FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

The Unwavering Un-waivable Implied Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability in Arizona

January 23, 2023 — Robert A. Henry & Emily R. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
The Arizona Supreme Court recently issued an opinion on the scope of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability (the “implied warranty”) in contracts between homebuyers and builder/vendors that provides clear guidance of the law in this area, specifically on the issue of whether the implied warranty can be waived or disclaimed. It is also an interesting and helpful read for those who engage in new home residential sales and real estate transactions generally. The case: Zambrano v. M & RC, II LLC, 254 Ariz. 53 (2022). The takeaway holding: the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability cannot, under any circumstances, be disclaimed or waived. From a practice perspective, the foregoing is likely all one needs to ultimately know. However, the majority opinion (authored by Justice Timmer) and the dissent (authored by Justice King, and joined by Justice Bolick) are in these authors’ opinions worth a read for those who want a better understanding of the contours of how “public policy” plays into the analysis of the enforceability of contract terms, especially in the real estate context and even more particularly in connection with contracts for the sale of new homes. The careful analysis of both the majority opinion and the dissent provides an excellent history of the implied warranty, the public policy behind it, and its scope and application in the context of competing public policies, most notably the freedom to contract. Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. Henry, Snell & Wilmer and Emily R. Parker, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Henry may be contacted at bhenry@swlaw.com Ms. Parker may be contacted at eparker@swlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The downtown Indianapolis area is the site of about 85 major building projects that are from groundbreaking to just complete. The Indianapolis Star reports that the cumulative worth of the projects is about $3 billion, a level of construction that Indianapolis has seen only once before.



About thirty of the projects are residential. The main commercial project is a $754 million hospital building. The boom in downtown Indianapolis is not matched elsewhere, with the Indianapolis Star reporting that in the rest of Central Indiana, construction has slowed.

Read the full story…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Washington Court Tunnels Deeper Into the Discovery Rule

July 09, 2019 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
Often times, properly analyzing when a statute of limitations begins to run – not just how long it runs – is crucial to timely pleading. In Dep’t of Transp. v. Seattle Tunnel Partners, 2019 Wash.App. LEXIS 281 (Was. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2019), Division Two of the Court of Appeals of Washington addressed when the discovery rule starts the statute of limitations clock on a negligence cause of action. The court held that the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows that the factual elements of the claim against the defendant exist. The clock starts to run even if the plaintiff wants to investigate the possibility of other contributing factors or the defendant identifies opposing viewpoints on the theory of the claim. In this matter, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) contracted with an engineering firm, WSP USA, Inc. (WSP), for an evaluation of the Alaskan Way Viaduct in 2001. As part of this project, WSP retained the services of Shannon and Wilson (S&W), another engineering firm, to conduct geological profile logs, groundwater-pumping tests, and prepare technical memoranda. In 2002, WSP and S&W installed a pumping well with an eight-inch steel casing (TW-2). In 2009, apparently based on the work done by WSP and S&W, WSDOT determined that a bored underground tunnel was the best option for replacing the viaduct. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Recovering For Inflation On Federal Contracts: Recent DOD Guidance On Economic Price Adjustment Clauses

October 24, 2022 — Amanda L. Marutzky - ConsensusDocs
Since October 2020, inflation in the United States has seen its fastest increase in more than 30 years. In the last year alone, inflation has remained as high as 8.6%. This hike has impacted everything from diesel to steel. In the construction industry, the higher prices of goods and services directly affect how contractors draft their construction contracts. The Department of Defense (DoD) has taken note of this dramatic price increase and recently issued guidance to its commanding officers and the procurement community. On May 5, 2022, DoD issued a memorandum titled “Guidance on Inflation and Economic Price Adjustments.” The stated purpose of the memo is “to assist COs to understand whether it is appropriate to recognize cost increases due to inflation under existing contracts as well as offer considerations for the proper use of EPA when entering into new contracts.” DoD’s memo responds to contractor and contracting officer concerns about the sudden and unexpected cost increases in labor and materials. Economic Price Adjustments, or EPAs, are adjustments to a stated contract price upon the occurrence of certain contingencies. FAR 16.203-1. They are of three general types – (1) adjustments based on established prices, (2) adjustments based on actual costs of labor or material, or (3) adjustments based on cost indexes of labor or material. Id. Because EPAs allow for adjustments in a contract price, EPA clauses allow a contractor to recover unanticipated increases in its project costs. For example, FAR 52.216-4, Economic Price Adjustment-Labor and Material, authorizes a contractor to recover for increases in the cost of material or labor. Such recovery is available when costs increase more than 3%, with a maximum recovery of 10% of the original contract price. See also FAR 52.216-2 through FAR 52.216-4. These EPA clauses provide contractors with relief and protection from issues such as dramatic inflation. EPA clauses, however, are not included in all contracts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Amanda L. Marutzky, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Marutzky may be contacted at amarutzky@watttieder.com

---

Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (06/29/22)

July 11, 2022 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Housing market activity is on the downtick, the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment launches, the SEC proposes a climate rule that signals a new era for real estate, and more.

• The U.S. and other members of the G-7 including Canada, Germany, and Japan launched the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, which aims to raise $600 billion for global infrastructure projects. (Su-Lin Tan, CNBC)
• Housing market activity decreases rapidly, with mortgage rates spiking to the highest levels since 2009. (Andrea Riquier, Forbes Advisor)
• Industrial real estate developers increase the amount of cold-storage warehouses being built in the U.S., betting on pandemic-driven changes in the way consumers buy groceries and meals are here to stay. (Liz Young, The Wall Street Journal)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

---

Federal District Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against Implementation of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Final Rule

November 03, 2016 — Patrick J. Greene, Jr. & Lori Ann Lange – Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Client Alert
On July 31, 2014, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13673. As subsequently amended, the Executive Order purports to “increase efficiency and cost savings in the work performed by parties who contract with the Federal Government by ensuring that they understand and comply with labor laws.” On August 25, 2016 the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) Council published the final FAR Rule and the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) published its Guidance further implementing the Executive Order. The FAR final rule was scheduled to go into effect in stages, starting with solicitations with an estimated value of $50 million or more on October 25, 2016. The potential effect of these new regulations on government contractors has been the subject of prior alerts from this office and much ongoing discussion. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick J. Greene, Jr., Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Lori Ann Lange, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Greene may be contacted at pgreene@pecklaw.com Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Flood Policy Does Not Cover Debris Removal from Property

May 07, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Third Circuit affirmed the granting summary judgment to the insurer over a dispute as to debris removal under a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP). Torre v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4902 (3rd Cir. March 26, 2015). The Torres' property sustained substantial damage from Hurricane Sandy. Claims for flood damage were submitted to Liberty. Liberty paid a total of $235,751.68, which included the cost of removing debris from the house. An additional $15,520 for the cost of removing sand and other debris deposited on their land in front of and behind the Torres' home was denied on the grounds that the SFIP did not cover such removal. The Torres filed suit and cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. The district court denied the Torres' motion and granted Liberty's motion. 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

---

PA Superior Court Provides Clarification on Definition of CGL “Occurrence” When Property Damage Is Caused by Faulty Building Conditions

September 30, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Konrad R. Krebs - White and Williams LLP
The standard for an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy has been addressed on several occasions by Pennsylvania courts when an insured has allegedly performed faulty workmanship on a construction project. Specifically, in Pennsylvania, a claim for damages arising from an insured’s performance of faulty workmanship pursuant to a construction contract, where the only damage is to property supplied by the insured or worked on by the insured, does not constitute an “occurrence” under the standard commercial general liability insurance policy definition. But what about the circumstance when the insured has failed to perform contractual duties where the claim is for property damage to property not supplied by the insured or unrelated to the service the insured contracted to provide? The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently addressed this question in Pennsylvania Manufacturers Indemnity Co. v. Pottstown Industrial Complex LP, No. 3489 EDA 2018, 2019 Pa. Super. 223, 2019 Pa. Super. LEXIS 729* (Pa. Super. 2019). Pottstown Industrial Complex arose out of an underlying dispute between a landlord and a commercial tenant who had leased space to store its product inventory. The tenant alleged that the landlord was responsible under the lease for keeping the roof “in serviceable condition in repair.” Notwithstanding this responsibility, the tenant alleged that the landlord failed to properly maintain and repair the roof, resulting in leaks and flooding during four separate rainstorms, destroying over $700,000 in inventory. The tenant specifically alleged that the floods were caused by poor caulking of the roof, gaps and separations in the roofing membrane, undersized drain openings, and accumulated debris and clogged drains. The insurer filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a determination that there was no coverage under a commercial general liability policy issued to the landlord. Following a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the trial court entered an order in favor of the insurer, holding that allegations of inadequate roof repairs were claims for faulty workmanship and were not covered under Kvaerner Metals Division of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., 908 A.2d 888 (Pa. 2006) and Millers Capital Insurance Co. v. Gambone Brothers Development Co., 941 A.2d 706 (Pa. Super. 2007). Reprinted courtesy of Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Konrad Krebs, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Krebs may be contacted at krebsk@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---