FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

What You Should Know About Liquidated Damages and Liability Caps for Delay and Performance Liquidated Damages

May 06, 2024 — Chris Cazenave - ConsensusDocs
Liquidated damage clauses are omnipresent in today’s construction contracts—often considered in early negotiations to provide a degree of certainty and limit financial liability. There are two principal types of LDs appearing in construction contracts—(i.) damages for delay when a contractor fails to deliver a project by a certain milestone; and (ii.) performance damages when a contractor fails to meet specific performance requirements. Differentiating between LDs for delay and LDs for performance—especially when both LD types are combined in the same contract—is key to risk awareness and allocation during contract negotiations and throughout performance. This article briefly outlines what you should know about LDs for delay and LDs for failing to meet certain performance requirements. The article also covers how contractors can allocate and cap risks based on risks each party can either manage, insure, or otherwise limit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chris Cazenave, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Cazenave may be contacted at ccazenave@joneswalker.com

---

Revisiting OSHA’s Controlling Employer Policy

December 21, 2017 — Wally Zimolong - Zimolong LLC
The United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has been asked to review OSHA’s twenty year old “controlling employer” policy. As many contractors are surprised to learn, under OSHA’s controlling employer policy, you can be given an OSHA citation even when your own employee is not exposed to the alleged hazard. A. The Controlling Employer Policy OSHA’s current controlling employer policy has been effective since 1999. That policy applies to multi-employer worksites, which means virtually all construction sites. Under the policy, OSHA can cite the creating, exposing, correcting, or controlling employer. A creating employer is one who creates the hazard to which workers are exposed. The exposing employer is one who permits his employees to be exposed to the hazard, whether it created the hazard or not. The correcting employer is one who is responsible with correcting known hazards. Finally, the controlling employer is one “who has general supervisory authority over the worksite, including the power to correct safety and health violations itself or require others to correct them.” Most general contractors and CM’s are controlling employers. Under OSHA’s policy, a contractor’s OSHA safety obligations hinges on whether it is a creating, exposing, correcting, or controlling employer. The creating, exposing, and correcting contractors obligations are fairly straightforward. However, the controlling contractors obligations are more nuisanced. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

Lien Law Unlikely To Change — Yet

May 26, 2011 — Melissa Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina

For those of you following the proposed revisions to the NC lien law that is currently at the NC House Judiciary Subcommittee B, a quick update: the proposed bill (HB 489) is unlikely to be voted on this legislative session due to its unpopularity with several constituency groups, including both the AIA-North Carolinaand the NC Home Builders Association.



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Brumback of Ragsdale Liggett PLLC. Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com.

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

---

How Many New Home Starts are from Teardowns?

April 15, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In a NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index survey, builders were asked “Of the homes you started in 2014, approximately what share were on a site where a previous structure, or evidence of a previous structure, was present before you started?” According to the NAHB, the surveyors reported that “[o]n average, weighted by starts, […] just under five percent of their starts were teardowns according to the survey’s criterion.” When compared to census data, it equates to 31,800 single-family teardown starts in 2014. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Affordable Housing, Military Contracts and Mars: 3D Printing Construction Potential Builds

September 05, 2022 — Adam J. Weaver & Lindsey Mitchell - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The 3D printing construction market is likely on the cusp of a boom. This unique construction method boasts many advantages in comparison to traditional forms of construction. Projects can be completed more quickly and at a fraction of the cost, given fewer laborers are required and the materials used are much cheaper. Though market growth stalled during the COVID-19 pandemic, industry leaders expect 3D printing construction to experience exponential growth in the coming years. While 3D printing technology has risen in popularity and prominence in the past couple of decades, it is only recently that 3D printing companies have begun making strides in the construction industry. Critical to the construction process is the software that is used to create and model the planned structure. A software program turns a building’s blueprint into code that then dictates the movement of a 3D printer on the construction site. After a concrete-like mix is loaded into the printer, the printer begins to build the walls by laying one cylindrical layer of concrete at a time, in accordance with the blueprint. There is no one-size-fits-all approach in 3D printing construction: some companies print the core structure as well as the roof and floor of the structure, while others print only the core and shell and install those portions separately using traditional methods and materials. Reprinted courtesy of Adam J. Weaver, Pillsbury and Lindsey Mitchell, Pillsbury Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

When Coronavirus Cases Spike at Construction Jobsites

July 27, 2020 — Richard Korman, Scott Judy & Jeff Rubenstone - Engineering News-Record
When Covid-19 took hold in several US states in early spring, Choate Construction responded, as many contractors did, by quickly adopting federal workplace safety guidelines for disinfecting surfaces and maintaining social distancing. Enhanced by various state lockdown measures for businesses and the general public, the new safety system seemed to work with only a handful of workers on Choate’s projects testing positive. Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record reporters Richard Korman, Scott Judy and Jeff Rubenstone Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Texas Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court in Vines-Herrin Custom Homes v Great American Lloyds Insurance Company on December 21, 2011. Vines-Herrin Custom Homes built a single-family home in Plano, Texas in 1999. They obtained a commercial general liability policy from Great American, later purchasing coverage from Mid-Continent, which the decision describes as “a sister company of Great American.”



While the home was under construction, Emil G. Cerullo sought to purchase it. At the time, it was under contract to another buyer. Two months later, Vines-Herrin told Cerullo that the deal had “fell through.” Cerullo bought the house with modifications from the original plan. Upon moving in, Cerullo began having water intrusion and other problems. “Cerullo noticed water gathering on window sills and damage to the sheetrock and baseboard.” Additional problems followed, including cracks, leaks, “and in early 2002, the ceiling and roof began to sag.”



Cerullo sued Vines-Herrin, claiming negligent construction. Vines-Herrin filed a claim seeking defense and indemnification under the insurance policies. Coverage was denied and Vines-Herrin filed suit to require coverage and also bringing claims for “breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and DTPA and insurance code violations.”



In May, 2006 Vines-Herrin stated that it had no more defense funds and went into arbitration with Cerullo. The underlying construction defect action was settled for about $2.5 million. As part of the settlement, “Cerullo became the rightful owner of all remaining claims, rights, and causes of action against” Vines-Herrin’s insurers. He then joined the coverage lawsuit.



The non-jury trial was held under the controlling law of the time which “imposed a duty to defend only if the property damage manifested or became apparent during the policy period.” The court concluded in Cerullo’s favor. During the post-judgment motions, the Texas Supreme Court rejected the manifestation rule. Under this ruling, the trial court set aside its judgment and found in favor of the insurance companies. The trial court noted that although “the Residence was covered by an uninterrupted period of insurance (which began before the Residence was constructed) and that the damages to the Residence manifested during the uninterrupted period of insurance coverage,” “Mr. Cerullo failed to allege the date when actual physical damage to the property occurred.”



The first claim by Cerullo and Vines-Herrin was that the “Final Judgment” occurred in October 2004, and that all proceedings thereafter were void. The court rejected this as the “final judgment” is not “final for the purposes of an appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.” Despite the use of the word “final,” the trial court’s decision did not do this.



The second issue was the application of the Texas Supreme Court case Don’s Building Supply Inc. v. OneBeacon Insurance. In this case, framing rot due to defective stucco was not discovered until after the end of the policy period. The Supreme Court noted that “the key date is when injury happens, not when someone happens on it.”



The appeals court found that the trial court misapplied the Don’s Building Supply decision. Rather than an exact date, “so long as that damage occurred within the policy period, coverage was provided.” The appeals court noted that “Cerullo alleged the house was constructed in 1999 and he purchased it in May 2000.” “By April of 2001, Cerullo noticed that the windowsills in the study were showing signs of leakage and water damage.” As the court put it, “the petitions then alleged a litany of defects.”



The court noted that coverage by Great American was in effect from November 9, 1999 to November 9, 2000. In May of 2000, the house suffered “substantial flooding from a rainstorm that caused damage.” This was during the policy period. “As a matter of law, actual damages must occur no later than when they manifest.”



The court concluded that as damage manifested during the period of coverage, so must have the damage. The court ruled that “contrary to the trial court’s determination otherwise, the evidence showed Great American’s duty to indemnify was triggered, and expert testimony establishing the exact date of injury was not required to trigger the duty.”

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Proposition 65: OEHHA to Consider Adding and Delisting Certain Chemicals of Concern

September 03, 2015 — Lee Marshall & Jeffrey A. Vinnick – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), which is responsible for determining the chemicals that are included on its list of chemicals known to be carcinogenic or to cause reproductive harm, thereby requiring businesses to comply with the rules accorded under California’s Proposition 65, has announced the beginning of a 45-day public comment period on five chemicals:

• Nickel
• Pentachlorophenol
• Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
• Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)
• Tetrachloroethylene
Reprinted courtesy of Lee Marshall, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jeffrey A. Vinnick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Marshall may be contacted at lmarshall@hbblaw.com Mr. Vinnick may be contacted at jvinnick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of


---