Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Largest Per Unit Settlement Ever in California Construction Defect Case?

October 28, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

BusinessWire reports that the Chelsea Court Homeowners Association has settled their construction defect case for $5.4 million. That works out to $169,000 per unit, which BusinessWire describes as “California’s largest per-unit recovery known to be on record to date.”

Most of the money in the settlement is coming from insurance companies for the builder and thirteen subcontractors. Issues included roof and window leaks, deck failures, and unsafe walkways.

Read the full story...

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

Thank You for 17 Years of Legal Elite in Construction Law

December 16, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Thank you once again to those in the Virginia legal community who elected me to the Virginia Business Legal Elite in the Construction Law category for the 17th consecutive year. The 17 consecutive years of election to the Legal Elite in the Construction Category span my entire close to 14 years as a solo construction attorney. The fact that you all have continued to elect “100%” of the lawyers at The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC for the last 13 years is most gratifying and only confirms that my decision to “go solo” over 13 years ago was a good one. To be included in this list of top construction attorneys is both humbling and gratifying. For the complete list of the Virginia construction lawyers who were elected along with me, see the 2023 Virginia Business Legal Elite in Construction Law. 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

California Cracking down on Phony Qualifiers

July 23, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Garret Murai in his California Construction Law Blog stated that “California’s Senate Bill 862, and amended Business and Professions Code 7068.1” has given the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) “additional enforcement authority to crack down on phony qualifiers by allowing the CLSB to take disciplinary action against a qualifier and a licensee if the qualifier is not actively involved in the construction activities of the licensee’s business.” Murai explained that “[r]enting a qualifier means that you pay an individual who holds a California contractor’s license to act as the Responsible Managing Officer (RMO) or Responsible Managing Employee (RMO) of a construction company when they have no actual involvement in the day-to-day operations of the company.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Know When Your Claim “Accrues” or Risk Losing It

August 20, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have discussed statutes of limitation on construction claims in various contexts from issues with a disconnect on state projects to questions of continuous breach here at Construction Law Musings. For those that are first time readers, the statute of limitations is the time during which a plaintiff can bring its claim, whether under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA), for breach of contract, or for any other legal wrong that was done to him, her or it by another. The range of limitations runs the gamut of times, for instance it is 5 years for breach of a written contract and 6 months for enforcement of a mechanic’s lien. This time period is calculated from the “accrual” of the right of action. “Accrual” is, in general terms, when the plaintiff was originally harmed or should have known it was harmed (depending on the particular cause of action). A recent case out of the Circuit Court of Norfolk, Virginia examined when a cause of action for a construction related claim under the VCPA accrued and thus whether the plaintiff’s claim was timely. In Hyde Park Free Will Baptist Church v. Skye-Brynn Enterprises Inc., the Court looked at the following basic facts (pay attention to the dates): The Plaintiff, Hyde Park Baptist Church, hired the Defendant, Skye-Brynn Enterprises, Inc., to perform certain roof repairs that were “completed” in 2015. Shortly after the work was done, in 2015, the Plaintiff informed Defendant that the roof still leaked and that some leaks were worse than before. The Defendant unsuccessfully attempted repair at the time. 14 months later in 2017, the church had other contractors examine the roof and opine as to its faulty installation. Also in 2017, the church submitted roof samples to GAF, the roof membrane manufacturer and in February 2018 GAF responded stating that the leaks were not due to manufacturing defects. The church filed its complaint on October 1, 2018 breach of contract, breach of warranty of workmanship and fraud in violation of the VCPA. Defendant responded with a plea in bar, arguing that the statute of limitations barred the claim. 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

Public Contract Code 9204 – A New Mandatory Claims Process for Contractors and Subcontractors – and a Possible Trap for the Unwary

March 22, 2017 — Alex R. Baghdassarian & Joseph S. Sestay – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
New California legislation affecting public works contractors was adopted pursuant to Assembly Bill 626, sponsored by the Union Trade Contractors Association of California and endorsed by various trade and contractor associations including the AGC. AB 626, which was intended to assist contractors in presenting claims against public agencies, affords new opportunities, and some potential pitfalls, to contractors and subcontractors submitting claims to public owners. The legislation, codified at California Public Contract Code (PCC) section 9204, is effective for public works contracts entered into after January 1, 2017. All public entities (including the CSUS and the UC system), other than certain Departments of the State (CalTrans, High-Speed Rail Authority, Water Resources, Parks and Recreation, Corrections and Rehabilitation, General Services and the Military) are bound by the provisions of PCC Section 9204. PCC 9204 establishes a mandatory pre-litigation process for all claims by contractors on a public works project. It is an attempt to address the reluctance of public owners to promptly and fairly negotiate change orders on projects, putting some teeth to the mandate of existing law under PCC Section 7104, which precludes public owners from shifting to the contractor the risk of addressing differing subsurface and/or concealed hazardous site conditions. Reprinted courtesy of Alex R. Baghdassarian, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Joseph S. Sestay, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Baghdassarian may be contacted at abaghdassarian@pecklaw.com Mr. Sestay may be contacted at jsestay@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Flood Coverage Denied Based on Failure to Submit Proof of Loss

November 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court granted summary judgment to the insurer because the insureds submitted only documentation of damage by flood, not proof of loss forms required by the policy. Alexander v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143284 (E.D. La. Oct. 8, 2014). Hurricane Isaac caused flood damaged to the insureds' home. A claim was filed for flood damage under their Standard Flood Insurance Policy issued by Allstate. An independent adjuster estimated that building repairs would be $50,025. Allstate also prepared a contents loss estimate of $22,655 based on a personal property list submitted by the insureds. Proof of loss forms for these amounts were sent to the insureds and returned to Allstate. Consequently, these claims were paid. The insureds submitted a new proof of loss for additional lost contents, and another payment was made. Additional building damages were found. Again, the proof of loss was resubmitted and an additional payment was made by Allstate. 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

Toll Brothers Climbs After Builder Reports Higher Sales

February 26, 2015 — John Gittelsohn – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- Toll Brothers Inc., the largest U.S. luxury-home builder, rose the most in a year after the company reported a higher-than-expected quarterly profit and said it sold more properties at higher prices. Net income for the three months through January was $81.3 million, or 44 cents a share, compared with $45.6 million, or 25 cents, a year earlier, the Horsham, Pennsylvania-based builder said in a statement Tuesday. The average of 14 estimates was for 28 cents a share, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg
Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net

Liquidated Damages: Too High and It’s a Penalty. Too Low and You’re Out of Luck.

November 21, 2022 — Christian Fernandez - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Liquidated damages provisions in commercial and residential real estate contracts play a vital role when a transaction goes south, and should be given careful consideration when negotiating a real estate contract. Liquidated damages may be referred to in a variety of ways, such as “earnest money,” a “good-faith deposit,” or a “non-refundable deposit,” but each typically denote a negotiated amount of money that a seller is entitled to retain should a buyer breach a purchase and sale agreement. The purpose of liquidated damages is to provide the parties with certainty when actual damages arising from a breach of contract may be difficult to calculate. Accordingly, liquidated damages provisions alleviate the need for potentially expensive litigation associated with proving damages. While parties are free to negotiate the amount of liquidated damages, the amount must approximate the loss anticipated at the time of contracting, or the loss that actually occurs as a result of a breach. Arizona courts have held that where the amount of liquidated damages is unreasonably large when compared to the anticipated loss or actual loss, the liquidated damages provision is unenforceable as a penalty. A breaching party faced with high liquidated damages will often seek to invalidate the provision as a penalty. If a court agrees, the non-breaching party may still recover damages, but must go through the process of proving such damages. Therefore, when negotiating a real estate contract, consideration should be given as to whether a liquidated damages amount is arbitrarily high when compared to an anticipated loss in the event of a breach. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christian Fernandez, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Fernandez may be contacted at cfernandez@swlaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES