Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Construction Defect Leads to Death of Worker

January 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The family of a Florida man has received $2.4 million in damages as a result of his death. Victor Lizarraga was killed when a steel column fell due to the anchor bolts being improperly secured. The general contractor on the project, R. L. Haines, told subcontractors that the epoxy had sufficient time to cure. An OSHA investigation determined that the epoxy was not used properly. Mr. Lizarraga worked for a subcontractor on the project. Mr. Lizarraga and his coworkers were hired to erect steel columns. The epoxy failed, sending a 1,750-pound column down onto Mr. Lizarraga. According to the lawsuit, "due to the sudden and unexpected nature of this incident Mr. Lizarraga had no ability, opportunity or time to get out of the way of the falling column." Other parties in the lawsuit settled with the family. R. L. Haines was the only defendant to go to a jury trial. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

EPA Rejects Most of N.Y.’s $511 Million Tappan Zee Loan

September 17, 2014 — Freeman Klopott – Bloomberg
A $511 million loan approved by a New York environmental agency to help fund the construction of a new $4 billion Tappan Zee Bridge was rejected almost entirely by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The loan was intended to drive down borrowing costs for the replacement span being built across the Hudson River, with half of it being provided at zero interest. The agency, the Environmental Facilities Corp., approved the borrowing in June, saying it could use the funds from a program that targets clean-water projects. The EPA said today in a letter to state officials that building a new bridge doesn’t fit the intention of the program, which is backed by federal dollars. The agency, citing the U.S. Clean Water Act, said only $29.1 million could be allowed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Freeman Klopott, Bloomberg
Mr. Klopott may be contacted at fklopott@bloomberg.net

Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound to Arbitration Award

December 29, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Here is an interesting case binding a Miller Act payment bond surety to an arbitration award against its prime contractor (bond principal) that it received sufficient notice of. Notice is the operative word. The surety could have participated in the arbitration, elected not to, and when its prime contractor (bond principal) lost the arbitration, it was NOT given another bite out of the apple to litigate facts already been decided. In BRC Uluslararasi Taahut VE Ticaret A.S. v. Lexon Ins. Co., 2020 WL 6801933 (D. Maryland 2020), a prime contractor was hired by the federal government to make security upgrades and interior renovations to a United States embassy in the Czech Republic. The prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform all of the installed contract work. The prime contractor terminated the subcontractor for default during the course of construction. The subcontractor demanded arbitration in accordance with the subcontract claiming it was wrongfully terminated. The subcontractor also filed a lawsuit asserting a Miller Act payment bond claim against the prime contractor’s surety (as well as a breach of contract action against the prime contractor). The subcontractor made clear it intended to pursue its claims in arbitration and hold the payment bond surety jointly and severally liable. The parties agreed to stay the lawsuit since the facts were identical to those being arbitrated. The arbitration went forward and an award was entered in favor of the subcontractor and against the prime contractor for approximately $2.3 Million. 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

The Ghosts of Projects Past

December 17, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Sean Minahan, one of my partners, and I were discussing a construction dispute the other day and we commented again and again about the significant organization required to get a construction project to completion. From the contracts, to the schedule, to the funding—everything has to be in lock step or there will be problems that could bring the project to a halt, or worse yet litigation. The same is true of construction claims. To present a claim effectively, it has to be simple. But, to make it simple will require substantial documentation and organization of all aspects of a claim. This point was driven home this week when I received Long International’s Construction Claims Analysis Checklist Long International. The Checklist is 11 pages long and identifies various aspects of a claim, from the simple to the complicated. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

Kansas City Airport Terminal Project Faces Delays, Rising Costs

February 06, 2019 — Kansas City Star - Engineering News-Record
Costs have long since blown past initial estimates, prompting an independent review of the price tag. Its opening is eight months behind schedule and mounting delays drew heated questions from local officials last year. Sounds like the continuing saga of Kansas City's planned airport terminal, overwhelmingly approved by voters in November 2017 . It's actually about the new international arrivals facility under construction at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport , or Sea-Tac. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

KB to Spend $43.2 Million on Florida Construction Defects

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In their second quarter filing with the SEC, KB Homes estimates that repairing damage caused by defects in framing, stucco, roofs, and sealant will cost it $43.2 million. That estimate includes homes that are yet to be identified. KB had estimated lower costs earlier, but subsequently determined it was necessary to increase the funds by $15.9. As a result, the firm showed a loss in the second quarter. The company hopes to recover some funds in insurance settlements. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Washington Supreme Court Upholds King County Ordinance Requiring Utility Providers to Pay for Access to County’s Right-of-Way and Signals Approval for Other Counties to Follow Suit

March 02, 2020 — Kristina Southwell - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
On December 5, 2019, the Washington State Supreme Court released its opinion in King County v. King County Water Districts, et al.,[1] upholding King County’s Ordinance 18403, which requires utility companies who are franchise grantees to pay “franchise compensation” for their use of the County rights-of-way. Generally, utility companies must apply for and obtain from the County a franchise permitting it to do necessary work in the County rights-of-way. [2] Previously, King County only charged an administrative fee associated with issuing such a franchise. But with the new franchise compensation charges, King County estimates that it will raise approximately $10 million dollars per year for its general fund. Ordinance 18403 passed in November 2016 and was the first of its kind in the state. The ordinance created a rule, set forth in RCW 6.27.080, requiring electric, gas, water, and sewer utilities who are granted a franchise by King County to pay “franchise compensation” in exchange for the right to use the County’s rights-of-way. The rule provides that franchise compensation is in the nature of an annual rent payment to the County for using the County roads. King County decides an initial estimate of the charge by considering various factors such as the value of the land used, the size of the area that will be used, and the density of the households served. But utility companies can negotiate with the County over the final amount of franchise compensation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kristina Southwell, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Southwell may be contacted at kristina.southwell@acslawyers.com

Invest In America Act Offers 494 Billion In Funding to U.S. Infrastructure and Millions of New Jobs

July 20, 2020 — Stefanie A. Salomon - Peckar & Abramson
The Investing in a New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation in America (INVEST in America) Act was approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on June 18, 2020 and is making its way up to Congress. The bill will create millions of jobs and provide substantial investment in the nation’s deteriorating highways, bridges and public transit systems. The bill also endeavors to leave behind a smaller carbon footprint, a major improvement for the nation’s biggest source of carbon pollution. Investing in a New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation in America Act According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the current condition of the nation’s infrastructure earns a grade of D+, and there exists an estimated $2 trillion funding gap to bring it into a state of good repair by 2025. While Americans have benefited from a century of infrastructure building, neglect has befallen our once greatest achievements – the roadways and arteries that led to the explosive growth of our nation. In the 1930s, 4.2 percent of the country’s GDP was spent on infrastructure investment. Unfortunately, by 2016 that number fell to 1.5 percent resulting in the substandard conditions that now confront us. Stated more bluntly, our nation’s infrastructure is crumbling and immediate investment in required to bring it up to par. The INVEST in America Act is our “immediate” opportunity to start replacing the outdated systems of the past with smarter, safer, and more resilient infrastructure. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stefanie A. Salomon, Peckar & Abramson
Ms. Salomon may be contacted at ssalomon@pecklaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES