Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

How is Negotiating a Construction Contract Like Buying a Car?

January 04, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Originally Published by CDJ on March 1, 2017 I know, you’re probably looking for a punchline, and likely thinking something along the lines of “only a construction attorney would be sitting in his office and come up with such an analogy,” but I really do think it’s a good one. When you are buying a car, you look for priorities. Is the color what you want? Is the motor a hybrid or a v-6? Does it have Android Auto? What is the fuel mileage? All of these things may be more or less important to you. If you can get your priorities for a price that is attractive, you will likely let some other less important items, e. g. trunk space or rear seat leg room, slide and purchase the car anyway. Furthermore, you may use these minor items as negotiating points to either get one of the priorities or a lower price. Of course the dealership will want to get its priorities, likely a sale and a profit, when negotiating and will have certain items that it won’t move on just as you have terms that you won’t move on. Much like when you walk onto the car lot, and particularly as a subcontractor looking at a contract from a general contractor, or a GC looking at the contract from the owner of a project, a construction contract presented to you is the starting point. When looking at the contract, be sure to have some non-negotiable items in mind when taking a critical eye to the terms of that contract. Some of these terms may be more or less negotiable depending on your experience with the other party to the construction contract. For instance, striking a pay if paid clause may be less important with a paying party with whom you have a 10 year history without payment problems. On the other hand, if it is your first contract with the other party, a stricter list may be required. So, much like a dealer that you know will stand behind its cars, you may be more willing to take more “risk” in entering a construction contract with a trusted/known owner or GC. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Insurer Sued for Altering Policies after Claim

January 13, 2014 — CDJ STAFF
A lawsuit alleges that Fidelity National Property & Casualty Insurance Co. retroactively cancelled policies, substituting policies that covered less after claims were made due to damages from Hurricane Sandy. Insurance Journal reports that Dayton Towers Corp., which owns seven high-rises in Queens, New York City, has sued the insurer. According to Dayton, the policies covered the buildings for amounts from $2.5 to $2.7 million. The total coverage for all seven buildings was $18.5 million. Under new policies, the buildings were covered for $250,000 each, for a total of $1,750,000, which is the amount that Fidelity paid Dayton. The lawsuit alleges that the policy does not allow for the terms to be rewritten when claims are pending. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Sellers' Alleged Misrepresentation Does Not Amount To An Occurrence

November 30, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer successfully established on summary judgment that the insureds' alleged misrepresentation in the sale of a condominium was not an occurrence. Novak v. St. Maxent-Wimberly House Condo., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167397 (E.D. La. Sept. 14, 2020). State Farm issued the sellers a condominium unit owner's policy. The buyers sued the sellers, contending the sellers had made misrepresentations in the sale process. The sellers allegedly failed to disclose defects in the condominium before and at the time of the sale. State Farm intervened, seeking a declaration that it was not required to defend or indemnify the sellers because there was no occurrence. 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

New Case Alert: Oregon Supreme Court Prohibits Insurer’s Attempt to Relitigate Insured’s Liability

November 17, 2016 — Austin D. Moody – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Blog
In a big win for policyholders, the Oregon Supreme Court recently ruled that that insurance companies are not allowed to relitigate the nature of damages awarded against their insureds during an underlying trial. In a coverage dispute stemming from a contractor’s faulty work on a condominium development, the insurer argued that at least a portion of the damages awarded represented the cost of repairing the contractor’s own work product. Coverage for such damages would be explicitly excluded by the policy. However, the Oregon Supreme Court found that the jury had been instructed that it could not award damages for the contractor’s own faulty workmanship. The court declined to give the insurer a chance to attempt to reclassify the nature of these damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Austin D. Moody, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Moody may be contacted at adm@sdvlaw.com

School District Settles Construction Lawsuit

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
The Franklin County, Pennsylvania Public Opinion reports that an area school is coming to an end with its construction lawsuit. The school district was sued by its contractors for a combined $1.4 million, which the school district withheld when the project was not completed on schedule. Lobar Inc. claimed that the district additionally owed interest and should pay attorney fees. The school claimed that only $1.15 million was due under the contract. Under the settlement, they will be paying $1.136 million. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Harmon Towers

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Nevada Supreme Court started hearings on Tuesday, June 4 over the fate of Harmon towers. MGM Resorts is hoping to obtain permission from the court to tear down the tower, which they claim could collapse should an earthquake strike Las Vegas. Perini Corp, the builder, wants the building to remain standing in order to support their claim that the building’s flaws are through design and not construction errors. KLAS quoted one of Perini’s lawyers claiming that MGM had pursued a media strategy to prejudice potential jurors against the contractor. “CityCenter hired Cedric and Bunting to place advertisements with the media to win the hearts and minds of the community and to convince the public pretrial that Perini was, quote, ‘scum of the earth.’” If the Supreme Court gives the go-ahead, demolition would begin soon. Still pending, is the $500 lawsuit over the allegations of construction defects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CA Supreme Court Expands Scope of Lawyers’ Statute of Limitations to Non-Legal Malpractice Claims – Confusion Predicted for Law and Motion Judges

August 26, 2015 — David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Lee v. Hanley (S220775 – Filed 8/20/2015), the California Supreme Court clarified the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 by holding that its limitations period applies to claims against attorneys “whose merits necessarily depend on proof that an attorney violated a professional obligation in the course of providing professional services.” Although it resolved a district split by finding that the statute governs for non-legal malpractice claims against attorneys including those of non-clients, by having the statute’s applicability “turn on the conduct alleged and ultimately proven, not on the way the complaint was styled,” this 5-2 decision also increased the specter of creative pleading and lengthy litigation. In Lee, the client had advanced $120,000 to cover attorney’s fees, costs and expert witness fees for the underlying litigation. After the case settled, the attorney advised the client that she had a credit balance of approximately $46,000. In response to her demand for a refund, the attorney then advised the client that she did not have a credit balance. More than one year later, the client filed suit to recover the $46,000, plus interest. The trial court sustained the attorney’s demurrer based on the one-year statute of limitations in section 340.6. The appellate court, however, reversed, reasoning that the client’s claim could be construed as one for conversion, in which case section 340.6 would not apply. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Rhode Island Closes One Bridge and May Have Burned Others with Ensuing Lawsuit

October 07, 2024 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
The state of Rhode Island recently filed a lawsuit against 13 companies that provided design, construction, and inspection services over the past ten years (the extent allowed by the applicable statute of limitations) to the Washington Bridge, which carries I-195 between East Providence and Providence. The bridge was abruptly closed in December 2023 following the discovery of alleged fractured steel tie-downs critical to the bridge’s stability and additional deterioration in cantilever beams throughout the bridge. Before the closure, approximately 90,000 vehicles per day traveled over the bridge. The complaint alleges that the defendants, the majority of which are experienced, industry-leading firms in their respective fields, were negligent and breached their respective contracts with the State. The State contends that every company that worked on the bridge over the past ten years missed the serious structural conditions alleged. The lawsuit also claims that the State has suffered millions of dollars of damages since the bridge was closed and seeks indemnity and contribution from all defendants to the extent that the State may be liable to third parties in the future. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES