Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Be Aware of Two New Statutes that Became Effective May 1, 2021

May 24, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
On May 1, 2021, two new statutes that passed in 2020 and that directly affect construction became effective. I’ve used the AGC-VA description of the bills and encourage you to read the statutes in full. Prevailing Wage Starting May 1, 2021, Virginia’s new prevailing wage statute takes effect. This statute requires any contractor bidding on state procurement jobs to pay prevailing wages for work completed on the project. Further, localities and some institutes of higher education have the option to require prevailing wages on jobs. This may have the effect of significantly raising the cost of these jobs and creating market incentives which make it very difficult for many contractors to bid on this type of work, and is consistent with work performed on VDOT and federal projects. The law further requires certified payroll for any prevailing wage job and the consequence for not following the statute includes debarment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Finding an "Occurrence," Appellate Court Rules Insurer Must Defend

March 11, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Reversing the trial court, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals found the insurer must defend a cross-claim against the insured owner of a building after an explosion occurred. LBC, LLC v Spectrum Brands, Inc., 2023 Wis. App. LEXIS 1251 (Wis. Ct. App, Nov. 30, 2023). LBC leased commercial property to Spectrum. Spectrum stored lithium on the property. The lithium exploded when it came into contact with water that entered the premises during historic flooding in August 2018. Spectrum remediated the premises, vacated the premises prior to the lease's termination date, and stopped paying rent. LBC sued Spectrum, alleging that Spectrum negligently stored the lithium and that Spectrum breached the lease. Spectrum counterclaimed, alleging that LCB breached the lease in various respects, that LCB negligent allowed water to infiltrate the premises, and that Spectrum was constructively evicted. LCB tendered the counterclaim to its insurer, General Casualty. The tender was denied and LCB sued. 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

Government’s Termination of Contractor for Default for Failure-To-Make Progress

July 10, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Whenever you elect to terminate the other party for cause or for default, you need to JUSTIFY the basis of the cause or default. The reason being is that a termination for default or cause is the harshest contractual remedy. This is why the other party will typically either (i) convert the termination for default into one for convenience, or (ii) if there is no termination for convenience provision in the contract, argue the terminating party breached the contract by terminating the contract without rightful justification. The key is if you are going to terminate a party for cause of default, make sure you have memorialized the persuasive reasons for exercising the termination, and can otherwise reasonably support the justification. Do not, and I repeat, do not haphazardly exercise a termination for default and think you do not have to justify the basis for the termination. 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

California Joins the Majority of States in Modifying Its Survival Action Statute To Now Permit Recovery for Pain, Suffering And Disfigurement

January 03, 2022 — Krsto Mijanovic & Elizabeth D. Rhodes - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
On January 1, 2022, California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”)Section 377.30 et seq., as amended by Senate Bill 447, otherwise known as the “survival action” statute1, goes into effect. On that date, all plaintiffs filing new civil cases filed on or after January 1, 2022, and before January 1, 2026, and plaintiffs in any action or proceeding granted trial preference pursuant to CCP Section 36 before January 1, 2022, will be expressly allowed to recover damages for a decedent’s pain, suffering, or disfigurement in a survival action.2 This is a significant change in California law. In that regard, California is now the 46th state to permit this form of recovery. As reported in the Legislative Counsel’s Digest3, Consumer Attorneys of California and Consumer Federation of California, which co-sponsored Senate Bill 447, opined to the Legislature that the prior law provided a “death discount” to defendants which incentivized bad faith delays in resolution, and caused unnecessary congestion of the already overburdened court system. These argued issues will be vetted by the Legislature using the four-year reporting requirement that is also part of the amendment to the statute, requiring plaintiffs who recover this newly permitted category of damages to report the valuation and details of the case to the Judicial Council within 60 days of the judgment or other operative court document being entered in the court’s docket.4 The amendment will be evaluated by the Legislature for amendment or extension on or before January 1, 2026. Reprinted courtesy of Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Elizabeth D. Rhodes, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Rhodes may be contacted at erhodes@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer’s Confession Of Judgment Through Post-Lawsuit Payment

June 25, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The recent opinion in the property insurance coverage dispute, Bryant v. Geovera Specialty Ins. Co., 44 Fla.L.Weekly D1232a (Fla. 4thDCA 2019), discusses the doctrine known as an insurer’s “confession of judgment.” In this case, an insured suffered water damage from a pipe leak. The insurer paid the insured $6,000 because of sublimits in the property insurance policy. There was a $5,000 sublimit for mold and a $1,000 sublimit for water leakage that occurs over a period of 14 days or more. The insured sued the insurer for covered water damage arguing that the sublimits did not apply. After the lawsuit was filed, an agreed order was entered that stayed the case pending an appraisal. The appraisal award did not apply the $1,000 sublimit to the water damage from the pipe leak and segregated out damage for mold. (The insurer already paid the mold sublimit). The insurer ended up paying the appraisal award for the water damage caused by the pipe leak after deducting its pre-lawsuit sublimit payment. The insurer paid the award and did NOT challenge the application of the $1,000 sublimit in court, although it could have since coverage issues are decided by courts. 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

Millennium’s Englander Buys $71.3 Million Manhattan Co-Op

September 03, 2014 — Oshrat Carmiel – Bloomberg
Israel Englander, the founder and chief executive officer of hedge-fund firm Millennium Management LLC, bought a duplex apartment on New York’s Park Avenue for $71.3 million, a record price for a Manhattan co-op. The seller was the government of France, New York City property records filed on Aug. 30 show. The six-bedroom unit at 740 Park Ave. was listed for $48 million in April, according to real estate website StreetEasy.com. The Park Avenue tower, completed in 1931 and designed by Rosario Candela and Arthur Loomis Harmon, has been home to John D. Rockefeller Jr. and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, according to StreetEasy. Its 31 units include duplexes and triplexes of as much as 20,000 square feet (1,900 square meters). The 18-room co-op bought by Englander includes a private elevator, 35-foot (10.6-meter) marble gallery and five fireplaces, said the listing by John Burger of Brown Harris Stevens. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg
Ms. Carmiel may be contacted at ocarmiel1@bloomberg.net

Reminder: Just Being Incorporated Isn’t Enough

June 29, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have discussed why contractors need to incorporate previously here at Construction Law Musings. Among the many reasons to incorporate are possible tax benefits and the protection of personal assets (like your house and your dog) from judgement and collection actions. This latter reason is key in the construction world in which Murphy can look like an optimist and projects have so many moving parts that something is likely to go wrong. The reason incorporation works as at least a partial shield is that the company and the owners are separate “people” or entities from a legal perspective and a contract with one “person” cannot be enforced against another. This same logic applies in the context of corporate versus individual actions, i. e. the actions of one person cannot be legally attributed to another person. By extension the assets of an individual cannot be collected to satisfy a purely corporate debt or judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

“Good Faith” May Not Be Good Enough: California Supreme Court to Decide When General Contractors Can Withhold Retention

March 22, 2018 — Erinn Contreras and Joy O. Siu – Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
It is industry standard in California for owners of a construction project to make monthly payments to a contractor for work it has completed, less a certain percentage that is withheld as a guarantee of future satisfactory performance. This withholding is called a retention. Contractors generally pass these withholdings on to their subcontractors via a retention clause in the subcontract. Under such clause, if a subcontractor fails to complete its work or correct deficiencies in its work, the owner and the general contractor may use the retention to bring the subcontractor’s work into conformance with the requirements of the contract. When and how retention payments must be released are governed by, among other statutes, Civil Code section 8800 et seq. Specifically, Civil Code section 8814, subdivision (a), states that a direct contractor must pay each subcontractor its share of a retention payment within ten days after the general contractor receives all or part of a retention payment. Failure to make payments in accordance with Section 8814 can subject an owner or a contractor to a (1) two percent penalty per a month on the amount wrongfully withheld, and (2) claim for attorney’s fees for any litigation required to collect the wrongfully withheld retention payments. (Civ. Code, § 8818.) Reprinted courtesy of Erinn Contreras, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP and Joy Siu, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP Ms. Contreras may be contacted at econtreras@sheppardmullin.com Ms. Siu may be contacted at jsiu@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES