Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Notice of Completion Determines Mechanics Lien Deadline

August 13, 2019 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
The California Mechanics Lien is one of the most valuable collection devices available to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who are unpaid for work performed and materials supplied in relation to a California Private Works project. The mechanics lien allows the claimant to sell the property where the work was performed in order to obtain payment. The process starts with the recording of a mechanics lien in the office of the County Recorder where the property in question is located. As noted below, certain deadlines must be met. Know Your Mechanics Lien Filing Deadlines Generally Working within deadlines is absolutely crucial to preserving mechanics lien rights under California law. The deadlines differ, depending on whether you are a ”direct” contractor, also known as “original” or “prime” contractor (one who contracts directly with the property owner) or a subcontractor or material supplier. The primary differences are that, the direct contractor is only required to serve the “Preliminary Notice” on the Construction Lender (Civil Code section 8200-8216), whereas the subcontractor and material supplier must serve not only the Construction Lender, but also the Owner and Direct Contractor (see Civil Code section 8200(e)). Another difference is that a direct contractor has a longer period of time in which to record a mechanics lien after a valid “notice of completion” or a “notice of cessation” has been recorded (Civil Code sections 8180-8190), (60 days for original contractors as compared to 30 days for subcontractors and suppliers – See Civil Code sections 8412 and 8414). A further general description of the rules is as follows: Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

Home Building Up in Kansas City

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
It’s been a good year for home builders in Kansas City, Missouri. In fact, it’s the best year since 2007. The total number of home permits issued through October exceeds the number issued in 2012 by 164, having reached 3,463. Sara Corless, executive vice president of the Builders Association, focused more on the growth, though she noted that some builders were hoping the year’s total would exceed 4,000, which she described as “a psychological victory at a minimum.” The Kansas City metropolitan area lead the state in the number of building permits issued. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

July 30, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
These days in construction, and other pursuits, teaming agreements have become a great method for large and small contractors to work together to take advantage of various contract and job requirements from minority participation to veteran ownership. With the proliferation of these agreements, parties must be careful in how they draft the terms of these agreements. Without proper drafting, the parties risk unenforceability of the teaming agreement in the evewnt of a dispute. One potential pitfall in drafting is an “agreement to agree” or an agreement to negotiate a separate contract in the future. This type of pitfall was illustrated in the case of InDyne Inc. v. Beacon Occupational Health & Safety Services Inc. out of the Eastern District of Virginia. In this case, InDyne and Beacon entered into a teaming agreement that provided that InDyne as Prime would seek to use Beacon, the Sub, in the event that InDyne was awarded a contract using Beacon’s numbers. The teaming agreement further provided:

The agreement shall remain in effect until the first of the following shall occur: … (g) inability of the Prime and the Sub, after negotiating in good faith, to reach agreement on the terms of a subcontract offered by the Prime, in accordance with this agreement.

InDyne was subsequently awarded a contract with the Air Force and shortly thereafter sent a subcontract to Beacon and requested Beacon’s “best and final” pricing. Beacon protested by letter stating that it was only required to act consistently with its original bid pricing. Beacon then returned the subcontract with the original bid pricing and accepting all but a termination for convenience provision. Shortly thereafter, InDyne informed Beacon that InDyne had awarded the subcontract to one of Beacon’s competitors. Beacon of course sued and argued that the teaming agreement required that InDyne award the subcontract to Beacon. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Am I Still Covered Under the Title Insurance Policy?

May 01, 2019 — Ian Douglas - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
When transferring property for corporate restructuring or estate planning purposes, an important issue to consider is whether the successor owner will be covered by the grantee’s title insurance policy. Because title insurance policies insure only the title of the “Insured” identified in the policy, the successor in interest of the named insured may not be covered following the transfer. In older ALTA title insurance policies, the definition of “Insured” included the person or entity specifically identified in the policy as the insured, as well as any subsequent owners who took title to the subject property by operation of law. Because those policies did not clarify what the term “by operation of law” meant, it was unclear whether certain subsequent owners, such as a parent or subsidiary of the original insured, fell within the definition of “Insured”. In order to avoid any risk that a subsequent owner following a transfer between related parties was not covered by the grantor’s title policy, parties often obtained an “additional insured” endorsement which provided the subsequent owner coverage under the original policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ian Douglas, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Douglas may be contacted at idouglas@swlaw.com

Three Construction Workers Injured at Former GM Plant

March 26, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In Linden, New Jersey, three construction workers were injured “when they were apparently struck by steel girders while working at the former General Motors site” police told NJ.com. Mayor Richard Gerbounka stated that the “[s]ix struts that would support the deck or ceiling of a warehouse collapsed.” He also mentioned that the city “has been trying to redevelop the former General Motors site for years, but has run into several obstacles, including lawsuits from nearby businesses opposed to retail construction.” Several construction vehicles were “nearly buried under” debris and “[a]t least one I-beam girder and several decking struts—all metal—remain across several heavy construction vehicles,” NJ.com reported. The owner of the vehicles stated “he was told that workers were standing around the vehicles preparing to start their day when high winds knocked down at least one I-beam and several metal decking struts.” In another article published late afternoon on March 26th, NJ.com reported that “high winds” were the cause of the accident. “The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration is investigating the accident and all work at the site has been suspended pending the investigation,” according to the article. “Officials said OSHA inspectors had been at the scene once before, but declined to give details because of a continuing investigation.” Read the full story, NJ.com AM... Read the full story, NJ.com PM... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Practical Advice: Indemnification and Additional Insured Issues Revisited

September 08, 2016 — John P. Ahlers – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC Construction Blog
Lawyers love writing about indemnification. There are seventeen blog articles on our website alone that deal with the subject. Before you click out of this email in disgust that we are rehashing a stale topic, this post contains some practical advice for contractors and subcontractors dealing with the perplexing issues of indemnification and additional insured provisions. The concept of indemnity is based on a contractual agreement made between two parties, in which one party agrees to pay for the potential losses or damages caused by the other party. To indemnify someone means to protect that person or entity by promising to pay the cost of possible future damage, loss, or injury. When signing a contract, you should identify the indemnity obligations that could cost your business money. Finding the words “hold harmless” or “indemnify” in a proposed contract is not enough. The terms “hold harmless,” “save harmless,” or “indemnify” are a big part of the indemnification obligation. Although insurance requirements (“additional insured” clauses) accomplish virtually the same thing as very broad, unfair, or unlimited indemnity terms do, they result in an “end run” around the effort to limit the indemnification obligation. 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

James R. Lynch Appointed to the Washington State Capital Project Review Committee

June 22, 2016 — Ahlers & Cressman Crew - Ahlers & Cressman Construction Law Blog
James R. Lynch, one of the attorneys at the law firm of Ahlers & Cressman PLLC, has been appointed to the Washington State Capital Project Review Committee (PRC). Created by the legislature in 2007, the PRC is responsible for reviewing and approving all public projects in the State of Washington using the General Contractor/Construction Manager (GC/CM) and Design-Build (D-B) delivery methods of construction. The PRC also certifies certain qualified government bodies to use these methods more broadly. The PRC consists of key representatives of Washington public project owners, designers, general contractors, specialty/subcontractors, construction managers, construction trades labor, and minority/women businesses. James has been appointed to the PRC’s Private Sector seat for a three-year term. You may learn more about Ahlers & Cressman PLLC at www.ac-lawyers.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New Jersey Federal Court Examines And Applies The “j.(5)” Ongoing Operations Exclusion

October 07, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
In PJR Construction of N.J. v. Valley Forge Insurance Company, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127973 (D.N.J. July 31, 2019) (PJR Construction), a New Jersey federal court held that the “j.(5)” “Ongoing Operations Exclusion” applied to bar coverage for property damage to property on which a construction company allegedly performed faulty work. The court’s opinion follows prior New Jersey state court precedent, including Ohio Casualty Insurance Company v. Island Pool & Spa, Inc., 12 A.3d 719 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2011) (Island Pool), but also provides additional guidance on the elements which can make the Ongoing Operations Exclusion applicable to exclude coverage. In PJR Construction, a commercial property owner engaged a construction company to build a 26,000 square foot swim club and related 3,000 square foot pavilion building in New Jersey. After about 75% of the work was completed, the property owner fired the construction company and denied it access to the property. The owner later sued the construction company in New Jersey state court alleging “shoddy workmanship” in, among other things, sealants, flashing, water resistant barriers, masonry and the handicap ramps. The construction company sought coverage from its CGL insurer, which denied coverage based on, among other things, the j.(5) Ongoing Operations Exclusion. After the denial of coverage, the company sued the insurer in New Jersey federal court seeking a declaration of coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES