FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Public Contract Code 9204 – A New Mandatory Claims Process for Contractors and Subcontractors – and a Possible Trap for the Unwary

March 22, 2017 — Alex R. Baghdassarian & Joseph S. Sestay – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
New California legislation affecting public works contractors was adopted pursuant to Assembly Bill 626, sponsored by the Union Trade Contractors Association of California and endorsed by various trade and contractor associations including the AGC. AB 626, which was intended to assist contractors in presenting claims against public agencies, affords new opportunities, and some potential pitfalls, to contractors and subcontractors submitting claims to public owners. The legislation, codified at California Public Contract Code (PCC) section 9204, is effective for public works contracts entered into after January 1, 2017. All public entities (including the CSUS and the UC system), other than certain Departments of the State (CalTrans, High-Speed Rail Authority, Water Resources, Parks and Recreation, Corrections and Rehabilitation, General Services and the Military) are bound by the provisions of PCC Section 9204. PCC 9204 establishes a mandatory pre-litigation process for all claims by contractors on a public works project. It is an attempt to address the reluctance of public owners to promptly and fairly negotiate change orders on projects, putting some teeth to the mandate of existing law under PCC Section 7104, which precludes public owners from shifting to the contractor the risk of addressing differing subsurface and/or concealed hazardous site conditions. Reprinted courtesy of Alex R. Baghdassarian, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Joseph S. Sestay, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Baghdassarian may be contacted at abaghdassarian@pecklaw.com Mr. Sestay may be contacted at jsestay@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Toolbox Talk Series Recap – Best Practices for Productive Rule 26(f) Conferences on Discovery Plans

May 13, 2024 — Douglas J. Mackin - The Dispute Resolver
In the April 4, 2024 edition of Division 1’s Toolbox Talk Series, Julian Ackert and Steve Swart presented on how to prepare for and structure Rule 26(f) conferences to be more effective. While Swart and Ackert focused on the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) regarding the requisite conference of the parties prior to a scheduling conference or scheduling order, it is worth noting that many states have substantially similar requirements. Rule 26(f) requires the parties to (i) discuss the nature and basis of their claims or defense; (ii) make or arrange for mandatory disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1); (iii) discuss issues about preserving discoverable information (including Electronically Stored Information – “ESI”); and (iv) develop a proposed discovery plan. Swart and Ackert’s presentation focused on the preservation of ESI and the proposed discovery plan. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas J. Mackin, Cozen O’Connor
Mr. Mackin may be contacted at dmackin@cozen.com

---

Insured's Testimony On Expectation of Coverage Deemed Harmless

August 30, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Affirming the district court, the Third Circuit found that the insured's testimony that she expected her loss to be covered was harmless. Gordon v .Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13507 (3rd Cir. July 26, 2017). After a storm, portions of the stone facade of the insured's home collapsed. Allstate denied coverage because her policy was limited to "sudden and accident physical loss to the property" caused by a named peril, including windstorm. Allstate contended that the damage to the home was caused by neglect, not the storm. 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

---

Couple Perseveres to Build Green

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Most homeowners don’t want to make their way through the mountain of paperwork required for LEED certification. But according to the Patriot News, Jens and Donna Damgaard aren’t most homeowners. The Damgaards set out to build a LEED-certified home, and struck with it to the end. The Damgaards started out by assembling a team so there wouldn’t be any questions down the road. They also kept going green as a goal, no matter what. Don Park, their contractor, said that “it worked out well. There was never a cost issue.” Jens Damgaas is an attorney in Harrisburg, and he put his skills as a lawyer to work in going through the paperwork, as if he were the projet’s LEED consultant. One further takeaway from the contractor, “everyone wants two-button toilets.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court Bars Licensed Contractor From Seeking Compensation for Work Performed by Unlicensed Sub

June 06, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It all started with a tree. A eucalyptus tree to be exact. What followed is one of the more important cases to be decided under Business and Professions Code section 7031 in recent years. Yes, that Section 7031. The statute variously described by the state’s courts as “harsh[ ],” draconian” and “unjust,” but, importantly, nevertheless valid. Under Section 7031, an unlicensed contractor is barred from seeking compensation for work requiring a contractor’s license. This has been called the “shield.” However, in addition to the “shield,” project owners can also employ Section 7031’s “sword,” and seek disgorgement of all monies paid to an unlicensed contractor. Section 7031’s “shield” and “sword” applies even if the project owner knew that the contractor was unlicensed. They also apply even if the unlicensed contractor’s work was flawless. And they also apply even if a contractor was unlicensed during a portion of its work. This is because, as courts have stated, Section 7031 is a consumer protection statute intended to protect the public from unlicensed contractors and applies irrespective of the equities. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Anti-Concurrent Causation Endorsements in CGL Insurance Policies: A Word of Caution

August 29, 2022 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
While I have not performed exhaustive research into the origin of anti-concurrent causation (“ACC”) endorsements on insurance policies, or how or when they migrated from first-party property policies to commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies, they have done so. The result for Colorado’s construction professionals may rear its ugly head as an unwelcome and surprise outright declination of coverage for construction defect claims. ACC endorsements state that if there are two causes of damage: one of which is covered by a policy and one of which is not, the carrier can invoke the ACC endorsement to disclaim coverage for all of the damage. An exemplar ACC endorsement is ISO Form CG 21 67, entitled “Fungi or Bacteria Exclusion.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

Efficient Proximate Cause Applies to Policy's Collapse Provisions

February 23, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court applied the efficient proximate cause doctrine to find coverage under a property policy for a building's collapse. Vardanyan v. Amco Ins. Co., 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 1181 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2015). The insured submitted a claim to Amco for damage to the flooring of the house and for mold. Amco's adjustor reported that the house seemed to be settling, possibly due to a water leak. A structural engineer then inspected and found multiple potential leaks in the roof, gutters in disrepair, downspouts that deposited water at the base of the walls of the house, and evidence that a faucet had been spraying the wall in one area. Water damage was noticed in these areas. Further, the kitchen was water damaged and had past termite infestation. 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

---

Woodbridge II and the Nuanced Meaning of “Adverse Use” in Hostile Property Rights Cases in Colorado

November 23, 2020 — Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Earlier this year, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued an opinion addressing at length “whether the requirement that the use be ‘adverse’ in the adverse possession context is coextensive with adverse use in the prescriptive easement context.” See Woodbridge Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Lo Viento Blanco, LLC, 2020 COA 34 (Woodbridge II), ¶ 2, cert. granted, No. 20SC292, 2020 WL 5405376 (Colo. Sept. 8, 2020). As detailed below, the Woodbridge II court concluded that the meanings of “adverse” in these two contexts are not coextensive—while “hostility” in the adverse possession context requires a claim of exclusive ownership of the property, a party claiming a prescriptive easement is only required to “show a nonpermissive or otherwise unauthorized use of property that interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Thus, the Woodbridge II court reasoned a claimants’ acknowledgement or recognition of an owner’s title alone is insufficient to defeat “adverse use” in the prescriptive easement context. This significant ruling is at odds with a prior division’s broad statement, while considering a prescriptive easement claim, that “[i]n general, when an adverse occupier acknowledges or recognizes the title of the owner during the occupant’s claimed prescriptive period, the occupant interrupts the prescriptive use.” See Trask v. Nozisko, 134 P.3d 544, 553 (Colo. App. 2006). Perhaps for that reason, Woodbridge II is currently pending certiorari review before the Colorado Supreme Court in a case that should provide some much-needed clarity on what constitutes “adverse use” in the context of a prescriptive easement. As we await the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, I thought it worthwhile to provide a brief analysis of the Woodbridge II court’s deep dive into the nuances of “adverse use” in this field of Colorado law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

---