Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Contractors and Force Majeure: Contractual Protection from Hurricanes and Severe Weather

October 11, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
This week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings welcomes back Clay Olsen. Clay is is an attorney at Harper Whitwell PLLC. The firm is located in Mississippi and South Carolina where they routinely represent the interests of construction. This season is not special as hurricanes are a part of life on the east coast and gulf shores. From New York to Louisiana, just about every state has seen massive property loss from hurricanes during the past ten years. We often see harsh outcomes for those on the coast living in finished homes. What happens to the unfinished and current projects awaiting completion? If you’re building on the coast, take a look at all of the following risk aversion mechanisms:

Builders Risk Insurance is necessary as is Coverage for named storms. Be sure to review the “excluded perils” or speak to your agent as hurricane coverage best not be omitted.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Offices of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Be Proactive, Not Reactive, To Preserve Force Majeure Rights Regarding The Coronavirus

March 30, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you are involved in construction, NOW is the time to consider the potential force majeure impacts associated with the pandemic Coronavirus. Things are beginning to drastically change on a minute-by-minute basis. From travel restrictions, to the suspension or cancellation of events on an international level, to company-wide policies and restrictions, the global uncertainty has led to the possibility that a force majeure delay will occur. Thinking otherwise is not being proactive. The Coronavirus, and the impacts / delays associated therewith, is beyond anyone’s control. Due to the uncertainty, it is hard to fathom at this time a reasonable challenge to someone’s reaction to this concern or their companywide response to the concern.

Revisit your contracts and see what type of force majeure language it has – anything relating to delays beyond your control or epidemics;
Examine to see whether you have a basis for additional compensation AND additional time;
Examine what type of notice you are required to provide for force majeure events;
Be proactive – send notice now of the potentiality that this pandemic can impact / delay the job –no one should take offense to this letter as this pandemic has impacted all walks of life;
If an impact occurs, send follow-up notice accordingly to ensure rights under the contract are preserved; and
For future contracts, incorporate language that specifically addresses epidemics and pandemics now that the occurrence of this issue has become real.

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

Suit Limitation Provision Upheld

March 04, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The policy's one year suit limitation provision was upheld, depriving insureds of benefits under the policy. Oswald v. South Central Mut. Ins. Co., 2018 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1077 (Dec. 24, 2018). The Oswalds' hog barn burned down on June 21, 2016. Arson was a possible cause. The Oswalds were insured under a combination policy issued by North Star Mutual Insurance Company and South Central Mutual Insurance Company. Central provided coverage for basic perils, broad perils, and limited perils, which included fire losses. The Central policy required property claims to be brought within one year after the loss. By endorsement, the North Star policy required suits be brought within two years after the loss. Presumably, the claims was denied, although the decision does not state this. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Modern Tools Are Key to Future-Proofing the Construction Industry

September 19, 2022 — Guillaume Le Gouic - Construction Executive
The U.S. construction industry is facing a tech revolution that’s upending the roles of skilled workers. Many traditional contractors are struggling to embrace the new technologies customers increasingly demand, while the industry struggles to attract young professionals. According to the latest American Community Survey data, the median age of a construction worker is 41. This is particularly concerning given the confluence of two trends: the construction industry is facing a critical workforce shortage that’s only expected to intensify, and the workforce is aging—NCCER is predicting around 40% are expected to retire by 2031. Industry leaders must prioritize using the latest industry solutions and innovations to modernize construction work, transform the construction industry and appeal to the next generation of contractors. Throughout COVID-19, the construction sector experienced a higher number of workers quitting jobs as opposed to being laid off, indicating the older workforce likely took the opportunity to retire early, along with more than three million other Americans who did the same. Currently, industry leaders are not doing enough to communicate opportunities to help shift the career perception of electrical contractors from simply being “blue collar” and un-exciting. A 2019 National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) found only 3% of people ages 18 to 25 were interested in pursuing a construction career, with most respondents noting the desire for a less physically demanding job. Reprinted courtesy of Guillaume Le Gouic, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Can an Architect, Hired by an Owner, Be Sued by the General Contractor?

September 10, 2014 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
As is often the answer in this blog, maybe. And, it will likely depend on which state’s law is applied. Over the last few weeks, courts around the country have reached differing conclusions on whether a general contractor may sue an architect that it did not hire. Here’s the situation: The owner hires an architect to draft plans for a project. The project is then put out for bid and the owner hires a general contractor for the work. The general contractor and architect do not enter into a contract with each other. If, during construction, the general contractor finds fault with the plans, it may seek Request for Information and Change Orders, to shore up the perceived problems with the plans. Ultimately, the general contractor may sue the architect to recover damages it suffered in completing the project. 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

Appropriation Bill Cuts Military Construction Spending

June 15, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Hill reports that HR 2055, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs (VA) and Related Agencies bill, has passed with only five votes in opposition. The bill cuts the budget for military construction spending by $2.6 billion due to anticipated base closures.

The bill includes $186 million for family housing construction by the Army, $100 million for family housing construction by the Navy and Marines, and $84 million for family construction by the Air Force, with an additional $50 million allocated for the DOD outside the military branches. By the act, these funds will remain available until September 30, 2016.

Read the full story…

Read HR 2055

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

ASHRAE Approves Groundbreaking Standard to Reduce the Risk of Disease Transmission in Indoor Spaces

July 10, 2023 — ASHRAE
ATLANTA, June 27, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- ASHRAE announced the approval for publication of its highly anticipated standard to reduce the risk of airborne infectious aerosol transmission in buildings, bringing numerous benefits to occupants and promoting healthier environments. ASHRAE Standard 241, Control of Infectious Aerosols establishes minimum requirements to reduce the risk of disease transmission by exposure to infectious aerosols in new buildings, existing buildings, and major renovations. Infectious aerosols are tiny, exhaled particles that can carry pathogens that cause infections or disease. These particles are so small that they can remain in the air for long periods of time. Use of this standard could reduce exposure to the SARS-COVID-2 virus, which causes COVID-19, the flu virus and other pathogens. Standard 241 provides requirements for many aspects of air system design, installation, operation, and maintenance. Standard 241 available now for presale in the ASHRAE Bookstore. About ASHRAE Founded in 1894, ASHRAE is a global professional society committed to serve humanity by advancing the arts and sciences of heating ventilation, air conditioning, refrigeration, and their allied fields. For more information and to stay up-to-date on ASHRAE, visit ashrae.org and connect on Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Restricts Principles of “General” Personal Jurisdiction

April 01, 2015 — Kristian B. Moriarty and R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In BNSF Railway Company v. Superior Court (Kralovetz) (Filed 3/27/2015, No. B260798), the California Court of Appeal, Second District, held a Delaware railroad corporation, with its principal place of business in Texas, was not subject to “general” personal jurisdiction in California, despite California housing 8.1% of the corporation’s total workforce, accounting for 6% of the corporation’s revenue, and containing just under 5% of its total track mileage. Plaintiff, Vicki Kralovetz, filed suit in California Superior Court against defendant, BNSF Railway Company (“BNSF”), and others, for wrongful death. Plaintiff contended her husband was exposed to asbestos products manufactured by BNSF in Kansas while working at a dismantling facility owned by BNSF’s predecessor in interest. Plaintiff claimed the exposure caused her husband to contract mesothelioma, which resulted in his death. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at mmoriarty@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES