Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Contract Change # 10: Differing Site Conditions (law note)

March 28, 2018 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
Previously, the A201 required a Contractor to provide notice to the Owner and Architect within 21 days after discovery of unforeseen site conditions. This notification is required prior to the conditions being disturbed, so as to allow the Design Team the ability to evaluate the site and determine the compensability of any such differing conditions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina

Another Reason to Love Construction Mediation (Read: Why Mediation Works)

December 02, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
I’ll bet you’re thinking by now that I have beaten the mediation drum to death and that I wouldn’t have any more praise for the process than I have heaped upon it here at this corner of the construction law “blawgosphere.” Well, just about every time I am involved with the process, whether acting in my capacity as a Virginia Supreme Court certified mediator, or as counsel to a client seeking to resolve a matter and move on with the business of making money, I become more convinced that mediation can work in even the most contentious of situations. What do I mean by “work?” The obvious answer is that mediation “works” when the parties come up with a solution to their problem. In most instances, the solution involves money changing hands. After all, it is money that is usually the tangible and outwardly driving force behind a dispute. Money is also what a court or arbitrator (in most cases) will be awarding to one side or the other at the end of what is likely to be an expensive process. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

My Construction Law Wish List

December 31, 2014 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
I’ve been good this year. Not great mind you, but good, and good is the standard, right? So, here’s my construction law wish list this holiday season: 1.More Transparency. So much uncertainty and resultant litigation exists for the simple reason that contractors and subs don’t know when a higher tiered contractor or owner (on a lender financed project) has been paid for their work. So how about a requirement that owners, contractors and subcontractors of all tiers be required to disclose when payment applications are submitted, when payments are made and in what amount, and what pay applications have been paid. And because I’m pretty sure I’m at least within the 20th percentile of “good” this year how about a requirement that this information be provided through an online database accessible by all persons working on projects valued at over a certain dollar amount, say $500,000. 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

Happy New Year from CDJ

January 04, 2018 — Laura Parsons – CDJ Staff
The CDJ staff has compiled a “Top 10” list of the articles published in 2017. These articles were the “most read” by our audience last year. These most read stories range from contemplating construction industry conundrums to a surprising increase of new home construction nationwide. As we kick off our first publication of 2018 we are excited to continue to bring you interesting and relevant content. We hope that you will continue to rely on CDJ for an insightful weekly summary of what is happening in the construction defect industry. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Violation of Prompt Payment Statutes is Not a Breach of Contract. But That’s Not the Most Interesting Part

November 01, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
While construction projects can get messy, they don’t get much messier than the next case, which, while involving a fairly limited legal issue, has such jaw dropping facts it’s worth a read if only to make you feel a bit better about your own project. The Clark Bros. Case In Clark Bros, Inc. v. North Edwards Water District, 77 Cal.App.5th 801 (2022), general contractor Clark Bros., Inc. was awarded over $3 million in damages against a local water district on a water treatment facility project. The Project The North Edwards Water District serves approximately 220 customers in the Mojave Desert. It has one employee, Dollie Dimples Kostopoulos. Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up. The drinking water it provides to its customers contains three times the legal limit of arsenic, a carcinogen. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Brookfield to Start Manhattan Tower After Signing Skadden

April 15, 2015 — David M. Levitt – Bloomberg
Brookfield Property Partners LP said it will start building its 1 Manhattan West office tower, after signing a lease with the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP for about a quarter of the skyscraper. The agreement, announced Tuesday in a statement by New York-based Brookfield, jump-starts office construction at the 7 million-square-foot (650,000-square-meter) Manhattan West project, part of an effort to draw the Midtown business district west toward toward the Hudson River. It’s another step in the plan to remake the once-industrial Hudson Yards area into a neighborhood for housing and commerce, with office tenants including Coach Inc. and Time Warner Inc. and stores such as the city’s first Neiman Marcus. The Skadden law firm agreed to a 20-year lease for 550,000 square feet on floors 28 to 43 of the 67-story tower. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Levitt, Bloomberg

Judgment Stemming from a Section 998 Offer Without a Written Acceptance Provision Is Void

March 22, 2021 — Arezoo Jamshidi, Stevie B. Newton & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Mostafavi Law Group, APC v. Larry Rabineau, APC (B302344, Mar. 3, 2021), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (Los Angeles), addressed an issue of first impression: whether the purported acceptance of a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (“section 998”) offer lacking an acceptance provision gives rise to a valid judgment. The appellate court held that a section 998 offer to compromise (“998 Offer”) without an acceptance provision is invalid and any judgment stemming from it is void. In Mostafavi Law Group, plaintiffs sued defendants for defamation per se, among other claims, which was litigated at-length over several years. Defendants served plaintiffs with a written 998 Offer, offering to settle the action for the sum of $25,000.01. The 998 Offer did not specify the manner in which plaintiffs were to accept the offer. Within the statutory time period for acceptance, plaintiffs’ counsel hand-wrote the following onto the 998 Offer: “Plaintiff Mostafavi Law Group, APC accepts the offer.” That day, plaintiffs also filed a notice of acceptance of the 998 Offer, along with proof thereof, and sent a copy to defendants. The next day, having received the notice of acceptance, defendants advised plaintiffs that they would “draft and send . . . a settlement agreement for . . . signature” before paying the settlement funds. Reprinted courtesy of Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, Stevie B. Newton, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com Mr. Newton may be contacted at snewton@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insured's Motion for Reconsideration on Denial of Coverage Unsuccessful

September 28, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured's motion to reconsider an order granting the insurer summary judgment challenges the insured's theory it was an additional insured was rejected by the federal district court. Hanover Ins. Co. v. Superior Labor Servs., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133127 (E.D. La. Aug. 21, 2017). The court previously granted Lexington Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment, finding Allied Shipyard, Inc. was not an additional insured and was not entitled to a defense in the underlying actions. On reconsideration, Allied argued the court ruled it was not a "certificate holder" under the Lexington policy, but Allied was not given the opportunity to conduct discovery with respect to whether it was a "certificate holder." Summary judgment was granted before Allied answered Lexington's amended complaint in intervention. Allied submitted its answer could have raised a genuine issue of material fact because it was entitled to coverage under the policy if it was a certificate holder. 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