Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Federal Subcontractor Who Failed to Follow FAR Regulations Finds That “Fair” and “Just” are Not Synonymous

April 22, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Inscribed over the doors of the U.S. Supreme Court are the words “Equal Justice Under Law.” It’s a reminder that judicial decisions should be just. That doesn’t necessarily mean fair. In Aspic Engineering and Construction Company v. ECC Centcom Constructors, LLC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Case No. 17-16510 (January 28, 2019), the 9th Circuit overturned an arbitration decision in favor of a local Afghani subcontractor seeking termination costs after it was terminated for convenience by a U.S.-based general contractor. This, despite the arbitrator’s finding that the subcontract was “clearly drafted to give every advantage to” the general contractor, that the local Afghani subcontractor’s “experience with government contracting [was] not nearly as extensive as that of” the general contractor, and “that the normal business practices and customs of subcontractors in Afghanistan were more ‘primitive’ than those of U.S. subcontractors experienced with U.S. Government work.” Aspic Engineering and Construction Local Afghani subcontractor Aspic Engineering and Construction Company was awarded two subcontracts by ECC Centcom Constructors the general contractor on two projects in Afghanistan overseen by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The first subcontract involved construction of various buildings in the Badghis province of Afghanistan . The second subcontract involved the construction various buildings Sheberghan province of Afghanistan . Both subcontracts included clauses from the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which were incorporated by reference, and included flow-down provisions obligating Aspic to ECC in the same manner that ECC was obligated to the U.S. government. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Application of Set-Off When a Defendant Settles in Multiparty Construction Dispute

January 05, 2017 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
The defense of set-off is an important defense in construction disputes, particularly multiparty disputes. For more information on this defense, please check out this article as it explains the application of set-off in civil disputes in detail. The issue of set-off will come up in a multiparty dispute when a plaintiff settles with one or more of the defendants. The remaining defendant(s) wants the benefit of that settlement to set-off and reduce any judgment against it. An example of this scenario can be found in Escadote I Corp. v. Ocean Three Limited Partnership, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D23a (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). In this case, an owner of a condominium unit sued the condominium association, the developer, and the general contractor for water intrusion and mold infestation. The claim against the condominium association was the only claim that entitled the owner to attorney’s fees pursuant to its lawsuit (thus, attorney’s fees were isolated to only that claim against the association). During trial, the owner settled with the association. In entering a settlement, the owner smartly allocated the settlement amount such that $500 was allocated to its principal damages and $374,500 was allocated to its attorney’s fees. The owner then obtained a jury verdict against the contractor and developer for approximately $2M, jointly and severally, and the contractor and developer wanted the entire $375,000 settlement amount with the association to be set-off from the $2M verdict. The trial court set-off the entire $375,000 from the jury verdict when entering judgment. The appellate court reversed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

Mortgage Bonds Stare Down End of Fed Easing as Gains Persist

October 29, 2014 — Jody Shenn – Bloomberg
The end of the Federal Reserve’s third round of bond purchases is proving to be a non-event for mortgage-backed debt. That’s partly because even though the U.S. central bank won’t be adding more home-loan securities to its balance sheet, policy makers will still be buying enough to prevent its holdings from shrinking. Those purchases are having a greater impact as the pace of net issuance slows to a quarter of the amount last year amid a weaker property market. The $5.4 trillion market for government-backed mortgage bonds is defying predictions for a slump tied to the wind-down of the Fed stimulus program, whose completion economists predict will be announced today. Yields on benchmark Fannie Mae (FNMA) notes have shrunk 0.14 percentage point this year relative to government debt, narrowing to within 1.09 percentage points of an average of five- and 10-year Treasury rates. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jody Shenn, Bloomberg
Ms. Shenn may be contacted at jshenn@bloomberg.net

Water Seepage, Ensuing Mold Damage Covered by Homeowner's Policy

August 13, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The appellate court reversed the trial court's determination that the policy covered only mold damage, but not damage caused by water seepage. Henderson v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 539 (Ga. Ct. App. July 16, 2014). The homeowner's policy covered losses caused by constant seepage or leakage of water or the presence of condensation or moisture over a period of time. The insureds also paid for additional coverage for "ensuing mold . . . caused by or resulting from" one of the covered risks, including water seepage. Ms. Henderson discovered a puddle of water in her kitchen and contacted Georgia Farm Bureau. The insurer's contractor tore out a section of the floor, but found no other problems of water seepage. Later, the Hendersons removed another part of the floor and discovered standing water and black mold underneath. The Hendersons had to vacate their house for one year. 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

Crime Policy Insurance Quotes Falsely Represented the Scope of its Coverage

July 13, 2020 — Brian J Clifford - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
An Indiana businessman found out the hard way how far his insurance company was willing to go to avoid paying a claim after it misrepresented the coverage of a crime policy it sold to him. The quote for the policy indicated that it included coverage for losses resulting from computer hacking. Despite this representation, when the policyholder’s bank accounts were hacked, the insurer denied coverage on the ground that there was no provision for hacking coverage in the policy. Fortunately, the Indiana Court of Appeals recognized the insured’s right to argue before a jury that the insurer’s quotes falsely represented the scope of its coverage. In Metal Pro Roofing, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., Richard Cornett, principal of Metal Pro Roofing, LLC and Cornett Restoration, LLC (the “LLCs”), purchased a Cincinnati Insurance Company CinciPlus Crime XC+ Policy (the “Policy”). At the time Mr. Cornett purchased this coverage, and during all subsequent renewals, Cincinnati issued insurance quotes that stated:

Cincinnati can insure your money and securities while at your premises, inside your bank and even off site in the custody of a courier. While you’ve taken precautions to protect your money and securities, you run the risk of loss from employees, robbers, burglars, computer hackers and even physical perils such as fire.

Give yourself peace of mind with Cincinnati’s crime coverage to insure the money and securities you worked so hard to earn.

Crime Expanded Coverage (XC®)Plus Endorsement $125.00.

(Emphasis added.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian J Clifford, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Clifford may be contacted at bjc@sdvlaw.com

DC Wins Largest-Ever Civil Penalty in US Housing Discrimination Suit

November 15, 2022 — Kriston Capps - Bloomberg
Three real estate companies operating in Washington, DC, will pay record-breaking penalties in a suit brought by the city for illegally discriminating against tenants who use Section 8 vouchers and other forms of housing assistance. The attorney general for the District of Columbia, Karl Racine, announced on Thursday a settlement for $10 million. While fair housing cases involving lenders have resulted in larger compensation payouts, $10 million is the largest civil penalty ever levied in a housing discrimination case. In 2020, the city sued several entities — DARO Management Services, DARO Realty and New York-based parent company Infinity Real Estate, as well as several executives — over housing practices in the District. DARO Management operates and rents some 1,200 residential units in more than a dozen apartment buildings spread across Wards 1, 2 and 3, which include DC’s more affluent areas. (DARO Realty owns the properties, DARO Management operates them, and Infinity owns both affiliates.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kriston Capps, Bloomberg

Insurance Law Client Alert: California FAIR Plan Limited to Coverage Provided by Statutory Fire Insurance Policy

February 07, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In St. Cyr v. California Fair Plan Association (No. B243159, filed 1/31/14), a California appeals court held that the state's high risk property insurance plan is not obligated to provide any greater coverage than that mandated for the state's statutory fire insurance policy. The plaintiff-policyholders lived in high fire risk areas and were insured under the California FAIR Plan, which provides property insurance to the otherwise uninsurable. Following loss of their homes and other property in wildfires, the policyholders were paid the full amount of their policy limits, but contended that they were entitled to additional payments. Specifically, the policyholders alleged that the FAIR plan provided less protection than statutorily mandated by Insurance Code sections 10090 through 10100.2, which spells out the "Basic Property Insurance Inspection and Placement Plan" of the FAIR program. The policyholders contended that FAIR was required to issue a policy not only in accordance with the standard form fire insurance policy set forth in Insurance Code section 2071, but also the "'Basic Property Insurance' written in the normal market . . . known as the 'HO-3'," referring to the copywrited homeowners policy form promulgated by the Insurance Services Office (ISO). Reprinted Courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP and Chris Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com and Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Can a Contractor be Liable to Second Buyers of Homes for Construction Defects?

November 05, 2014 — Craig Martin - Construction Contractor Advisor
Whether a contractor will be liable to a second purchaser, even though the contractor never contracted with the second purchaser, varies state to state. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Conway v. The Cutler Group, is the latest court to rule that a subsequent purchaser lacks privity and cannot pursue an action against the builder. In that case, the Conways purchased a home from the original owner. After living in the home for about two years, the Conways discovered water leaking around the windows. The Conways sued the builder, alleging breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The builder defended the claim, asserting that it had not contracted with the Conways and thus had not provided any warranties to the Conways. The trial court agreed and dismissed the claim. The first level of appellate court reversed the trial court, holding that the warranty of habitability was intended to level the playing field between the builder and purchaser of a home and it should be extended to subsequent purchasers. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed and refused to extend any warranties to subsequent purchasers. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES