Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Toronto Skyscraper With $1.2 Billion of Debt Has Been Put in Receivership

November 16, 2023 — Ari Altstedter - Bloomberg
A landmark condominium project in one of Toronto’s ritziest neighborhoods has been put into receivership after construction delays and cost overruns. Construction of the 85-story tower will be taken over by a court-appointed receiver after its owners, developer Sam Mizrahi and investor Jenny Coco, defaulted on part of the project’s nearly C$1.7 billion in debt ($1.2 billion), according to a Wednesday order from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Two funds run by South Korea-based IGIS Asset Management Co. applied for the receivership. Another IGIS fund will extend at least another C$315 million to continue work on the project, court documents said. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ari Altstedter, Bloomberg

Ohio: Are Construction Defects Covered in Insurance Policies?

January 09, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Amanda M. Leffler of Brouse McDowell analyzed Ohio’s 2012 Supreme Court case Westfield Ins. Co. v. Custom Agri Sys., Inc., which ruled that “’[c]laims of defective construction or workmanship brought by a property owner are not claims for ‘property damage’ caused by an ‘occurrence’ under a commercial general liability policy.’” Leffler stated that the Ohio Supreme Court decision wasn’t as “sweeping” as it might at first appear: “Rather, the Ohio Supreme Court adopted the rule that construction defects are covered ‘occurrences’ within the meaning of commercial general liability (‘CGL’) policies, but only to the extent that property other than the policyholder’s own work is damaged.“ Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Claim Against Broker for Failure to Procure Adequate Coverage Survives Summary Judgment

April 15, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The broker's motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss negligence claims for failure to obtain adequate coverage, was denied by the court in Voss v. The Netherlands Ins. Co., 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 384 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2014). The insured met with a representative of CH Insurance Brokerage Services Co., Inc. (CHI) to discuss coverage for the premises and her two companies. At CHI's request, the insured shared information on sales figures for calculating business interruption coverage. The broker represented that CHI would reassess and revisit the coverage needs as her business grew. CHI recommended $75,000 per incident in coverage for business interruption losses. The insured questioned whether the $75,000 limit was adequate, but the broker assured her that it was sufficient. The insured then accepted the recommendation. Subsequently, the insured's business grew, but CHI renewed the policy with the same $75,000 business interruption limit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

The Dangers of an Unlicensed Contractor from Every Angle

January 11, 2021 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
The State of California requires that contractors in the building trades be licensed. Individuals and business entities obtain their contractors licenses by demonstrating to the California Contractors State License Board that they have the requisite knowledge, skill, and experience to be licensed. The CSLB issues licenses to those meeting requirements. As a construction attorney of longstanding tenure, I have witnessed the impact of unlicensed building contractors from every point of view. If you are considering hiring an unlicensed contractor, acting as an unlicensed contractor or even working for an unlicensed contractor as an employee, please consider the following perils: To the Owner Considering Hiring an Unlicensed Contractor: On the positive side for owners considering hiring an unlicensed contractor, the general rule in California is that an owner can escape the obligation to pay an unlicensed contractor for work performed and materials supplied because unlicensed contractors are prohibited from bringing legal actions against owners for payment. The law even goes so far as to allow the Owner to bring a legal action against the unlicensed Contractor for reimbursement of anything the owner paid to the unlicensed contractor. This is done through a “disgorgement” action (see, Business and Professions Code 7031. See also, the following article: Disgorgement Article). Despite this, there are a great many negative potential consequences to be considered by any owner who might consider hiring an unlicensed contractor. Among them are the following:

If you are considering not paying your unlicensed contractor because Business and Professions Code 7031 allows it, please consider that unlicensed contractors, who have clearly demonstrated a disinclination to follow legal obligations in the first place, may resort to “less than socially acceptable” means of exacting retribution against those who do not pay them or who demand the return of money paid through a disgorgement action I am sorry to say this. Let us leave it at that.

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

Surety’s Several Liability Under Bonds

March 20, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When a payment or performance bond is issued on behalf of its bond-principal, the surety is jointly and severally liable with its bond-principal. This means the surety has several liability under the bond, i.e., you don’t need to pursue the principal of the bond to pursue liability under the bond, which is a separate written intrument. Thus, if you are claiming damages of $500,000, by way of example, you can sue both the principal and surety under the bond, you can ONLY sue the principal under the bond (which is rarely practical), or you can ONLY sue the surety under the bond (which, oftentimes, is very practical). In many instances where I am pursuing a bond claim on behalf of a client, particularly a payment bond claim, I only sue the surety and do not sue the bond-principal unless there are certain strategic reasons in doing so. This is because of the surety’s several liability under the bond and there may be solvency issues with the principal or contractual reasons that, strategically, make much more sense to exclude the principal from the action. In MJM Electric, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2023 WL 2163087 (M.D.Fla. 2023), an electrical subcontractor was hired to perform electrical work by the prime contractor. The prime contractor had a payment bond. The project was delayed for two years. The electrical subcontractor claimed the prime contractor failed to compensate it for significant delays and out of scope work. 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

SEC Approves New Securitization Risk Retention Rule with Broad Exception for Qualified Residential Mortgages

November 26, 2014 — Neil P. Casey & Lori S. Smith – White and Williams LLP
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and five other federal agencies recently approved a joint rule (the “Risk Retention Rule”) mandating that sponsors of certain types of securitizations retain a minimum level of credit risk exposure in those transactions and prohibiting such sponsors from transferring or hedging against that retained credit risk.[i]The final Risk Retention Rule will be effective one year after its publication in the Federal Register for securitizations of residential mortgages, and two years after publication for securitizations of all other asset types. The SEC vote was 3-2, with sharp dissents from Commissioners Gallagher and Piwowar concluding that the adopting agencies had missed a prime opportunity to rein in risky mortgage lending practices that had precipitated the 2008 financial crisis. Background Following the meltdown of the securitization markets in 2007 (particularly subprime residential mortgage-backed securities), and the resulting global financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank Act mandated that the U.S. federal banking, securities and housing agencies adopt and implement rules to require sponsors of most new securitizations to retain not less than five percent of the credit risk of any assets that the securitizer, through the issuance of an asset-backed security, transfers, sells or conveys to a third party. It was thought that requiring securitization sponsors to keep “skin in the game” would align the interests of the sponsors with the interests of investors and thereby incentivize the sponsors to ensure the quality of the assets underlying the securitization through appropriate due diligence and underwriting procedures when selecting assets for securitization. Although the Dodd-Frank Act explicitly exempted securitizations of certain types of mortgage loans called “qualified residential mortgages” (or “QRMs”) from this risk retention requirement, it invited the rulemaking agencies to define that key term, provided that their definition could be no broader than the definition of “qualified mortgage”adopted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act.[ii] In considering how to define QRM, the rulemaking agencies were directed by the Dodd-Frank Act to take into consideration “underwriting and product features that historical loan performance data indicate result in a lower risk of default.”[iii] Reprinted courtesy of Neil P. Casey, White and Williams LLP and Lori S. Smith, White and Williams LLP Mr. Casey may be contacted at caseyn@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Angela Cooner Receives Prestigious ASA State Advocate Award

April 12, 2021 — Angela Cooner - Lewis Brisbois
Phoenix Partner Angela L. Cooner recently received the American Subcontractors Association, Inc. (ASA) 2020 State Advocate award during ASA’s Virtual Awards Presentation, which took place on February 25. ASA selected Ms. Cooner as the recipient of this honor based upon the significant time that she spent and value she added to subcontractor advocacy in Arizona over the last year. In nominating Ms. Cooner for this award, ASA of Arizona stated, “Angie’s dedication and track record are second to none. However, it is her leadership in managing the recent merger between the Arizona State Contractors’ Coalition (AZSCC) and Arizonans for Fair Contracting (AFC) where she has distinguished herself most notably.” Moreover, ASA explained that Ms. Cooner’s dedication “has allowed ASA of Arizona to renegotiate a new contract with a government affairs firm that helped secure victory on a critical proportional liability bill and begin the upcoming legislative session on the right foot.” According to ASA, Ms. Cooner has donated the equivalent of $120,000 in billable hours to the organization through her work for AFC and as legal counsel for ASA of Arizona’s Board of Directors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Angela Cooner, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Cooner may be contacted at Angela.Cooner@lewisbrisbois.com

New Defendant Added to Morrison Bridge Decking Lawsuit

March 26, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Morrison Bridge in Multnomah County, Oregon, has added a new company to their lawsuit regarding problems with the slip-resistant FRP decking, according to The Oregonian. The county has already named the installer, the supplier, and the manufacturer. Now, they have added Hardesty & Hanover, LLP, the company “that contracted with the decking manufacturer to provide engineering and design for the project.” The Oregonian reported that “the county has identified a construction design professional who can testify that Hardesty & Hanover made errors that contributed to the Morrison Bridge's damage,” according to the amended complaint. First, Conway construction (the deck installer) filed suit against the decking manufacturer and supplier. Then, the “county inserted itself into the suit last fall,” stated The Oregonian, and “is seeking more than $2 million to repair or replace the decking, plus damages.” A trial is scheduled for February 2015. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES