Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Court’s Ruling on SB800 “Surprising to Some”

October 16, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Describing it as “surprising to many in the residential home building industry,” Jay Drake of Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP has a piece discussing the recent California Court of Appeals decision that SB800 is not a homeowner’s only remedy for construction defects. The court found, according to Mr. Drake that “the primary purpose of the Act was to provide a property owner with remedies for repair of construction defects before the defects caused actual damages.” In the case before the court, the construction defects had already lead to further damages. Mr. Drake notes that the legislative history of SB800 puts the bill in response to an earlier California court case in which the courts determined that without actual damage to property, a homeowner could not file a construction defect lawsuit. The court concluded that SB800 was not intended to limit the homeowner’s rights after a construction defect situation has lead to damage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contractor’s Unwritten Contractual Claim Denied by Sovereign Immunity; Mandamus Does Not Help

September 22, 2016 — David R. Cook Jr. – AHHC Construction Law Blog
In a very well-reasoned opinion, the Supreme Court of Georgia upheld the denial of a contractor’s unwritten-contract claim against a county based on sovereign immunity. Based on an alleged oral contract, Contractor built a sewer pumping station for the County in exchange for an interest in the station’s pumping capacity. When the County denied Contractor’s demand for an interest, he filed suit. As noted in many prior posts, the Georgia constitution reaffirms sovereign immunity of the state – which the courts interpret to include counties. One common exception in the public works area is the Constitution’s “ex contractu clause,” which waives sovereign immunity for claims based on written contracts. Of course, a precondition to the waiver of sovereign immunity is the existence of a written contract – which Contractor did not have. Applying these rules, the court affirmed the denial of Contractor’s claims based on contract and quasi contract. In the absence of a written contract, there can be no contractual claim against the County. The same rule applies for quasi-contractual claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Private Statutory Cause of Action Under Florida’s Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act

July 11, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Florida’s Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act is set forth in Florida Statutes Chapter 556. Any owner or operator of underground infrastructure as well as contractors that perform underground excavation and demolition operations are familiar (or, need to be familiar) with this Act and the requirements it imposes on them. In a nutshell, this Act requires excavators to notify operators of underground facilities (e.g., pipelines, cables, sewers) through a notification system before excavating or demolishing an underground location. Then notification system gives the operator of the underground facility two days’ advance notice that an excavation will be taking place. After receiving this notice, the operator of the underground facility must mark the area where its infrastructure is located which could be affected by the underground excavation or demolition operations. The Act further imposes duties on excavators to use increased caution, supervise mechanized equipment, perform excavation and demolition operations in a careful an prudent manner, and to re-notify the notification system if the operator’s marking is no longer visible so the location of the operator’s underground facility can be re-marked. 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

Portions of Policyholder's Expert's Opinions Excluded

November 13, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court granted, in part, the insurer's motion to exclude portions of expert testimony. Tundra M. Holdings, LLC v. Markel Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139952 (D. Alaska Aug. 10, 2023). Plaintiff alleged a building it owned suffered damages consisting of building roof failure due to snow load. Plaintiff submitted a claim to Markel for its loss. Plaintiff hired an engineering firm to conduct an inspection. The recommendation was to install snow guards and that 28 rafters be replaced with new beams. The evaluation did not state that the recommendation was required by law or ordinance. Nor did the evaluation make mention of replacing the metal roof on the building or anything about the water system or sprinkler system. Plaintiff then obtained an estimate of $687,500 for roof repair/replacement, store front repair, a sprinkler system installer and a water system upgrade. 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

Does the UCC Apply to the Contract for the Sale of Goods and Services

July 03, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
What governs the transaction for the hybrid contract that includes both goods and services–the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) or the common law? A question that is asked in numerous disputes. A good example is the recent case out of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Wadley Crushed Stone Company, LLC v. Positive Step, Inc., 2022 WL 1639011 (11th Cir. 2022), dealing with Alabama law. In this case, the plaintiff (buyer) wanted to build a granite plant in Alabama that would process 500 tons of granite per hour. The plaintiff reached out to a defendant company to start the process of building a granite plant. The defendant company engaged vendors and professionals in the due diligence process to determine the equipment the plaintiff would need. After this due diligence, plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract that included equipment and services. Thereafter, the parties modified the contract to reduce the amount for the erection, installation, and electrical work (about $1.5 Million) as plaintiff planned to independently hire the contractor to perform that work. The modified contract was worth $4,059,224.43 of which there were 25 lines items for equipment totaling $3,887,274.43 with the balance (less than 5% of the contract amount) for engineering (done by a third party), installation, setup, and calibration of scales. 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

Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company

October 05, 2020 — Michael Velladao - Lewis Brisbois
In Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., __F.3d__(July 2, 2020), the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the following questions to the Nevada Supreme Court in connection with a contribution action for defense costs filed by Zurich American Insurance Company and American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company (“Zurich”) against Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company (“Ironshore”) with respect to the defense and settlement of 14 construction defect lawsuits on behalf of eight subcontractors (“lawsuits”) insured by both companies:

Whether, under Nevada law, the burden of proving the applicability of an exception to an exclusion of coverage in an insurance policy falls on the insurer or the insured? Whichever party bears such a burden, may it rely on evidence extrinsic to the complaint to carry its burden, and if so, is it limited to extrinsic evidence available at the time the insured tendered the defense of the lawsuit to the insurer?

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Velladao, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Velladao may be contacted at Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com

Property Insurance Exclusion for Constant or Repeated Leakage of Water

March 14, 2018 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
A property insurance policy, no different than any insurance policy, contains exclusions for events that are NOT covered under the terms of the policy. One such common exclusion in a property insurance policy is an exclusion for damages caused by "constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water…over a period of 14 or more days." The application of this exclusion was discussed in the recent opinion of Hicks v. American Integrity Ins. Co. of Florida, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D446a (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). In this case, while the insured was out of town, the water line to his refrigerator started to leak. When the insured return home over a month later, the supply line was discharging almost a thousand gallons of water per day. The insured submitted a property insurance claim. The property insurer engaged a consultant that opined (likely, correctly) that the water line had been leaking for at least five weeks. Based on the above-mentioned exclusion, i.e., that water had been constantly leaking for over a period of 14 days, the insurer denied coverage. This denial led to the inevitable coverage dispute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Building a Case: Document Management for Construction Litigation

October 07, 2019 — Robert A. Gallagher, Jane Fox Lehman, & Michael I. Frankel, Pepper Hamilton LLP - ConsensusDocs
Success in construction litigation often turns less on counsel’s ability to craft legal arguments and more on counsel’s ability to gather, master and present the often complex set of facts underlying the case. In construction matters, most of the key facts are found in documents: contract documents, drawings, plans and specifications, schedules, submittals, progress reports, daily logs, change orders, invoices and payment records. Nowadays, these documents will almost certainly be created, exchanged and stored electronically; many will never exist in hard copy. As such, timely collection, organization and analysis of electronically stored information (ESI) is crucially important in construction litigation. The construction industry has always involved a large quantity of records. Today, the majority of those records exist only as ESI: Design professionals use computer-aided design (CAD) software to create construction plans. Construction managers use Primavera or similar software to create schedules and workflows. Estimators use job cost control programs. Innovative firms capture digital photos of the project, from mobilization through the punch process. Because ESI is created and exchanged at a higher rate than hard-copy documents, ESI has facilitated a dramatic increase in the volume of records associated with construction projects. Further compounding the increase is the proliferation of mobile devices. With a smartphone in every pocket, ESI creation has moved out of the home office and the site trailer and onto the site itself. As the volume of ESI expands, so too does the time and expense associated with storing, processing, reviewing and producing these records. This article will cover strategies for balancing time and expense with the requirements of the rules and the needs of the case. Reprinted courtesy of Pepper Hamilton LLP attorneys Robert A. Gallagher, Jane Fox Lehman and Michael I. Frankel Mr. Gallagher may be contacted at gallagherr@pepperlaw.com Ms. Lehman may be contacted at lehmanj@pepperlaw.com Mr. Frankel may be contacted at frankelm@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES