Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Washington Supreme Court Upholds King County Ordinance Requiring Utility Providers to Pay for Access to County’s Right-of-Way and Signals Approval for Other Counties to Follow Suit

March 02, 2020 — Kristina Southwell - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
On December 5, 2019, the Washington State Supreme Court released its opinion in King County v. King County Water Districts, et al.,[1] upholding King County’s Ordinance 18403, which requires utility companies who are franchise grantees to pay “franchise compensation” for their use of the County rights-of-way. Generally, utility companies must apply for and obtain from the County a franchise permitting it to do necessary work in the County rights-of-way. [2] Previously, King County only charged an administrative fee associated with issuing such a franchise. But with the new franchise compensation charges, King County estimates that it will raise approximately $10 million dollars per year for its general fund. Ordinance 18403 passed in November 2016 and was the first of its kind in the state. The ordinance created a rule, set forth in RCW 6.27.080, requiring electric, gas, water, and sewer utilities who are granted a franchise by King County to pay “franchise compensation” in exchange for the right to use the County’s rights-of-way. The rule provides that franchise compensation is in the nature of an annual rent payment to the County for using the County roads. King County decides an initial estimate of the charge by considering various factors such as the value of the land used, the size of the area that will be used, and the density of the households served. But utility companies can negotiate with the County over the final amount of franchise compensation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kristina Southwell, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Southwell may be contacted at kristina.southwell@acslawyers.com

The “Program Accessibility” Exception for Public Entities Under the ADA

September 10, 2014 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Public owners, as well as private owners and tenants of commercial and retail properties, are at risk of lawsuits brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and related state law alleging that their facilities are not accessible by those with disabilities. A common misperception among private owners and tenants is that facilities constructed before the ADA went into effect in 1992 are exempt or “grandfathered” from the ADA’s requirements. Not so. At least generally. If, however, you are a public entity, there is such an exception. Lucky you. Under the ADA, public facilities constructed prior to January 26, 1992 need not be “accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities” so long as a public entity’s “service[s], program[s] and activit[ies], when viewed in [their] entirety, [are] readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” Known as “program accessibility,” the exception has left many public entities scratching their heads as to what they can and must do. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

Four Key Steps for a Successful Construction Audit Process

May 03, 2021 — Ronald L. Williams, Fox Rothschild LLP - ConsensusDocs
The implications of the audit provisions contained in construction agreements between owners and contractors owners extend far beyond post-completion bean counting, and can affect multiple aspects of a project, from project administration to relationships with key subcontractors. It is critically important that contractors give audits the attention they deserve by taking the following four steps. First, invest the time to negotiate the audit provisions that ultimately appear in contracts with the owner. Second, ensure that the project team and the owner’s project auditors engage in timely communication during construction. Third, make certain that post-completion audit administration is prompt and complete. And finally, carefully draft adequate “flow-down” provisions with subcontractors and vendors so that they understand and comply with their contractual obligations, as well as the expectations of the contractor and owner. All four aspects are critical, and if not addressed effectively can undermine the profitability of the contract, and contractors’ business relationships with both upstream and downstream parties. Negotiations At the outset of contract negotiations, a contractor must completely understand the owner’s audit process expectations. An owner’s understanding of the audit process and its potential pitfalls depends on their own experience, as well as the knowledge of their personnel, including internal audit members and external auditors. Negotiations, which like the audit itself need not be adversarial, can be educational for both the owner and any representatives involved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ronald L. Williams, Fox Rothschild LLP
Mr. Williams may be contacted at rwilliams@foxrothschild.com

First Quarter Gains in Housing Affordability

May 20, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) Eye on Housing, the combination of low interest rates and home prices has provided a “solid boost in nationwide affordability in the first quarter of 2015.” Furthermore, “66.5 percent of new and existing homes sold between the beginning of January and end of March were affordable to families earning the U.S. median income of $65,800.” Syracuse, New York remained the U.S.’s most affordable major housing market, while the San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City, California region was the nation’s least affordable major housing market. All five of the least affordable small housing markets were in California. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Good-To-Know Points Regarding (I) Miller Act Payment Bonds And (Ii) Payment Bond Surety Compelling Arbitration

December 22, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Every now and then I come across an opinion that addresses good-to-know legal issues as a corollary of strategic litigation decisions that are questionable and/or creative. An opinion out of the United States District Court of New Mexico, Rock Roofing, LLC v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, 2019 WL 4418918 (D. New Mexico 2019), is such an opinion. In Rock Roofing, an owner hired a contractor to construct apartments. The contractor furnished a payment bond. The contractor, in the performance of its work, hired a roofing subcontractor. A dispute arose under the subcontract and the roofer recorded a construction lien against the project. The contractor, per New Mexico law, obtained a bond to release the roofer’s construction lien from the project (real property). The roofer then filed a lawsuit in federal court against the payment bond surety claiming it is entitled to: (1) collect on the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond (?!?) and (2) foreclose its construction lien against the lien release bond furnished per New Mexico law. Count I – Miller Act Payment Bond Claiming the payment bond issued by the contractor is a Miller Act payment bond is a head scratcher. This claim was dismissed with prejudice upon the surety’s motion to dismiss. This was an easy call. 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

Construction Defect Litigation in Nevada Called "Out of Control"

February 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
KXNT Las Vegas's Trevor Smith reports that Las Vegas alone has more than 500 pending construction defect cases. The issue of construction defects in Nevada will be taken up by the Nevada Legislature. Smith spoke with Mike Dillon, the executive director of the Builders Association of Northern Nevada. BANN is supporting legislation that Dillon says will "protect homeowners and secondly it's going to put people back to work." Dillon noted that "construction is the second largest industry in the state." Dillon attributed some of the construction defect litigation to the state's building codes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Garlock Five Years Later: Recent Decisions Illustrate Ongoing Obstacles to Asbestos Trust Transparency

September 03, 2019 — Amy E. Vulpio - Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter
In In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, 504 B.R. 71 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2014), the court confirmed what many asbestos defendants and their insurers long suspected: that “the withholding of exposure evidence by plaintiffs and their lawyers was significant and had the effect of unfairly inflating the recoveries against Garlock” and other defendants. This “startling pattern of misrepresentation” included plaintiffs’ attorneys who, out of “perverted ethical duty,” counseled their clients to file claims against multiple trusts without valid factual grounds for so doing. Such “double dipping” and other abuse not only harms asbestos defendants and insurers, but also dilutes recoveries for legitimate claims. Now – five years after Garlock – the Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched a coordinated initiative to fight asbestos trust fraud and mismanagement. However, a series of recent bankruptcy court rulings suggests that this initiative stumbled out of the gate by focusing on the wrong issues. Asbestos defendants and their insurers can learn from the DOJ’s missteps. In November 2017, invoking Garlock, 20 state attorneys general wrote to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions asking him to devote DOJ resources to fighting asbestos trust abuse. A September 13, 2018 DOJ press release announced an initiative to increase the transparency and accountability of asbestos trusts. Through its United States Trustee Program (UST), the DOJ objected to the debtors’ proposed legal representative for future claims (FCR) in several Chapter 11 cases involving asbestos liabilities: Lawrence Fitzpatrick in Duro Dyne and James L. Patton, Jr. in Maremont, Fairbanks and Imerys Talc. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Amy E. Vulpio, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Vulpio may be contacted at vulpioa@whiteandwilliams.com

Judge Rejects Extrapolation, Harmon Tower to Remain Standing

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
CityCenter has filed an emergency motion asking the Nevada Supreme Court to intervene in Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez’ order that the building’s defects cannot be extrapolated from those tested. CityCenter’s structural engineering expert “evaluated 397 of the Harmon’s critical structural elements and found all but one defective,” according to the article on Vegas.Inc. Judge Gonzalez would not permit this to be extrapolated to the untested 1,072, as the locations tested were not random. Judge Gonzalez also ruled that if CityCenter does additional testing, they may not appeal her order that ruled the extrapolation inadmissible. CityCenter argued to the Nevada Supreme Court that “the notion that CityCenter should be forced to incur additional millions of dollars in testing costs and sanctions – on the condition that it waive its right to appeal this ruling – just to be permitted to present its own damages evidence, shocks the conscience.” Gonzalez gave the okay to CityCenter to demolish the building, but its demolition would make any further testing impossible. Under Gonzalez’ ruling, the untested structural elements cannot b assumed to be defective. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES