Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Just When You Thought the Green Building Risk Discussion Was Over. . .

May 25, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As a reader of Construction Law Musings, you no doubt realize that I am a big proponent of “green” or sustainable building. I have also been known to sound a bit like Eeyore when discussing the charge into the breach of green building without considering the potential risks. Thankfully, and despite some of the risk predictions made here (and elsewhere for that matter) there have not been but so many major court cases relating to these risks. However, as a recent article in ENR Magazine warns, this lack of litigation does not mean that you should let your guard down. Just because the economy, warnings by attorneys and others, and possible lack of financial incentive to sue have kept the litigation numbers down does not mean that the risks have gone away. LEED requirements, time horizons and other risks that have become evident during the process of vetting green building contracts and practices still must be dealt with in contracts and insurance policies. These risks are well laid out in the ENR article and in other places here at Musings so I won’t outline them in detail here. 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

Assembly Bill 1701 Contemplates Broader Duty to Subcontractor’s Employees by General Contractor

August 17, 2017 — Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
AB 1701 recently passed the Assembly and is pending in the Senate’s Labor and Industrial Relations and Judiciary Committees. The Bill, if signed by the Governor, would create a new section in the California Labor Code (Section 218.7) making “direct contractors” – defined as a contractor “making or taking a contract in the state for the erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other private work” – liable for wages a subcontractor or sub-subcontractor fails to pay to its employee for work included in the general contractor’s contract with the project owner. Under the new law, direct contractors would be liable for up to one year from the date of completion of the work for unpaid wages, fringe benefits, health and welfare benefits, and pension fund contributions, including interest and state tax payments owed to a subcontractor’s employee. The employee, however, would not be able to recover penalties or liquidated damages from the general contractor. AB 1701 would give the employee, Labor Commissioner, or a joint labor-management cooperation committee the right to enforce the direct contractor’s liability through a civil action. It would also extend to third parties who are owed fringe or other benefit payments or contributions on the employee’s behalf. Pursuant to the proposed language of the new statute, a prevailing plaintiff in such an action would be entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert witness fees. Although Labor Code § 218.7 would impose certain obligations on the subcontractor to provide the direct contractor with relevant project and payroll records, the subcontractor’s failure to comply with those obligations does not relieve the direct contractor from liability. Impact AB 1701’s apparent purpose is to protect employees, an undeniably important legislative goal. However, if passed, the bill could greatly increase general contractors’ exposure when subcontracting work and their cost of doing business. Especially because the new law would not impact existing laws requiring a direct contractor to timely pay a subcontractor. As a result, many coalitions against AB 1701 stress the halting effect this could have on the construction industry as a whole, particularly private construction, which is not as heavily regulated as public works. CGDRB will continue to monitor this Bill and provide updates as developments occur. Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Detect and Prevent Construction Fraud

August 28, 2018 — Tiffany Couch - Construction Executive
With construction ramping up in many markets, construction firms plan to hire more workers, indicating the industry's continued optimism about a healthy economy. It's news that is both exciting and perhaps a little daunting: hiring competent, qualified tradespeople is challenging under any conditions. No one wants to hire a poor employee—or worse, someone who turns out to be a thief. While no industry is immune to occupational fraud, the construction industry is one of the harder hit. The average construction fraud scheme costs business owners $227,000 before it is detected. Worse, the fraudster is very often someone the employer implicitly trusts, making it even harder to believe the company has been the victim of insider theft. Fraud can hurt a business's reputation, cost thousands and betray trust. It may seem uncontrollable and unforeseeable unless employers know how to detect and deter fraudulent behavior. Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Couch, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Ms. Couch may be contacted at tcouch@acuityforensics.com

House Bill Clarifies Start Point for Florida’s Statute of Repose

September 14, 2017 — Lian Skaf - White and Williams LLP
The Florida legislature recently enacted a law clarifying when the ten-year statute of repose begins to run for cases involving “improvements to real property,” as that phrase is used in Florida Statute Section 95.11. House Bill 377 was signed into law on June 14, 2017 and took effect in all cases accruing on or after July 1, 2017. This amendment is significant to subrogation professionals evaluating when cases involving contractors and design professionals are time barred. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

Judge Gives Cintra Bid Protest of $9B Md. P3 Project Award New Life

March 21, 2022 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
The Maryland Dept. of Transportation will have to reconsider a protest lodged by the losing bidder for the initial phase of its $9-billion Express Lanes project, according to a Feb. 17 state circuit court judge's ruing. The decision likely stalls the state's ambitious plan to add capacity along portions of the I-495/Beltway and I-270 west of Washington, DC, using a progressive public-partnership. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Relevance and Reasonableness of Destructive Testing

August 17, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Destructive testing is a routine investigatory procedure in construction defect disputes. The destructive testing is necessary to determine liability (causation), the extent of damage, and the repair protocol. Destructive testing is designed to answer numerous questions: Why did the building component fail? Was the building component constructed incorrectly? What is the magnitude of the damage caused by the failure? What specifically caused the damage? What is the most effective way to fix the failure and damage? There are different iterations to the same questions, but in many instances, destructive testing is necessary to answer these questions. Claimants sometimes prohibit destructive testing. Of course, destructive testing is intrusive. In many instances, it is very intrusive. But, this testing is a necessary evil. Without this testing, how can a defendant truly analyze their potential exposure and culpability? They need to be in a position to prepare a defense and figure out their liability. This does not mean destructive testing is warranted in every single construction defect dispute. That is not the case. However, to say it is never warranted is irrational. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

Expert Excluded After Never Viewing Damaged Property

October 28, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Plaintiff's expert was excluded for never having seen the property. Wehman v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117445 (D. N.J. Sept. 3, 2015). Plaintiff's home was damaged by Superstorm Sandy on October 29, 2012. He reported his loss to State Farm on Octorber 25, 2013, claiming that some roof shingles had come loose during the storm. No other damage was reported. An investigator for State Farm visited the property. The investigator determined that the damage to the roof was not caused by Sandy, but by age, wear and tear, all of which were excluded causes under the policy. Plaintiff informed the investigator there was no damage to the interior of the home and denied the investigator's request to enter the house to inspect. Plaintiff then sued State Farm for breach of contract and bad faith. Plaintiff designated Timothy Fife of Gulf Coast Estimating Services as his expert in the litigation. Fife's estimate of damages consisted of twelve pages of allegedly required repairs for both the interior and exterior of Plaintiff's property totaling $86,351.01. Fife never visited the property to inspect and never spoke with Plaintiff regarding the condition of the property prior to Sandy or the damage allegedly caused by Sandy. Instead, Fife relied upon an inspection conducted by someone else. 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

Reinsurer Must Reimburse Health Care Organization for Settlement Costs

June 17, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Indiana Supreme Court reversed summary judgment issued to reinsurer Continental Casualty Company (CNA) and determined it must reimburse the insured for settlement costs under the E & O policy. Wellpoint, Inc., et al. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, et al., 2015 Ind. LEXIS 316 (Ind. April 22, 2015). Anthem, Inc. was a large managed health care organization. Anthem was its own primary and excess insurer for E&O liability. It had numerous excess reinsurers. Beginning in 1998, anthem was confronted by various lawsuits alleging it and other managed care organizations failed to pay claims in a full and timely manner, thereby breaching state and federal statutes. The various lawsuits alleged substantially the same wrongful conduct, namely that after promising to pay doctors in a timely manner for their services, Anthem sought to improperly deny, delay and diminish payments due. The cases were consolidated into a federal multi-district litigation proceeding in the Southern District of Florida. Claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of state prompt pay statutes were dismissed or dropped. Anthem then settled the underlying litigation in July 2005 without admitting and instead denying any wrongdoing or liability. The settlement called for both cash payments and implementation of specific business practices consistent with requested injunctive relief. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES