FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Good-To-Know Points Regarding (I) Miller Act Payment Bonds And (Ii) Payment Bond Surety Compelling Arbitration

December 22, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Every now and then I come across an opinion that addresses good-to-know legal issues as a corollary of strategic litigation decisions that are questionable and/or creative. An opinion out of the United States District Court of New Mexico, Rock Roofing, LLC v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, 2019 WL 4418918 (D. New Mexico 2019), is such an opinion. In Rock Roofing, an owner hired a contractor to construct apartments. The contractor furnished a payment bond. The contractor, in the performance of its work, hired a roofing subcontractor. A dispute arose under the subcontract and the roofer recorded a construction lien against the project. The contractor, per New Mexico law, obtained a bond to release the roofer’s construction lien from the project (real property). The roofer then filed a lawsuit in federal court against the payment bond surety claiming it is entitled to: (1) collect on the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond (?!?) and (2) foreclose its construction lien against the lien release bond furnished per New Mexico law. Count I – Miller Act Payment Bond Claiming the payment bond issued by the contractor is a Miller Act payment bond is a head scratcher. This claim was dismissed with prejudice upon the surety’s motion to dismiss. This was an easy call. 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

---

Kushners Abandon Property Bid as Pressures Mount Over Conflicts

May 10, 2017 — David Kocieniewski & Caleb Melby - Bloomberg
A company owned by the family of Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, has abandoned plans to buy a sprawling industrial site in New Jersey from Honeywell International Inc., a major federal contractor, and develop it into a residential community. Kushner Cos. had been the leading bidder for the 95-acre formerly contaminated site known as Bayfront, which is co-owned by Honeywell and Jersey City, city officials said. The company had submitted plans to build as many as 8,100 housing units to be marketed to Orthodox Jewish residents of the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn who are being priced out of that neighborhood. Last fall, the Kushners bid about $150 million, tens of millions higher than competitors, according to people involved in the negotiations. Honeywell heard from others who would only make an offer once the environmental approvals for the cleaned-up site were final. So the bidding is scheduled to reopen later this year and Kushner Cos. had been expected to continue in the process, the people said. But on Tuesday, when Bloomberg News asked about Bayfront, company spokesman James Yolles said the Kushners are no longer pursuing the project. He wouldn’t elaborate or explain. Reprinted courtesy of David Kocieniewski, Bloomberg and Caleb Melby, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Contractor to Repair Defective Stucco, Plans on Suing Subcontractor

February 21, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The contractor for the Manatee County Judicial Center will be replacing the defective stucco on the building, but they have stated that they intend to go after the subcontractor who initially installed the defective stucco. The contractor, Balfour Beatty LLC, has said they will pay for the repairs, but Steve Holt, an executive of the firm said that “we have initiated a lawsuit against the subcontractor, who we believe was substantially or completely responsible to recover those funds.” Mr. Holt named Commercial Plastering as the subcontractor responsible. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Did You Really Accept That Bid? – How Contractors Can Avoid Post-Acceptance Bid Disputes Over Contract Terms

July 28, 2016 — David A. Harris & Steven M. Cvitanovic – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
When California general contractors submit bids to an owner, can they force their subcontractors to honor their bids? Can they recover damages if the subcontractor later refuses to do so? While the general rule in California is that a general contractor who reasonably relies on a subcontractor’s bid may recover damages when the subcontractor reneges, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District recently held that there is a substantial and important exception to the general rule. In Flintco Pacific, Inc. v. TEC Management Consultants, Inc. (LASC No. YC067984), the Court of Appeal held that where a general contractor requires a subcontractor to enter into a “standard-form subcontract” which materially differs from the subcontractor’s bid, the general contractor has rejected the subcontractor’s bid and has instead issued a counteroffer. The subcontractor is thereafter free to walk, or accept the new terms. If the subcontractor walks, the general contractor may not seek to enforce the terms of the subcontract or seek reliance damages. Reprinted courtesy of David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Subrogation 101 (and Why Should I Care?)

July 16, 2023 — Clark Thiel & Alexis N. Wansac - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
What is subrogation? Why am I being asked to waive it? Should I care? To answer that last question, let’s take a quick run at the first two. What Is Subrogation? “Subrogation” refers to the act of one person or party standing in the place of another person or party. It is a legal right held by most insurance carriers to pursue a third party that caused an insurance loss in order to recover the amount the insurance carrier paid the insured to cover the loss. This occurs when (i) the insurance carrier makes a payment on behalf of its insured as the result of a covered accident or injury, and then (ii) the insurer then seeks repayment from the at-fault party. Reprinted courtesy of Clark Thiel, Pillsbury and Alexis N. Wansac, Pillsbury Mr. Thiel may be contacted at clark.thiel@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Wansac may be contacted at alexis.wansac@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Lasso Needed to Complete Vegas Hotel Implosion

February 18, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Miami Herald reported that “demolition workers used an Old West method on Tuesday to finish an incomplete casino implosion in Las Vegas.” The Clarion Hotel and Casino owner Lorenzo Doumani told the Miami Herald that “[t]hey lassoed the building with steel cables, got a crane, and pulled and pulled and pulled.” Burke Construction used a 2-ton explosive punch to bring the structure down, however, the concrete building dropped four stories but remained upright. Burke Construction’s corporate safety coordinator, Anthony Schlect, told the Miami Herald that he was investigating the incident. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Contractor’s Assignment of Construction Contract to Newly Formed Company Before Company Was Licensed, Not Subject to B&P 7031

October 04, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Add one more to the Business and Profession Code section 7031 archives. In Manela v. Stone, Case No. B302660 (July 1, 2021), the 2nd District Court of appeal held that Section 7031 did not apply to a contractor licensed as a sole proprietor who assigned his contract to his newly formed company although at the time of the assignment the contractor’s individual contractor’s license had not yet been reissued to the incorporated company. The Manela Case On January 4, 2015, John Stone doing business as Stone Construction Company entered into a home remodeling contract with Yosef and Nomi Manela. At the time, Stone had held a contractor’s license since 1982. On February 11, 2015, after work on the project had begun, Stone formed JDSS Construction Company, Inc., and filed a fictitious business name using the same name Stone Construction Company. Stone applied to the Contractors State License Board to have his contractor’s license issued from himself personally to his new corporation. On March 15, 2015, while waiting for the CSLB to reissue his contractor’s license, Stone entered into an assignment agreement between himself and his new company assigning the Manela construction contract. The assignment agreement was signed by Stone in his personal capacity and as President of JDSS Construction. The assignment agreement was not signed by the Manelas. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Clean Water Act Cases: Of Irrigation and Navigability

January 06, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The federal courts have recently decided two significant Clean Water Act (CWA) cases: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler, where the US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia held that the 2015 rulemaking proceeding of EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers redefining the term “Waters of the United States” in the CWA violated the Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act; and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, et al. v. Glaser, where the appeals court ruled that the lower court erroneously interpreted a CWA NPDES permitting exception involving agricultural return flows. An Absence of Navigability: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler Decided on August 21, 2019, the district court, one of the few courts to grapple with the rule’s compliance with the CWA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), held that the agencies’ redefinition of the terms “Interstate Waters,” “Tributaries” and “Adjacent Waters” violated the CWA by reading “navigability” out of the new definitions, or by failing to adhere to the Supreme Court’s rulings in the 2005 case of Rapanos v. United States, in particular Justice Kennedy’s concurrence regarding the application of the “significant nexus” in case-by-case adjudications as to whether a particular body of water was covered by the Act. Moreover, some provisions of the rule conflicted with the APA because they were not a logical outgrowth of the rules proposed by the agencies in 2014, and on which they solicited comments, and other determinations were not supported by a reasonable explanation. In addition, without a clear statement from Congress that it supported the rule’s effect of increasing the nature and extent of enhanced federal jurisdiction over waters subject to the CWA, the court was loathe to approve the rule. Accordingly, the rule was remanded to the agencies for additional review consistent with this decision. This decision is of particular importance as it may well be the first case to subject this new EPA rule—the linchpin of much of EPA’s regulation under the CWA—to extended review. (Other courts have only been asked to enjoin the rule, which involves a different type of review.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---