Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Unjust Enrichment Claims When There Is No Binding Contract

December 04, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent appellate opinion starts off, “This is a typical South Florida construction dispute.” (See case citation at the bottom) Let’s see, is it? No. It’s a garden variety payment dispute where the parties did NOT have a binding contract. Why? That’s for a different day (because the smart practice is ALWAYS to have a contract!) but it touches on the equitable, unjust enrichment claim. And it touches on competing unjust enrichment claims and the apportionment of those claims. In other words, can both parties be right on their unjust enrichment claims? An owner hired a general contractor for home renovations. Work started but the relationship soured and the general contractor did not complete the work. The general contractor filed a payment dispute against the owner based on unpaid invoices. It pled alternative theories of recovery against the owner: breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The owner filed a counterclaim against the general contractor for the same claims. During the non-jury trial, the general contractor presented unpaid invoices along with testimony that the invoices represented the value of services rendered. The owner presented evidence of the completion of work damages. 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

Who Will Pay for San Francisco's $750 Million Tilting Tower?

February 02, 2017 — James Tarmy & Kartikay Mehrotra – Bloomberg
Nina Agabian, a retired director of research in global health science at the University of California, bought a 29th-floor apartment in San Francisco’s Millennium Tower in 2010. “It was supposed to be a wonderful building,” she said in January, sitting in a leather chair in the building’s vast, low-lit, owner's-club level. “For many of us, who left our business lives to start our older years, this had become a nice, comfortable place.” The building, which opened in 2008 and was touted as the most luxurious tower in San Francisco, became a beacon of the city’s burgeoning wealth, attracting tech millionaires, venture capitalists, and even the San Francisco 49ers retired quarterback Joe Montana. The 58-story tower's shine faded on May 10, 2016, when Agabian attended a homeowners association meeting and was informed that the building had sunk 16 inches into the earth and tilted over 15 inches at its tip and 2 inches at the base, according to suits filed by residents and the city of San Francisco. “You can imagine how distressed we were to know that, for one, our lifetime investment and savings are at risk,” she said. “And we have no idea whether or not there’s a fix to it, and if there is a fix to it, what it will entail.” Reprinted courtesy of James Tarmy, Bloomberg and Kartikay Mehrotra, Bloomberg Mr. Tarmy may be followed on Twitter @jstarmy Mr. Mehrotra may be followed on Twitter @kartikaym Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Massachusetts Federal Court Holds No Coverage for Mold and Water Damage Claim

February 11, 2019 — Brian Margolies - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In its recent decision in Clarendon National Ins. Co. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., 2019 WL 134614 (D. Mass. Jan. 8, 2019), the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts had occasion to consider the application of a prior knowledge provision in the context of a claim for mold and water-related bodily injury and property damage. Philadelphia insured a condominium property management company under a general liability insurance policy for the period September 1, 2007 through September 1, 2008. In 2009, the insured was sued by a unit owner alleging bodily injury and property damage resulting from toxic mold conditions resulting from leaks that had been identified in her unit as early as 2004. Notably, the complaint alleged that mold was identified in 2006 and that repair efforts were undertaken, but that these efforts all proved unsuccessful. Plaintiff alleged that she was forced to vacate her apartment in 2008 as a result of the conditions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

New WOTUS Rule

November 13, 2023 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers amended the regulation to conform the definition of “waters of the United States” to conform to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. See the prior blog post about the Supreme Court’s ruling: Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency – Construction and Utility Law | Atlanta | AHC Law Federal Register :: Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”; Conforming Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Agree to Use your “Professional Best"? You may Lose Insurance Coverage! (Law Note)

March 01, 2017 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
Yesterday, I was part of a panel at the NC Bar Association Construction Law Winter Meeting, discussing insurance issues for design professionals. One topic we touched on was how to avoid invalidating your insurance. As most of you know, Errors & Omissions insurance (“E&O” coverage) is meant to provide coverage for mistakes you may make in performing your professional architecture or engineering services. E&O coverage is important to protect you in the event of a lawsuit because, as you know, no set of plans is perfect (nor is perfection the standard of care). Be careful, though. Do not promise to provide a higher standard of care than the “professional standard“. If you are asked to sign a contract that states you will use your “professional best,” “best efforts”, “highest care” or similar, you are being asked to sign something that could cost you your E&O coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

The Impact of Sopris Lodging v. Schofield Excavation on Timeliness of Colorado Construction Defect Claims

January 26, 2017 — Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction Litigation
On October 20, 2016, the Colorado Court of Appeals announced the Sopris Lodging, LLC v. Schofield Excavation, Inc.[1] decision. The Sopris decision significantly altered the potential pitfalls awaiting a general contractor in pursuit of third-party claims as well as potential defenses available for a subcontractor defending against third-party claims. By way of background, the Sopris construction defect case arose out of the following facts: TDC was the general contractor for the construction of a hotel owned by Sopris Lodging. On March 11, 2011, Sopris Lodging sent TDC a notice of claim regarding alleged construction defects. On May 24, 2013, Sopris Lodging filed a complaint in district court asserting construction defect claims against one of the subcontractors of the hotel, and against the general contractor’s principals, but not the general contractor. Contemporaneous with the filing of the suit, Sopris Lodging and TDC entered into an agreement to toll the statute of limitations on Sopris Lodging’s potential claims against TDC. In August 2013, Sopris Lodging joined the general contractor to the suit. A year later, in 2014, the general contractor joined a variety of subcontractors as third-party defendants. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Jean may be contacted at meyer@hhmrlaw.com

Forethought Is Key to Overcoming Construction Calamities

February 10, 2020 — Mitch Cohen - Construction Executive
Without warning, an under-construction structure in the southern United States suffered a catastrophic collapse. The tragedy resulted in the death of several people. As a result, engineering and construction post-collapse forensics experts engaged in an 18-month investigation. Those involved in the design and build project included the general contractor hired by the owner, a prime engineer, a consulting peer-review engineer and a prime structural design firm supported by a sub-consulting structural engineer. Although significant cracking was noticed several weeks before the failure, no one sounded the alarm or deemed the cracking worthy of corrective action. In their findings, forensic experts found the collapse resulted from the combined failure of the general contractor, engineers and even the owner, who all failed to shut down the work once the cracking reached unacceptable levels and/or take the appropriate actions needed to secure the public safety and mitigate the risk. This was even after the general contractor requested that the engineer-of-record and design manager assess the structure’s extreme cracking. Consequently, the choice to not seriously investigate the crack or seek an independent peer review to design a rectification plan contributed directly to the tragedy. This is typically referred to within the industry as a “negligent professional design error.” Reprinted courtesy of Mitch Cohen, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Cohen may be contacted at mitch.cohen@rtspecialty.com

Leveraging the 50-State Initiative, Connecticut and Maine Team Secure Full Dismissal of Coverage Claim for Catastrophic Property Loss

March 23, 2020 — Regen O'Malley - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law Blog
On behalf of Gordon & Rees’ surplus lines insurer client, Hartford insurance coverage attorneys Dennis Brown, Joseph Blyskal, and Regen O’Malley, with the assistance of associates Kelcie Reid, Alexandria McFarlane, and Justyn Stokely, and Maine counsel Lauren Thomas, secured a full dismissal of a $15 million commercial property loss claim before the Maine Business and Consumer Court on January 23, 2020. The insured, a wood pellet manufacturer, sustained catastrophic fire loss to its plant in 2018 – just one day after its surplus lines policy expired. Following the insurer’s declination of coverage for the loss, the wood pellet manufacturer brought suit against both its agent, claiming it had failed to timely secure property coverage, as well as the insurer, alleging that it had had failed to comply with Maine’s statutory notice requirements. The surplus lines insurer agreed to extend the prior policy several times by endorsement, but declined to do so again. Notably, the insured alleged that the agent received written notice of the non-renewal prior to the policy’s expiration 13 days before the policy’s expiration. However, the insured (as well as the agent by way of a cross-claim) asserted that the policy remained effective at the time of the loss as the insured did not receive direct notice of the decision not to renew coverage and notice to the agent was not timely. Although Maine’s Attorney General and Superintendent intervened in support of the insured’s and agent’s argument that the statute’s notice provision applied such that coverage would still be owed under the expired policy, Gordon & Rees convinced the Court otherwise. At issue, specifically, was whether the alleged violation of the 14-day notice provision in Section 2009-A of the Surplus Lines Law (24-A M.R.S. § 2009-A), which governs the “cancellation and nonrenewal” of surplus lines policies, required coverage notwithstanding the expiration of the policy. The insured, the agent, and the State of Maine intervenors argued that “cancellation or nonrenewal” was sufficient to trigger the statute’s notice requirement, and thus Section 2009-A required the insurer to notify the insured directly of nonrenewal. In its motion to dismiss, Gordon & Rees argued on behalf of its client that Section 2009-A requires both “cancellation and nonrenewal” in order for the statute to apply. Since there was no cancellation in this case – only nonrenewal – Gordon & Rees argued that Section 2009-A is inapt and that the insurer is not obligated to provide the manufacturer with notice of nonrenewal. Alternatively, it argued that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Regen O'Malley, Gordon & Rees
Ms. O'Malley may be contacted at romalley@grsm.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES