Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Motion to Dismiss Insureds' Counterclaim on the Basis of Prior Knowledge Denied

September 04, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer unsuccessfully moved to dismiss portions of the insureds' counterclaim based upon prior knowledge. Hudson Spec. Ins. Co. v. Talex Enter., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105598 (S. D. Miss. June 25, 2018). The insureds' building collapsed in McComb, Mississippi. Pubic utilities were damaged and traffic disrupted. The City sued the insured, alleging that the building collapsed because there was too much water gathered on its roof. The City further alleged that the insureds knew too much water was on the roof because they had been told by someone hired to clean the drain that it was clogged and by a contractor that the roof was so damaged that it could not safely be repaired. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

The Prompt Payment Act Obligation is Not Triggered When the Owner Holds Less Retention from the General Contractor

October 27, 2016 — John P. Ahlers – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Most states have laws known as “prompt payment” statutes which govern the timing of payments on public works projects[i] from project owners to general contractors, and from general contractors to subcontractors.[ii] The purpose of these statutes is to ensure that contractors and subcontractors who may have less leverage than the project owners and prime contractors, respectively, are paid for their work on a timely basis. Prompt Payment Act cases are rare, and, since many of the prompt payment statutes are founded on the same principles, when we come across a Prompt Payment Act case, it is “blog worthy.” This dispute arose from the construction of the Exposition Light Rail Line Project connecting downtown Los Angeles with Culver City on which FCI/Fluor/Parsons (“FFP”) was the prime contractor, and Bloise Construction, Inc. (“Bloise”) was the excavation subcontractor to FFP. Under the prime contract, Expo,[iii] the owner, was permitted to withhold ten percent of the payments owed to FFP, and FFP, pursuant to its subcontract with Bloise, was entitled to also withhold ten percent of the payments to Bloise as retention. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Secures Summary Judgment Win for National Hotel Chain

August 26, 2019 — Bradley T. Guldalian - Traub Lieberman
On June 26, 2019, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP Partner Bradley T. Guldalian secured summary judgment on behalf of a national hotel chain in a slip and fall accident filed in Osceola County Circuit Court in Kissimmee, Florida. The underlying loss occurred when the Plaintiff slipped and fell in a puddle of water allegedly existing in the hotel’s laundry room and suffered a partial thickness rotator cuff tear involving the distal infraspinatus tendon for which he underwent surgery and incurred over $70,000 in medical bills. The Plaintiff filed a premises liability action against the hotel claiming the hotel had failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition proximately causing the Plaintiff’s fall and resulting injuries. After discovery closed, Mr. Guldalian filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the hotel arguing that to prevail in a negligence claim involving a “transitory foreign substance”, such as water on a floor, an injured party must plead and prove pursuant to Florida Statute 768.0755 that the business establishment had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and should have taken action to remedy it prior to the time of the alleged fall. Constructive knowledge may be proven by circumstantial evidence showing that (1) the dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that, in the exercise of ordinary care, the business establishment should have known of the condition or (2) that the condition occurred with such regularity that it was foreseeable that the condition would be present on the day the injury occurred. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bradley T. Guldalian, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Guldalian may be contacted at bguldalian@tlsslaw.com

An Insurance Policy Isn’t Ambiguous Just Because You Want It to Be

December 20, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to insurance contracts, there is a rule of law that states, “where interpretation is required by ambiguity in insurance contracts[,] the insured will be favored.” Pride Clean Restoration, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2584a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (citation and quotation omitted). Stated another way: ambiguities in insurance contracts will be interpreted in favor of the insured and against the insurer. With this rule of law in mind, insureds oftentimes try to argue ambiguity even when there is not one. This was the situation in Pride Clean Construction. In this case, the property insurance policy contained a mold exclusion that stated the policy did NOT insure for “a. loss caused by mold, mildew, fungus, spores or other microorganism of any type, nature, or description including but not limited to any substance whose presence poses an actual or potential threat to human health; or b. the cost or expense of monitoring, testing, removal, encapsulation, abatement, treatment or handling of mold, mildew, fungus, spores or other microorganism as referred to in a) above.” Not only did the policy not insure for loss caused by mold, it went further to state it was NOT insuring for any mold testing or abatement. 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

Public Contract Code Section 1104 Does Not Apply to Claims of Implied Breach of Warranty of Correctness of Plans and Specifications

October 30, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s the classic tale of two cities. One city is occupied by architects and engineers. The other, by contractors. And while the cities typically co-exist relatively peacefully together, at times, they do not, such as when a defect arises that can either be a design or construction defect. Sometimes, project owners are pulled into these fights as well. There is a common law rule that when contracting with a contractor the owner impliedly warrants to the contractor that the plans and specifications are sufficiently accurate and correct. And, if you work on local public works projects, you may be familiar with Public Contract Code section 1104 which provides that, with the exception of design-build projects, local public entities cannot require a bidder to assume responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of architectural or engineering plans and specifications. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Property Owner Entitled to Rely on Zoning Administrator Advice

May 16, 2018 — Kevin J. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In the recent case of In Re Langlois/Novicki Variance Denial, 175 A.3d 1222, 2017 VT 76 (2017), the Vermont court addressed the question of whether a property owner could enforce – by equitable estoppel principles – a representation by a town zoning administrator that no permit or variance was needed for the property owner’s proposed construction. In that case, a landowner wanted to add a pergola to an existing concrete patio on his land. During a social visit at the property, the property owner asked the town zoning administrator if he needed a permit. The town zoning administrator told the property owner that no permit was needed. The property owner thereafter showed the zoning administrator a sketch of the planned construction, and again asked if a permit was required. The town zoning administrator looked at the sketch and repeated his prior advice that no permit was needed. The property owner then spent $33,000 to build the pergola. After incurring the expense, the property owner was advised that the structure violated zoning regulations. The property owner requested a variance, which the zoning board denied. The Court held that the town was estopped from requiring removal of the pergola. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com

Construction Defect Class Action Lawsuit Alleges National Cover-up of Pipe Defects

December 10, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Two Miami condominium associations have filed suit “concerning defective fire sprinkler systems and a national cover up over a significant life safety issue in multi-unit condominiums in Florida and across the country.” The attorneys representing the class action lawsuit, Gonzalez, Montoya, Siegfried, Sobel, and Hale, “believe that the problem is nationwide and that monetary damages arising from the claims will exceed $1 billion,” a press release by Colson Hicks Eidson stated. “The 56-count lawsuit filed against a dozen manufacturers, suppliers and distributors seeks compensatory, incidental and consequential damages.” According to CBS Miami, “The suit claims the companies knowingly used [a] chemical that caused cracks and leaks in pipes that affected the water pressure in sprinkler systems.” Plaintiff attorneys claim that the cost to repair each building is estimated at between $50 to $100 million each. Read the full story, Press Release... Read the full story, CBS Miami... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

If I Released My California Mechanics Lien, Can I File a New Mechanics Lien on the Same Project? Will the New Mechanics Lien be Enforceable?

December 29, 2020 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
If I Released My California Mechanics Lien, Can I File a New Mechanics Lien on the Same Project? Will the New Mechanics Lien be Enforceable? In general, the answer to the above questions is “Yes”, but only if you meet the following requirements:

You must only release the mechanics lien itself, but not the “right” to a mechanics lien: There is an important distinction to be made between releasing a mechanics lien and releasing the right to a mechanics lien. Whether you do one or the other will depend on the specific language used in your release. In the case of Santa Clara Land Title Co. v. Nowack and Associates, Inc. (1991) 226 Cal. App.3d, 1558 a “release of mechanics lien” document was recorded TO THE County Recorder’s office which included a statement that the mechanics lien was “fully satisfied, released and discharged”. Based on this language, the court concluded that the mechanics lien claimant had waived its “right” to a further mechanics lien on the same property for the work in question. The court concluded that since the release stated that the claim was “fully satisfied” the right to mechanics lien on the project had forever been waived. The Nowak case can be distinguished from the case of Koudmani v. Ogle Enterprises, Inc., (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1650, where the release of mechanics lien only stated that the mechanics lien was “otherwise released and discharged” and not that it was “satisfied”. Based on the distinction drawn from the two cases, a simple mechanics lien release that only releases the mechanics lien itself, but not the “right” to a mechanics lien should be used. At the following link you will find a proper form to achieve this purpose: https://www.porterlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/03PRI-Mechanics-Lien-Release.pdf

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES