FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Thirteen Payne & Fears Attorneys Honored by Best Lawyers

August 19, 2024 — Payne & Fears LLP
Congratulations to the 13 Payne & Fears attorneys included in the 2025 Edition of “Lawyer of the Year,” The Best Lawyers In America®, and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch®. Attorneys have been recognized in the following practice areas: 2025 Edition “Lawyer of the Year” Orange County Benjamin A. Nix

• Trade Secrets Law

Daniel F. Fears

• Litigation – Labor and Employment

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

---

Prejudice to Insurer After Late Notice of Hurricane Damage Raises Issue of Fact

January 03, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment on admittedly late notice because prejudice to the insured remained an issue of fact. Guzman v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219625 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 15, 2021). The insured first noticed water leaking into his kitchen from the roof during Hurricane Irma on September 10, 2017. Various attempts were made by the insured to fix the leak, but none were successful. After the hurricane, the roof continued to leak whenever it rained. Notice was finally given to Scottsdale, the insurer, on April 19, 2020. Scottsdale retained structural engineer Nazario Ramirez, who inspected the property twice. He also had photographs of the rapids. Ramirez denied being prejudiced during his inspections. Based on the pictures aerial photography and weather research, he determined that the damage was caused by underlayment failing, which could have resulted from age and deterioration or poor construction. When Scottsdale's corporate representative was deposed, he testified that Ramirez was able to determine the cause of the damage to the roof. 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

---

Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking State's Enforcement of New Law Banning Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements

February 24, 2020 — Amy R. Patton, Jeffrey K. Brown & Tyler B. Runge - Payne & Fears
On January 31, 2020, Judge Kimberly Mueller issued a preliminary injunction "in full" preventing the State of California from enforcing AB 51, the state's new law effectively banning mandatory employee arbitration agreements. As we previously reported, AB 51 adds section 432.6 to the Labor Code and section 12953 to the Government Code, which together prohibit employers from requiring an employee, as a condition of employment, continued employment, or receipt of employment-related benefits, to waive any right, forum, or procedure to pursue a claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or the Labor Code. In other words, AB 51 bans mandatory employment arbitration agreements for employment-related claims. In early December 2019, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a coalition of business organizations sued the state of California in federal court in a bid to have AB 51 declared preempted --- and therefore unenforceable --- by the Federal Arbitration Act. The case is Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Becerra, Case No. 2:19-cv-2456 KJM DB (E.D. Cal.). On December 30, 2019, Judge Mueller issued a temporary restraining order preventing the state from enforcing AB 51 pending the resolution of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. You can read our report here. Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears attorneys Amy R. Patton, Jeffrey K. Brown and Tyler B. Runge Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Brown may be contacted at kb@paynefears.com Mr. Runge may be contacted at tbr@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Handshake Deals Gone Wrong

May 22, 2023 — Jessica Allain - ConsensusDocs
The construction industry has it fair share of “handshake deals”, oral agreements relying on the integrity of the people involved. But when it comes to protecting and enforcing legal rights, it is always a better idea to properly paper the deal and get it in writing. Otherwise, contractors relying on verbal promises may find themselves without any legal remedy should the deal go south. After all, it is not just a matter of trust, but also a way to document that everybody agrees on what the terms of the deal actually are. For example, a recent case out of New York highlights the dangers of unwritten promises. In Castle Restoration, LLC v. Castle Restoration & Construction, Inc., No. 16349-15 (N.Y. App. Div. 2/9/22), 2022 NY Slip Op 50082(U), 2022 WL 402882, 2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 485, Castle Inc. and Castle LLC entered into a deal for an asset sale to transfer equipment and a client list from Castle Inc. to Castle LLC. While that initial asset sale was properly papered with sale documents and a promissory note, the parties entered into a subsequent handshake/oral agreement where Castle LLC agreed to provide Castle Inc. with labor and materials on construction projects, and those goods and services would offset the payment obligation under the promissory note. But the problem was that the contract for the asset sale had a provision that the agreement could not be changed by oral agreement; rather, any changes had to be made in writing. Reprinted courtesy of Jessica Allain, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs) Ms. Allain may be contacted at jallain@joneswalker.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Texas EIFS Case May Have Future Implications for Construction Defects

October 02, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Lennar Homes addressed a problem with EIFS in homes built in Texas in the 1990s by replacing every roof they had built. Some of those homes had problems with leaks, rotting, or termites, but other roofs hadn’t suffered any problems. Lennar’s insurers initially refused coverage. Lennar managed to settle with all but one, Markel American Insurance. Their dispute formed the case Lennar Corp. v. Markel American Insurance Co. This was first tried before a jury and eventually appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. Brian S. Martin of Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons LLP discusses this case at Insurance Journal. Markel’s claim was that under the policy language, Lennar could not make voluntary payments without getting Markel’s consent, which they did not. But the Texas Supreme Court disagreed, determining that Lennar took, as Mr. Martin notes, “a reasonable approach to a serious problem.” Markel also made the claim that the whole amount of the damages was not covered by the policy, as they did not view the policy as covering the cost of determining the extent of the damage. The Court disagreed, noting that “under no reasonable construction of the phrase can the cost of finding EIFS property damage in order to repair it not to be considered ‘because of the damage.’” Mr. Martin concludes by calling the Texas Supreme Court decision “a frontal assault on several critical provisions of liability policies that will assuredly lead to further litigation.” He also notes that the decision “may indicate a shift in the Court’s approach in insurance cases to a more result-oriented jurisprudence.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

When a Request for Equitable Adjustment Should Be Treated as a Claim Under the Contract Disputes Act

August 29, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In federal contracting, contractors are sometimes torn about submitting a request for equitable adjustment (known as an “REA” under 48 C.F.R. 252.243-7002) or submitting a formal claim under the Contract Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. s. 7103), the latter requiring a final decision by the contracting officer and starts the clock with respect to interest and preserving rights. It is also sometimes not easy for the contracting officer receiving an REA to determine whether the REA is actually a claim under the Contract Disputes Act requiring more immediate action. This recent take by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hits the nail on the head:

We recognize that contracting officers will sometimes face the difficult challenge of determining whether a request for equitable adjustment is also a claim. Contractors must choose between submitting a claim—which starts the interest clock but requires the contracting officer to issue a final decision within 60 days—and submitting a mere request for equitable adjustment—which does not start the interest clock but gives the contractor more time to negotiate a settlement and possibly avoid hefty legal fees. The overlap between these two types of documents might create room for gamesmanship. For example, a contractor could submit a document that is a claim—starting the interest clock—but appears to be a mere request for equitable adjustment—causing the contracting officer to not issue a final decision within the 60-day deadline and allowing interest to accrue for months or years. But the government has tools to address this challenge: The contracting officer can communicate to the contractor that she is going to treat the document as a claim and issue a final decision within 60 days. Or the government can explicitly require the contractor to propose settlement terms and attempt to settle disputes before submitting a claim to the contracting officer for a final decision.

Zafer Construction Company v. U.S., 2022 WL 2793596, *5 (Fed.Cir. 2022).

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

---

Construction Defect Fund Approved for Bankrupt Las Vegas Builder

February 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A federal bankruptcy judge has given his approval to a fund set up to settle potential construction defect claims as a Las Vegas home builder, America West Development, works its way out of bankruptcy. The U.S. Trustee had objected to the trust fund's structure, and claimed that it was insufficiently independent from America West. Judge Mike Nakagawa found no legal objections to the trust. The trust will be initially funded from $1.5 million of the $10 million that Lawrence Canarelli will be paying to buy back the company he founded. Construction defect claims against the company could possibly reach $20.9 million. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that the fund "could pick up funding from certain legal claims and insurance. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

As California Faces Mandatory Water Use Reductions How Will the Construction Industry be Impacted?

May 07, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Earlier this month, Governor Jerry Brown issued Executive Order B-29-15, which imposes mandatory water use reductions for the first time in the history of California. The Executive Order, issued as the state enters its fourth year of severe to exceptional drought, directs the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”) to impose a 25% reduction on the state’s 400 local water supply agencies which serve 90% of California residents, over the coming year. The State Water Board has already issued proposed regulations based on informal comments received from the public, and in a “Fact Sheet” issued this weekend, has indicated that it is seeking additional informal comments no later than April 22, 2015, with final proposed emergency regulations to be released on April 28, 2015, which will then be considered by the State Water Board at its meetings on May 5 and 6, 2015. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---