FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Eminent Domain Bomb Threats Made on $775M Alabama Highway Project

July 03, 2022 — Derek Lacey - Engineering News-Record
Multiple bomb threats have been made against Alabama transportation officials, law enforcement and others in reaction to eminent domain plans for a major highway expansion project. Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lacey, Engineering News-Record Mr. Lacey may be contacted at laceyd@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Additional Insured Not Entitled to Indemnity Coverage For Damage Caused by Named Insured

February 23, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The additional insured unsuccessfully sought to recover damages to its building caused by the named insured. Brit UW, Ltd. v. Tripar, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2462 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 6, 2017). Davis Russell Real Estate and Management LLC hired Tripar, Inc., a general contractor, to renovate a 12-unit apartment building. The entire roof was to be replaced by a roofing subcontractor. Davis Russell drafted a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) that governed the project. Tripar was to obtain a CGL policy and provide a certificate of insurance evidencing the coverage. Davis Russell was to be named as an additional insured. Tripar's insurance broker prepared a certificate of insurance reflecting that a CGL policy was issued to Tripar by Brit UW, Ltd. But the certificate clearly stated that it was not issued by the insurer and that it did not alter coverage. The certificate of insurance further stated that it conferred no rights upon the holder. 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

---

Pulte’s Kitchen Innovation Throw Down

December 10, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Pulte Group’s national purchasing director, Kellee Hansen, created a kitchen competition where six unaffiliated manufacturers competed against each other to build a kitchen vignette based on three consumer segments, reported Builder Online. On October 19th, each team had fifteen minutes to present their vignettes to about 100 people. “In our industry, I think we lack some collaboration, historically,” Hansen told Builder Online. “Listening to our suppliers just makes us better and it makes us better as an industry. I think it raises the level for all our peers as well when we listen to our manufacturers.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence

July 13, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Sometimes, hedging a position on a potential occurrence is not prudent. Stated differently, hedging a position on a contingent event is not the right course of action. The reason being is that a potential occurrence or contingent event is SPECULATIVE. The occurrence or event may not take place and, even if it does take place, the impact is unknown. An example of hedging a defense on such a potential occurrence or contingent event can be found in a construction dispute involving a federal project out of the Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co., 2020 WL 1644565 (E.D.Va. 2020). In this case, the prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform electrical work, under one subcontract, and install a security system, under a separate subcontract. The subcontractor claimed it was owed money under the two subcontracts and instituted a lawsuit against the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond. The prime contractor had issued the subcontractor an approximate $71,000 back-charge for delays. While the subcontractor did not accept the back-charge, it moved for summary judgment claiming that the liability for the back-charge can be resolved at trial as there is still over $300,000 in contract balance that should be paid to it. The prime contractor countered that the delays caused by the subcontractor could be greater than $71,000 based on a negative evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”). A negative CPARS rating by the federal government due to the delays caused by the subcontractor would result in a (potential) loss of business with the federal government (i.e., lost profit) to the prime contractor. The main problem for the prime contractor: a negative CPARs rating was entirely speculative as there had not been a negative CPARs rating and, even if there was, the impact a negative rating would have on the prime contractor’s future business with the federal government was unknown. To this point, the district court stated:

In this case, [prime contractor’s] claim for damages is wholly speculative. [Prime contractor] has not produced any evidence that its stated condition precedent—a negative CPARS rating—will actually occur and will have a negative impact on its future federal contracting endeavors. Specifically, [prime contractor] has not identified any facts that indicate that it will be subject to a negative CPARS rating or any indication of the Navy’s dissatisfaction with its work as the prime contractor on the Project… Further, a CPARS rating is only one aspect taken into consideration when federal contracts are awarded. In sum, there is no evidence of the following: (1) a negative CPARS rating issued to [prime contractor]; (2) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative rating will be the result of the delay [prime contractor] alleges was caused by [subcontractor]; or (3) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative CPARS rating will result in future lost profits.

U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc., supra, at *2 (internal citation omitted).

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

---

Court Finds That SIR Requirements are Not Incorporated into High Level Excess Policies and That Excess Insurers’ Payment of Defense Costs is Not Conditioned on Actual Liability

April 22, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Deere & Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (No. A145170, filed 2/25/19), a California appeals court held that the insured was not required to pay additional self-insured retentions (SIRs) in order to trigger higher level excess coverage because the retained limits applicable to the first layer of coverage did not also apply to the higher-layer excess policies. In Deere, the insured was sued for injuries from alleged exposure to asbestos-containing assemblies used in Deere machines. In a declaratory relief action against its umbrella and excess insurers, the case was tried on: (1) whether the higher-layer excess policies were triggered once the first-layer excess policy limits, which were subject to an SIR paid by Deere, had been exhausted; and (2) whether the insurers’ indemnity obligation extended to Deere’s defense costs incurred in asbestos claims that had been dismissed. The trial court found in favor of the insurers, concluding that the retained limits in the first layer of coverage also applied to the higher-layer excess, which was not triggered until Deere paid additional SIRs. The court also concluded that the insurers were not obligated to pay defense costs when underlying cases were dismissed without payment to a claimant either by judgment or settlement. Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Justice Didn’t Ensure Mortgage Fraud Was Priority, IG Says

March 19, 2014 — Tom Schoenberg and Phil Mattingly – Bloomberg
The U.S. Justice Department failed to pursue mortgage fraud in the years following the 2008 financial crisis with the same level of commitment that it publicly touted, an internal watchdog said. While Attorney General Eric Holder said mortgage-fraud cases were among the department’s top priorities, the Federal Bureau of Investigation internally ranked them the lowest of six criminal threats, according to a report released today by Inspector General Michael Horowitz. The FBI devoted fewer resources to such cases even though Congress allocated $196 million for fiscal years 2009 to 2011 to pursue such conduct. The Justice Department has been criticized by lawmakers and judges for not bringing more criminal cases against individuals following the collapse in housing prices and ensuing market turmoil. In August, Holder retracted a public statement after Bloomberg News reported that the department had inflated its track record of mortgage-fraud prosecutions. Mr. Schoenberg may be contacted at tschoenberg@bloomberg.net; Mr. Mattingly may be contacted at pmattingly@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Schoenberg and Phil Mattingly, Bloomberg

---

Caveat Emptor (“Buyer Beware!”) Exceptions

May 10, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There is value to a seller when it comes to entering into an as-is transaction and stating that the seller has NOT made any representation or warranty, all such representations or warranties are disclaimed, the buyer is NOT relying on any representation of the seller, and that the buyer is relying on its own inspection of the property. This shifts the onus to the buyer to undertake the inspection or due diligence it needs to take relating to the property it wants to buy. With respect to commercial property transactions:

The doctrine of caveat emptor, which Florida courts continue to apply, “places the duty to examine and judge the value and condition of the property solely on the buyer and protects the seller from liability for any defects.” There are, however, three exceptions to this doctrine, including: “1) where some artifice or trick has been employed to prevent the purchaser from making independent inquiry; 2) where the other party does not have equal opportunity to become apprised of the fact; and, 3) where a party undertakes to disclose facts and fails to disclose the whole truth.” Florida Holding 4800, LLC v. Lauderhill Mall Investment, LLC, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D785b (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

These three exceptions to caveat emptor, or the doctrine of buyer beware, are not easy to prove because it places a burden on a buyer to prove an active effort from the seller to conceal a material fact to skirt around the as-is language. Again, this is not an easy burden to prove. 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

---

Death of Subcontractor’s Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Project Owner

April 12, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a previous article, I discussed a subcontractor’s unjust enrichment claim against a project’s owner and the death of this equitable claim if the owner fully paid the general contractor or paid the general contractor for the subcontractor’s work. This can be best summarized from a very short 1995 opinion out of the Fourth District Court of Appeal: “Unjust enrichment is equitable in nature and cannot exist where payment has been made for the benefit conferred. [Owner] paid [General Contractor] the full amount of its contract for the construction project. Accordingly, there can be no unjust enrichment claim to support [Subcontractor’s] claim.” Gene B. Glick Co., Inc. v. Sunshine Ready Concrete Co., Inc., 651 So.2d 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A. Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---