Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Construction Costs Must Be Reasonable

May 17, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to proving a construction cost, particularly a cost in dispute, the cost must be REASONABLE. Costs subject to claims must be reasonably incurred and the party incurring the costs must show the costs are reasonable. An example of the burden falling on the contractor to prove the reasonableness of costs is found in government contracting. “[T]here is no presumption that a [government] contractor is entitled to reimbursement ‘simply because it incurred…costs.’” Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. Secretary of Army, 973 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Stated differently, a federal contractor is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness just because it incurs costs. Id. In government contracting, the Federal Acquisition Regulations (known as “FAR”) puts the burden of reasonableness on the contractor that incurred the costs. Id. 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

Ninth Circuit Affirms Duty to Defend CERCLA Section 104 (e) Letter

October 10, 2013 — Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ninth Circuit held there is a duty to defend not only a PRP letter issued by the EPA, but also a section 104 (e) letter. Anderson Brothers, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18156 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2013). The insured received two letters from the EPA notifying it of potential liability under CERCLA for environmental contamination of the Portland Harbor Superfund Site. The first letter was received in January 2008, and stated that the EPA sought the insured's cooperation in its investigation of the release of hazardous substances at the site. The letter enclosed an extensive, 82-question "Information Request" seeking information about the insured's current and former activities at the site. The letter informed the insured that its voluntary cooperation was sought, but compliance with the Information Request was required by law and failure to respond could result in an enforcement action and civil penalties of $32,500 per day. The insured tendered the 104 (e) letter to St. Paul and requested a defense and indemnity pursuant to the CGL policy. St. Paul declined to provide a defense because the letter did not constitute a "suit," which was required by the policy to trigger the duty to defend. The second letter from the EPA, received in November 2009, was entitled "General Notice Letter for the Portland Superfund Site" and notified the insured that it was a "potentially responsible party ("PRP"). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Minnesota Supreme Court Dismisses Vikings Stadium Funding Lawsuit

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit that had alleged that funding for the new Vikings stadium was unconstitutional, according to KARE. "We were so hopeful the courts would deal with this expeditiously and they did," said Michele Kelm-Helgen, chair of the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority told KARE. "And they would be definitive in their result and they were." Doug Mann, former Minneapolis mayoral candidate, had been the one to file the lawsuit. Mann told KARE 11 that “the courts made their ‘political stance loud and clear’ and said he did not know if he would pursue any other legal action. But he maintained his position the stadium funding wasn't legally vetted.” Minnesota Vikings spokesperson Lester Bagley declared, “This was the last remaining hurdle that we see in front of us. We are pleased with the Supreme Court's and Court of Appeals' action,” KARE reported. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Unpaid Subcontractor Walks Off the Job and Wins

September 01, 2016 — John P. Ahlers – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Make the following inquiry of your constructional lawyer, watch him/her sit up in his/her chair and give your question immediate attention: “I haven’t been paid, can I walk off the job?” The answer to this question is a strong “maybe, but it’s risky.” Walking off the project has a significant downside. The risk is that the judge who reviews your decision, sometimes years after the event, may not agree that the non-payment was a material breach and, thus, suspension of performance (walking off) is not justified. A breach of contract occurs where, without legal justification, a party fails to perform any promise that forms a whole or part of the contract. Not all breaches are equal. Some failures to perform a promise are “nominal,” “trifling” or “technical.” These breaches do not excuse performance under the contract by the non-breaching party. If the breach is “material,” that is, goes to the essential purpose of the agreement, is a question that only a judge decides, and only after the decision was made as to whether to walk off the job or not. Therefore, before deciding whether to walk off the job, you have to second guess what a judge may decide under the circumstances. Since not all judges see things the same way, the decision is fraught with uncertainty and risk. 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

Recent Developments with California’s Right to Repair Act

June 11, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In Lexology, Amy Kuo Alexander of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP analyzed recent decisions involving California’s Right to Repair Act, SB 800. According to Alexander, “SB 800, applies to all new residential construction sold after January 1, 2003” and “[i]t establishes a process to resolve certain construction defect claims prior to the filing of any lawsuit by a homeowner of new residential construction.” Alexander’s three main discussion points include “SB 800 is Not the Exclusive Remedy,” “Notice Requirements to Builder Under SB 800,” and “Parties Can Opt Out of SB 800 to Adopt Their Own Prelitigation Procedure So Long as the Terms Are Not Unconscionable.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Wilke Fleury Secures Bid Protest Denial

March 16, 2020 — Wilke Fleury LLP
After the City of Vacaville, following a sealed bid process, awarded a significant well drilling contract to Roadrunner Drilling & Pump Company, second-place bidder Nor-Cal Pump and Well Drilling filed a protest with the City on January 30, claiming that Roadrunner’s bid failed to meet certain requirements of the proposed contract. Roadrunner hired Wilke Fleury to defend the bid protest. After Wilke Fleury partner Dan Baxter transmitted a letter to the City explaining why the disgruntled bidder’s protest was factually and legally unsupported, the City—a mere nine days after receiving Dan’s letter—rejected the bid protest, and maintained its award of the project to Roadrunner as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Wilke Fleury LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

November 28, 2018 — CDJ STAFF
The Second Circuit recently held that competing “anti-concurrent cause” provisions in a commercial property policy present a potential ambiguity that could result in favor of coverage for losses sustained by Madelaine Chocolate after storm surge from Hurricane Sandy combined to cause substantial damage to Madelaine’s property and a resulting loss of income. Madelaine was insured under an all-risk insurance policy issued by Chubb subsidiary Great Northern Insurance Company. By endorsement, Madelaine’s policy added “windstorm” as a covered peril and defined “windstorm” as “wind… regardless of any other cause or event that directly or indirectly contributes concurrently to, or contributed in any sequence to, the loss or damage.” The policy also included a common flood exclusion that removed coverage for loss or damage caused by or resulting from waves, tidal water, or tidal waves, or the rising, overflowing, or breaking of any natural harbors, oceans, or any other body of water, whether driven by wind or not. Like the windstorm endorsement, the flood exclusion contained concurrency language that broadened the exclusion to any loss to which flood contributed, regardless of any other cause or event that directly or indirectly contributed to the loss. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Tae Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Andrews may be contacted at tandrews@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Law of Patent v Latent Defects

March 19, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Candice B. Macario of Gordon & Rees LLP analyzed the case Delon Hampton & Associates, Chartered v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles, and stated that “[i]n his case, a design professional successfully challenged a construction defect lawsuit brought against them, on the basis that the defect complained of was open and obvious and the County had ran out of time to bring their action.” Macario recommended “as lawsuits are filed close to the ten year statute of repose, one area to explore in a single issue case is if you can eliminate a cause of action based on patent defects. Moreover, in multi-issue cases for several construction defects, parties should always be aware of analyzing whether issues can be identified as patent and perhaps used as a tool in negotiations, settlement discussions or pre-trial motions.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES