Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Holds that Nearly All Project Labor Agreements are Illegal

February 18, 2019 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
In what is nothing short of a monumental decision, on January 11, 2019, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in Allan Myers L.P. v. Department of Transportation ruled that nearly all project labor agreements in Pennsylvania are illegal under the Commonwealth’s procurement code. What are Project Labor Agreements? In short, Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) are pre-hire agreements that set the working conditions for all employees of contractors working on a construction project. Typically, a PLA is entered into between an public or private construction project owner and certain local building trade unions. PLAs require the use of union labor that is to be hired exclusively through the hiring halls of the unions who are parties to the PLA. PLAs are controversial because, among other reasons, while not expressly excluding non-union contractors from performing work on the project, they require non-union firms to use union members instead of their regular employees. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

The OFCCP’s November 2019 Updated Technical Assistance Guide: What Every Federal Construction Contractor Should Know

March 23, 2020 — Sarah K. Carpenter - Smith Currie
The Department of Labor (“DOL”) Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) issued its 148-page Updated Construction Contractor Technical Assistance Guide (the “Guide”) on November 13, 2019. A complete copy of the Guide can be found here, but the below provides a summary of what every Federal Construction Contractor should know regarding the OFCCP’s November 2019 update to its prior 2006 publication. The DOL has identified the Guide as a “self-assessment tool” to assist contractors in meeting “their legal requirements and responsibilities for equal employment opportunity by preventing violations before they occur.” However, the Guide does not create or impose new requirements for Federal Construction Contractors. Instead, the Guide provides an overview of anti-discrimination and affirmative action requirements and obligations under existing laws and regulations, and suggests best practices and guidance. Specifically, the Guide provides:

A concise summary of Federal Construction Contractors’ legal obligations under the three main laws enforced by the OFCCP: Executive Order 11246, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974;
A detailed explanation of requirements for written Affirmative Action Plans;
A clear schedule of Standard Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Construction Contract Specifications;
A reorganized recap of the sixteen affirmative action steps Federal Construction Contractors are required to implement in good-faith; and
A user-friendly roadmap of what to expect during an OFCCP audit, including a discussion of record keeping requirements.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sarah K. Carpenter, Smith Currie
Ms. Carpenter may be contacted at skcarpenter@smithcurrie.com

The Job is Substantially Complete, the Subcontract was Never Signed, the Subcontractor Wants to be Paid—Now What?

July 28, 2016 — John P. Ahlers – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
A recent case in North Carolina illustrates the types of problems created when a general contractor accepts a subcontractor’s bid and then allows the subcontractor to perform the work without obtaining a signed subcontract.[i] In this case, the general contractor (Choate Construction Company – “Choate”) accepted a bid from a foundation subcontractor (Southeast Caissons, LLC – “SEC”). Choate sent the subcontract to SEC. SEC provided its changes in a “Proposed Addendum” to the subcontract stating, “[SEC] hereby accepts the terms of the attached Subcontract, subject to and conditioned upon Choate[’s] acceptance of the terms set forth in this Addendum[.]” After that, Choate called SEC and exchanged emails concerning the subcontract terms, but did not reach an agreement. SEC then performed its subcontract and sought payment, and acknowledged it had not signed the subcontract. Choate agreed it owed SEC something, but refused to pay because SEC did not have a signed subcontract, asserting the subcontract was not binding on Choate. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

Issue and Claim Preclusion When Forced to Litigate Similar Issues in Different Forums: White River Village, LLP v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland

October 10, 2013 — Brady Iandiorio — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
Often in construction litigation the parties wish to move the case to arbitration. However, there are certain circumstances in which such change of litigation forums should be carefully analyzed. The case of White River Village, LLP v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, serves as an example of one of those circumstances. In March 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Blackburn ruled on a motion for summary judgment filed by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (“F&D”). The order grants the motion in part and denies it in part. White River Village, LLP (“White River”) was the owner of the project which hired S&S Joint Venture (“S&S”), the contractor, to build two similar developments, directly adjacent to each other. The contracts between Whiter River and S&S for the two projects were so substantially similar that the court referred to them as the S&S Contracts. F&D issued payment and performance bonds guarantying the obligations of S&S under the S&S Contracts. After S&S defaulted on the construction contracts, F&D, as the surety, undertook to complete performance on the contracts. White River alleged that F&D was liable for construction defects and delays in completing the project, and failed to fulfill its obligations under the performance bonds after it overtook the construction of the projects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
Brady Iandiorio can be contacted at Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

Liability policy covers negligent construction: GA high court

October 31, 2010 — Michael Bradford in Business Insurance

ATLANTA—Negligent construction that results in damage to surrounding property constitutes an occurrence under a commercial general liability policy, the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled.

In a 6-1 opinion Monday in American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Co. Inc. vs. Hathaway Development Co. Inc., the Georgia high court upheld a lower court ruling that the general contractor’s claim for damage caused by a subcontractor’s faulty plumbing work was covered.

The ruling on construction defects is the latest in number of such cases across the United States

Read Full Story...

Reprinted courtesy of Michael Bradford of Business Insurance.

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

Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers®

September 02, 2024 — Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Departing from our blog’s typical coverage of construction related issues, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC is proud to announce that nine members of our firm have been recognized by Best Lawyers® in 2025 in America. Recognition by Best Lawyers® is based entirely on peer review and is designed to reflect the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues. Lawyers can be nominated by clients and other lawyers. After nomination, ballots are generated and distributed to lawyers. Voters are asked how likely they would be to refer a case to the nominee and to give a rating and additional comments. Ballots are designed based on the voter’s practice area and geographic region. After feedback is analyzed, Best Lawyers® research staff ensures nominees are in good standing with the ethics committee of their state bar and selects lawyers for recognition. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC

Insurer Liable for Bad Faith Despite Actions of Insured Contributing to Excess Judgment

January 02, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Reversing the intermediate appellate court, the Florida Supreme Court held the insurer liable for bad faith despite imperfect actions by the insured. Harvey v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2018 Fla. LEXIS 1705 (Fla. Sept. 20, 2018). Insured James Harvey was involved in an auto accident in which the other driver, 51 year old John Potts, was killed. Harvey's vehicle was registered in both his name and his business's name, and was covered under a $100,000 liability policy. Harvey reported the accident to his insurer, GEICO. The claim was assigned to a claims adjuster, Fran Korkus. 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

Allegations That COVID-19 Was Physically Present and Altered Property are Sufficient to Sustain COVID-19 Business Interruption Suit

May 24, 2021 — Michael S. Levine & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
On Wednesday, a federal judge in Texas denied Factory Mutual’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that the presence of COVID-19 on their property caused covered physical loss or damage in the case of Cinemark Holdings, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co., No. 4:21-CV-00011 (E.D. Tex. May 5, 2021). This is the third COVID-19-related business interruption decision from Judge Amos Mazzant since March, but the first in favor of a policyholder. Taken together, the three decisions have two key takeaways and provide a roadmap for policyholders in all jurisdictions. First, the Cinemark decision recognizes that the alleged presence of COVID-19 viral particles that physically altered the policyholder’s property is sufficient under federal pleading standards and controlling state law. In its motion, FM relied on Judge Mazzant’s recent decision in Selery Fulfillment, Inc. v. Colony Insurance Co., No. 4:20-CV-853, 2021 WL 963742 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2021), which dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the policyholder’s losses were caused by government orders that closed its business, rather than from the actual presence of the virus on its property. The Court held that government orders alone do not constitute physical loss or damage, and declined to rule on whether the physical presence of the virus does. Judge Mazzant reached the same conclusion weeks later in Aggie Investments, L.L.C. v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 4:21-CV-0013, 2021 WL 1550479 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2021). Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES