FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Is Your Contract “Mission Essential?” Recovering Costs for Performing During a Force Majeure Event Under Federal Regulations

May 10, 2022 — Joneis M. Phan & Sarah K. Bloom - ConsensusDocs
Federal contractors have faced unprecedented challenges performing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional costs have included delays and inefficiencies, site closures, quarantines, unavailability of supplies and materials, and full shutdowns of subcontractor operations. For contractors performing under fixed price contracts, the cost impact of COVID-19 was likely severe. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) recognizes “epidemics” as a force majeure event that may excuse non-performance. Many federal contracts include some version of the Default clause, which prevents the government from terminating a contractor for default due to impacts of force majeure events that are beyond a contractor’s control, such as an epidemic. See, e.g., FAR 52.249-10. See also Pernix Serka Joint Venture v. Dep’t of State, CBCA No. 5683 (Apr. 20. 2020). The Default clause, however, operates as a shield from liability, not a sword authorizing recovery. Contractors are now left wondering whether any avenue exists to recover additional costs incurred after performing in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to a likely influx of claims and requests for equitable adjustment due to COVID-19 impacts, the federal government largely took the position that contractors were entitled to extensions of time, but not to additional costs. This article explores the avenues that may be available for contractors to recover costs for performing during a force majeure event that would otherwise be non-compensable. Reprinted courtesy of Joneis M. Phan, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs and Sarah K. Bloom, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs). Mr. Phan may be contacted at jphan@watttieder.com Ms. Bloom may be contacted at sbloom@watttieder.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Welcome to SubTropolis: The Massive Business Complex Buried Under Kansas City

February 05, 2015 — Patrick Clark – Bloomberg
The underground industrial park known as SubTroplis opened for business in 1964 in an excavated mine below Kansas City, Mo., attracting tenants with the lure of lower energy costs and cheap rents. The walls, carved out of 270-million-year-old limestone deposits, help keep humidity low and temperatures at a constant 68 degrees, eliminating the need for air conditioning or heating. Tenants have reported saving as much as 70 percent on their energy bills, says Ora Reynolds, president of SubTropolis landlord Hunt Midwest. Rents run about $2.25 per square foot, about half the going rate on the surface. "It's also a question of sustainability," says Joe Paris, vice president at Paris Brothers, a specialty foods packager that employs about 200 workers underground. In addition to Paris Brothers, 51 tenants have rented nearly 6 million square feet of space. Others include LightEdge Solutions, a cloud computing company that uses the mild climate to help cool servers, and an underground archive that contains the original film reels to Gone with the Wind and Wizard of Oz. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Clark, Bloomberg

---

Endorsement to Insurance Policy Controls

March 28, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: an insurance policy is a complicated reading and this reading gets compounded with endorsements that modify aspects of the policy. What you think may be covered may in fact not be covered by virtue of an endorsement to the insurance policy. This is why when you request an insurance policy you want to see the policy PLUS all endorsements to the policy. And when you analyze a policy, you need to do so with a full reading of the endorsements. An endorsement to an insurance policy will control over conflicting language in the policy. Geovera Speciality Ins. Co. v. Glasser, 47 Fla.L.Weekly D436a (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (citation omitted). The homeowner’s insurance coverage dispute in Glasser illustrates this point. Here, the policy had a water loss exclusion. There was an exception to the exclusion for an accidental discharge or overflow of water from a plumbing system on the premises. But there was an endorsement. The endorsement modified the water loss exclusion to clarify that the policy excluded water damage “in any form, including but not limited to….” Examples were then given which did not include the accidental discharge or overflow of water from a plumbing system. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Insured's Collapse Claim Survives Summary Judgment

October 28, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's motion for summary judgment seeking to dispose of the insured's claim for collapse was denied. Life Skills, Inc. v. Harleysville Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143658 (D. Mass. Aug. 13, 2024). Life Skills was a non-profit social service agency providing residential and day habilitation services to adults with autism and intellectual and developmental disabilities. The head office was covered by a policy issued by Harleysville with building coverage limits of $3,038,300. Damage occurred in a ceramics classroom located in the basement of the building. The floor sank between eight to twelve inches in the northeast corner. The ceramics classroom contained two large kilns weighing approximately 200 pounds. 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

---

Axa Buys London Pinnacle Site for Redesigned Skyscraper

February 26, 2015 — Dalia Fahmy and Patrick Gower – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- Axa Real Estate Investment Managers, the property unit of Europe’s largest insurer, has bought the London site of the halted Pinnacle skyscraper and plans to build a tower of its own design. The building at 22 Bishopsgate will have more than 1 million square feet (93,000 square meters) of offices, shops and restaurants, the Paris-based company said in a statement Friday. It’s paying 300 million pounds ($460 million) for the property, according to a person with knowledge of the matter who asked not to be identified because the information is private. Reprinted courtesy of Dalia Fahmy, Bloomberg and Patrick Gower, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules that Insurance Salesman had No Fiduciary Duty to Policyholders

July 19, 2017 — Austin D. Moody - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
On June 20, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a life insurance salesman had no fiduciary duty to his customers where the customers retained decision-making authority regarding which policies to purchase. In Yenchi v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., the Court returned a 4-2 verdict, overturning the lower court’s finding that it was possible that a fiduciary relationship existed between the parties. The suit arose from a series of transactions between Eugene and Ruth Yenchi and Bryan Holland, a financial advisor for IDS Life Insurance Corporation. The relationship began when Holland cold-called the Yenchis and asked to meet with them regarding their “financial stuff.” For a fee of $350, Holland met with the Yenchis on several occasions and counseled them regarding their insurance needs. On Holland’s advice, the Yenchis cashed out several existing polices and purchased a whole-life policy for Mr. Yenchi and a deferred variable annuity in Mrs. Yenchi’s name. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Austin D. Moody, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Moody may be contacted at adm@sdvlaw.com

---

Grupo Mexico Spill Sparks Public Scrutiny of $150 Million Mop-Up

September 17, 2014 — Nacha Cattan – Bloomberg
Mexico is sending federal officials to Sonora state to oversee Grupo Mexico SAB (GMEXICOB)’s $150 million cleanup of a copper mine spill that the government says contaminated the water supplies of at least 24,000 people. The special commission of environmental and agriculture ministry officials will monitor the company’s pledge to clean Mexico’s worst mining spill, which occurred Aug. 6 in the northern state that borders Arizona. Grupo Mexico said last week it would create a $150 million trust after its Buenavista del Cobre operation dumped 11 million gallons of copper sulfate solution into two Sonora rivers. Industrias Bachoco SAB de CV and Ford Motor Co. (F) operate plants in Hermosillo, south of the contaminated waterways. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nacha Cattan, Bloomberg
Ms. Cattan may be contacted at ncattan@bloomberg.net

---

Mobile Home Owners Not a Class in Drainage Lawsuit

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

Comparing it to a “complex construction defect action,” the California Court of Appeals for Orange County has rejected the claims of a group of mobile home owners that they should be certified as a class in their lawsuit against Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park. The Appeals court sustained the judgment of the lower court. The court issued a decision in the case of Criswell v. MMR Family LLC on January 17, 2012.



The claims made by the group were that the owners and operators of the mobile home park had known of an “on-going and potentially worsening shallow groundwater condition on the property” and had “exacerbated the problem by changing ‘the configuration and drainage related to the hillside that abuts’ the park.” The homeowners claimed that the class should consist of “any past or current homeowner during the same time frame” who had experienced “the accumulation of mold, fungus, and/or other toxins,” “property damage to his/her mobilehome and/or other property resulting from drainage problems, water seepage, water accumulation, moisture build-up, mold, fungus, and/or other toxins,” emotional distress related to drainage problems or mold, and finally health problems “resulting from exposure to drainage problems, water seepage, water accumulation, moisture build-up, mold, fungus, and/or other toxins, in or around one’s home, lot, or common areas of the park.”



The lower court concluded that while the limits of the class were identifiable, they failed to constitute a class in other ways. First, the people affected were small enough in number that they could be brought together. They “are not so numerous that it would be impracticable to bring them all before the Court.”



The court noted that while many of the homeowners would have issues in common, they did not find “a well-defined community of interest among the class members.” The Appeals Court wrote that “the individual issues affecting each mobile home and homeowner will predominate over the common issue of the presence of standing or pooling water in and around the park.” The court noted that each home would be affected differently by water and “the ‘accumulation of mold, fungus, and/or other toxins.’”



While the court conceded that there would be common issues, such as the “defendants’ alleged concealment of excess moisture conditions and their allegedly negligent roadwork and landscaping,” they noted that “these common issues would be swamped by the swarm of individual determinations of property damage, emotional distress, and personal injury.” The Appeals Court cited an earlier case that ruled against certification “if a class action ‘will splinter into individual trials.’” The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court that they could not proceed as a class.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---