders should consider. First, builders must be aware that any repairs performed will likely start anew the statutes of limitation and repose for the repairs. Second, builders should inform and involve their insurers in this process so as to avoid running afoul of their carriers’ “voluntary payments” clauses. In the long run, keeping homeowners happy is well worth the cost, especially if you keep in mind these additional considerations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Nevada Senate Bill 435 is Now in Effect

February 24, 2020 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
ATTENTION: Nevada liability departments and auto insurance carriers! Nevada Senate Bill No. 435 was recently signed into law and there are two key points to be aware of: Disclosure of Policy Limits Demand and Voiding Releases. These both deal with pre-litigation situations. 1) Nevada law now requires a motor vehicle insurer to disclose the limits of the policy if the claimant provides a HIPAA authorization which allows the carrier to “receive all medical reports, records and bills related to the claim from the providers of health care.” This is a change from the previous Nevada statute which required the disclosure of policy limits only after litigation was commenced. However, it appears from the language of the statute that there are limits to this new mandate. Section 4 of the new law is written in such a way to allow the argument that the new law applies only to accidents that occurred after 10/1/19, and that the insurance company has to request the HIPAA waiver from the claimant in order for the disclosure requirement to apply. The plaintiff’s bar is already attempting to address this language in the legislature. As written, subsection (4) is governed by subsection (1) which states that the insurance company “may require the claimant … to provide … a written authorization.” The following subparts all appear to be triggered only by the act of the insurance company requesting a HIPAA waiver. The plaintiff’s bar is pushing for clarifying language that would make it clear that once the claimant sent a HIPAA waiver, irrespective of whether the document was requested by the insurance company or not, the insurance company is required to disclose policy limits. This is not how the law reads on its face, and the change would make a significant difference from a practical perspective. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Pinnacle Controls in Verano

February 21, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The California Court of Appeals has applied the California Supreme Court’s recent Pinnacle decision to a new case, Verano Condominium Association v. La Cima Development. As in Pinnacle, La Cima sought to compel arbitration of construction defect claims with a homeowners association. The trial court denied La Cima’s attempt to compel arbitration on the grounds that the arbitration agreement was made with the individual homeowners and not the homeowners association. Further, it was determined that the CC&Rs “were unenforceable due to unconscionability.” La Cima appealed, and the appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part. After Pinnacle, La Cima sought a review. The Supreme Court of California directed the appeals court to vacate their earlier decision and reconsider, based on Pinnacle. The Fourth Circuit Court has concluded that this conflicted with the ruling in Pinnacle. There, as in Verano, homeowners signed agreements that disputes with the developer would be settled through binding arbitration. The appeals court had found for the community association, but on review, the California Supreme Court reversed this decision. The California Court of Appeals had two issue to consider in this review: whether the arbitration provisions applied to the homeowners association, and whether these provisions were unconscionable. The court concluded that “in light of Pinnacle it is clear the arbitration provisions set forth in the Verano CC&Rs constitute a valid agreement to arbitrate.” On the second question, the Verano CC&Rs were described by the court as “materially indistinguishable” from those in the earlier case. As the state Supreme Court found that those were not unconscionable, clearly neither were these. The case was remanded for further proceedings and La Cima is entitled to recover the costs of the appeal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Misread of Other Insurance Clause Becomes Costly for Insurer

February 22, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii

One insurer's refusal to defend based upon its "other insurance" provision ultimately meant the insurer had to pay all of the insured's defense costs. Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 2018 Wis. App. LEXIS 51 (Wis. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2018).

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) was a government agency that provided water reclamation and flood management services to the city. From March 1, 1998 to February 20, 2008, MMSD contracted with United Water Services Milwaukee LLC to operate the sewerage system. From March 1, 2008 on, MMSD contracted with Veolia Water North America-Central, LLC to operate the system.

Through agreements, both companies were obligated to indemnify MMSD for claims arising out of the operations and maintenance of the system and to obtain insurance to cover their indemnity obligations. Both companies complied.

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

Contract Change #8: Direct Communications between Owners and Contractors (law note)

March 28, 2018 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
As the Engineer or Architect of Record, you probably have frequently experienced Owners and Contractors communicating directly, in direct contravention of the language of the contract that requires them to endeavor to route all communications through the design team. With the latest version of the 201, direct communication is now authorized, to recognize both the reality of what was happening on the ground and to recognize that sometimes Owners and Contractors may need to communicate without waiting for the design team. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina

Watchdog Opens Cartel Probe Into Eight British Homebuilders

April 02, 2024 — Damian Shepherd & Katharine Gemmell - Bloomberg
Britain’s top antitrust enforcer has opened an investigation into eight housebuilders to probe potential information sharing, sharpening scrutiny of a sector that’s failing to deliver enough affordable housing to meet demand. The Competition and Markets Authority has opened a cartel investigation into eight developers including Barratt Developments Plc, the Berkeley Group, Persimmon Plc and Vistry Group Plc. The investigation centers on concerns the companies may have exchanged competitively sensitive information, which could be influencing the build-out of sites and the prices of new homes. An initial review will take place until December. CMA Chief Executive Officer Sarah Cardell told Bloomberg Television the watchdog had seen potential evidence of companies exchanging information relating to pricing, sales rates, and incentives offered to new homebuyers. The watchdog has the power to fine firms a maximum penalty of as much as 10% of annual revenue and disqualify directors following cartel investigations. Reprinted courtesy of Damian Shepherd, Bloomberg and Katharine Gemmell, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Prevailing Payment Bond Surety Entitled to Statutory Attorneys’ Fees Even if Defended by Principal

January 09, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
For contractors involved in California public works projects the scenario is not uncommon: The general contractor awarded the public works project is required to obtain a payment bond for the benefit of subcontractors and suppliers and the payment bond surety issuing the payment bond requires the general contractor to defend and indemnify the surety from and against any claims against the payment bond. In Cell-Crete Corporation v. Federal Insurance Company, 82 Cal.App.5th 1090 (2022), the 4th District Court of Appeal examined whether a payment bond surety, who prevails in a claim against the payment bond, is entitled to statutory attorneys’ fees when the party actually incurring the attorneys’ fees was the general contractor, pursuant to its defense and indemnity obligations, as opposed to the surety itself. The Cell-Crete Case General contractor Granite Construction Company was awarded a public works contract issued by the City of Thermal known as the Airport Boulevard at Grapefruit Boulevard and Union Pacific Railroad Grade Separation Project. We’ll just call it the “Project.” Subcontractor Cell-Crete Corporation entered into a subcontract with Granite for lightweight concrete and related work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Disaster Remediation Contracts: Understanding the Law to Avoid a Second Disaster

August 30, 2017 — Todd Colvard – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, consumers and contractors should be aware of protections prescribed by the Texas Legislature for Disaster Remediation Contracts. Chapter 58 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code includes several important consumer protections. Consumers should be aware of these protections, and contractors should take care to avoid inadvertent violations. This statute applies to a contractor engaged in “disaster remediation,” in a county subject to a disaster declaration. Those contracts are subject to certain notice provisions and limitations. A violation of Chapter 58 is considered a Deceptive Trade Practice and could subject a violator to both public and private remedies. The full text of Chapter 58 is found here: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/BC/htm/BC.58.htm. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Todd Colvard, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Colvard may be contacted at tcolvard@pecklaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES