Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

When Construction Defects Appear, Don’t Choose Between Rebuilding and Building Your Case

October 11, 2021 — Curtis Martin - ConsensusDocs
When construction defects occur during construction, they intensify pressure from a schedule that may already be tight. Defects must be analyzed, confirmed, removed, and replaced and this can be time consuming. Or course, a construction schedule rarely anticipates defects, demolition, and rework and the owner will still expect the project to be completed on time; however, pressing forward with immediate remediation may have unintended consequences. Before starting demolition, consider the evidentiary doctrine of spoliation. Spoilation occurs when a party destroys or unreasonably deprives another party of evidence and courts have imposed sanctions on a party that deprives an opponent of evidence. The doctrine has historically concerned documents, but its application has extended to electronic data, and courts also apply it to building conditions in construction defects cases. So, before tearing out or fixing defective work, consider the need to allow the opposing party to inspect, test and document it. Imagine this scenario. The concrete in a slab placed by your subcontractor shows low compressive strength results in the 28-day cylinder tests. Tearing out the slab and replacing it will put you at least a month behind schedule and you don’t want to waste any time before removing and replacing it. Nevertheless, while you’re rebuilding the defective slab, be mindful that you are also building a case. If you plan to recover the costs you incur because of the defective concrete from the responsible parties, you should allow the subcontractor (and possibly the concrete supplier and other implicated parties) to examine, preserve, and/or test the work in question. Failure to do so may subject you to spoliation sanctions and jeopardize your right to recover damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Curtis Martin, Peckar & Abramson
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com

Non-compliance With Endorsement Means No Indemnity Coverage

January 15, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured's failure to verify that subcontractors had CGL policies and to provide a contract stating that the subcontractors would indemnify the insured as required by the policy's endorsement meant there was no coverage for the insured. Cincinnati Spec. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Milionis Constr., Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199658 (E.D. Wash. Nov. 26, 2018). The homeowners filed suit against Milionis, the general contractor for construction of a home. The underlying suit alleged that Milionis breached the parties' agreement by leaving the home unfinished. Cincinnati defended Milionis under a reservation of rights. 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

Performing Work with a Suspended CSLB License Costs Big: Subcontractor Faces $18,000,000 Disgorgement

September 17, 2015 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & David A. Harris – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In what could lead to a draconian result, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held that a contractor who performs work without a valid license can be required to disgorge all payments received, even if the contractor perfectly performed its work. The case, Judicial Council of California v. Jacobs Facilities, Inc. (Ct. of Appeal, 1st App. Dis., Div. One, A140890, A141393), involved an $18,000,000 contract between Jacobs Facilities, Inc. (“Jacobs Facilities”) and the Judicial Council of California (“Judicial Council”). In April 2006, Jacobs Facilities, a wholly owned subsidiary of Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (“Jacobs Engineering”) entered into a three year contract with the Judicial Counsel to maintain 121 courthouses and other judicial branch buildings throughout Southern California (the “Contract”). Jacobs Facilities contracted to provide maintenance and oversight services, while retaining subcontractors to perform the actual maintenance and repair work. In December 2006, as part of a corporate reorganization, Jacobs Engineering started winding up Jacobs Facilities and transferred its employees to Jacobs Engineering and then subsequently to another wholly owned subsidiary called Jacobs Project Management Co. (“Jacobs Management”). The work that was performed by Jacobs Facilities was taken over by Jacobs Management. As part of the windup, Jacobs Facilities’ Contractor’s State License Board license was allowed to lapse and the license expired by operation of law in November 2008. Although Jacobs Management was now performing the work, it was not added as a party to the contract. Although it appears Judicial Council was aware of the corporate changes, it was not until November 2009 that the parties assigned the contract to Jacobs Management. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

ASBCA Validates New Type of Claim Related to Unfavorable CPARS Review [i]

May 03, 2017 — John P. Ahlers - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
For government contractors, an unfavorable performance rating review posted to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”) can be extremely costly. Many of the government-negotiated solicitations include past performance as an important, and sometimes even primary, evaluation factor for contract award. An unfavorable CPARS review on a past contract can cause the contractor to incur substantial extra costs in addressing the unfavorable review with contracting officers on future solicitations, and, in some instances, the contractor saddled with an unfair or inaccurate CPARS may have to challenge the review and recover some of these costs. Both the Federal Court of Claims and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) have held that they have jurisdiction to hear Contract Dispute Act claims regarding unfair and/or inaccurate CPARS review. The relief available to contractors until this year was a declaration from the Court of Claims or Board that an unfair or inaccurate CPARS review was arbitrary and capricious. Neither the Board nor the Court had the authority or power to order the contracting officer to change the unfavorable review. The contractor who received a declaration from the Court or the Board regarding an unfavorable CPARS review may use it in the future to explain the unfavorable review when bidding new government work; however, the unfavorable review remains in the CPARS system and shows up on all future solicitations, the Board or Court decision notwithstanding. 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

Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Subcontractor Has No Duty to Defend Under Indemnity Provision

July 14, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals [see prior post here] and determined that a subcontractor did not have a duty to defend the developer upon tender under an indemnify provision in the parties' contract. Arthur v. State of Hawaii, 2016 Haw. LEXIS 155 (June 27, 2016). A simplified version of the detailed facts and procedural history follows. The case involved the wrongful death of Mona Arthur. Mona typically gardened on the hillside behind her home. She would cross a concrete drainage ditch and climb over a two-foo-high chain length fence to reach the hillside. Mona was found lying in a concrete ditch with severe head injuries, which ultimately led to her death. Her husband and estate sued for her wrongful death. Claims were asserted for negligence in failing to build a fence higher than two feet, which would have prevented Mona from having access to the garden. Defendants included the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands; Kamehameha Investment Corporation ("KIC"), the developer; Design Partners, Inc., the architect; Coastal Construction Company, the general contractor; and Sato and Associates, the civil engineer. The second amended complaint sought punitive damages against KIC. 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

Contractor Gets Green Light to Fix Two Fractured Girders at Salesforce Transit Center

January 28, 2019 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
The Transbay Joint Powers Authority announced Jan. 10 that procurement has begun for the repair of the two fractured bottom flanges of the twin parallel girders that span 80 ft across Fremont Street in the 4.5-block-long Salesforce Transit Center in San Francisco. TJPA shuttered the transit center on Sept. 25, less than six weeks after it had opened, after a ceiling installer noticed a crack in one of the bridgelike spans. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, ENR
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

Toll Brothers to Acquire Shapell for $1.6 Billion

November 08, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Toll Brothers is purchasing the home-building business of Shapell Industries for $1.6 billion. This will increase Toll Brother’s presence in California, where it has been building homes since 1994. After the acquisition, Toll Brothers will have about 9,200 lots in California, while it currently has about 4,000. Toll Brothers is not purchasing the commercial development arm of Shapell. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Car Crashes Through Restaurant Window. Result: Lesson in the History of Additional Insured Coverage

December 29, 2020 — Randy J. Maniloff - White and Williams LLP
Back in the day, additional insureds were oftentimes afforded coverage for liability “arising out of” the named insured’s work for the additional insured. When confronted with such language, courts often concluded that it dictated “but for” causation. In other words, but for the named insured doing the work for the additional insured, the additional insured would not be in the liability-facing situation that it is in. The result in some cases: additional insureds were entitled to coverage for their sole negligence. Decisions reaching such a conclusion were generally not well-received by insurers. This was especially so when you consider that the premium received by insurers, for the AI coverage, may not have been enough to buy a package of Twizzlers. Insurer frustration with such decisions -- which insurers did not believe expressed the intent of additional insured coverage -- led ISO to make revisions to additional insured forms in 2004 (later revisions followed). At the heart of these revisions was an attempt to require fault on the part of the named insured before coverage could be afforded to the additional insured. (This is a very brief and simple history of this complex issue.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Randy J. Maniloff, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Maniloff may be contacted at maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES