Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Drafting the Bond Form, Particularly Performance Bond Form

July 14, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
Oftentimes, when it comes to payment and performance bonds (in particular), the bond forms are drafted by the obligee. For example, an owner (as the obligee) may draft the bond forms that it wants its general contractor’s surety to execute. And, a general contractor (as the obligee) may draft the bond forms that it wants its subcontractors’ sureties to execute. As an obligee, it is always beneficial to draft the bond form (particularly the performance bond) that you want the surety to execute. The bond is to benefit you—the obligee—so having a hand in creating conditions to trigger the application of the bond is important, specifically when it comes to triggering a performance bond upon the bond-principal’s default. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

The Future of Construction Defects in Utah Unclear

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In recent years, more courts have started to view construction defects as accidents, covered under insurance policies. In a post on the Parr Brown Gee & Loveless web site, Jeffrey D. Stevens writes that “the number of courts siding with insurance companies to deny contractors and subcontractors insurance coverage in construction defect lawsuits has been shrinking.” Recently, the Supreme Court of West Virginia “switched sides on this issue completely.” The Utah Supreme Court has not made a ruling on this, but the Federal District Court for the District of Utah and the Tenth Circuit have looked at Utah law and concluded that “under Utah law damage caused by construction defects is not accidental.” But in another case, “the district court determined that property damage allegedly caused by defective or defectively installed windows was caused by an accident.” Mr. Stevens thinks that “it is likely” that the Utah Supreme Court “will follow the increasing number of courts that have held that damage caused by construction defects is an accident for insurance purposes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Kiewit-Turner Stops Work on VA Project—Now What?

December 31, 2014 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
The Kiewit-Turner joint venture created to build the VA’s hospital near Denver stopped work on December 10 after the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals ruled that the VA breached the contract. Kiewit-Turner claims that the VA owes it over $100 million on the project. And, given the appeals board’s recent ruling entirely against the VA, the claim may get some traction. This project has been plagued with problems from the beginning. One strange aspect of the project is the VA’s apparent unwillingness to incorporate value engineering or require the architects to redesign the project to fit within the budget. The latest budget was $582M, while the latest projections show that the project will cost more than $1 billion to complete. 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

Motion for Summary Judgment Gets Pooped Upon

December 16, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
I’ve read some crappy motions over the years, some of which opposing counsel might even attribute to me, but I don’t think I’ve ever written about poop and motions. In Beebe v. Wonderful Pistachio & Almonds LLC, a summary judgment motion filed by a project owner sued by a construction worker for personal injuries caused by bird poop, which in turn caused a nasty fungal infection which spread to his brain, resulted in a not-so-wonderful ending for Wonderful. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Wage Theft Investigations and Citations in the Construction Industry

October 11, 2017 — Evelin Y. Bailey - California Construction Law Blog
This month we share some cautionary tales for employers in the construction industry. During the past several months the California Labor Commissioner has cited or filed suit against several construction companies. In one investigation, a general contractor was held equally responsible for wages owed by a subcontractor to its employees. The lesson learned from these stories is that now more than ever it is important to have in place proper wage and hour practices and to conduct periodic audits of those practices, including those of your lower tiered contractors, preferably by experienced legal counsel. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Evelin Y. Bailey, California Construction Law Blog

Seller Cannot Compel Arbitration for Its Role in Construction Defect Case<

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The buyer of a leaky home in Venice, California cannot be compelled to arbitration with the seller in a construction defect lawsuit, according to a decision in Lindemann v. Hume, which was heard in the California Court of Appeals. Lindemann was the trustee of the Schlei Trust which bought the home and then sued the seller and the builder for construction defects.

The initial owner was the Hancock Park Trust, a real estate trust for Nicholas Cage. Richard Hume was the trustee. In 2002, Cage agreed to buy the home which was being built by the Lee Group. Cage transferred the agreement to the Hancock Park Trust. Hancock had Richard Nazarin, a general contractor, conduct a pre-closing walk through. They also engaged an inspector. Before escrow closed, the Lee Group agreed to provide a ten-year warranty “to remedy and repair any and all damage resulting from water infiltration, intrusion, or flooding due to the fact that the door on the second and third floors of the residence at the Property were not originally installed at least one-half inch (1/2”) to one inch (1”) above the adjacent outside patio tile/floor on each of the second and third floors.”

Cage moved in and experienced water intrusion and flooding. The Lee Group was unable to fix the problems. Hume listed the home for sale. The Kamienowiczs went as far as escrow before backing out of the purchase over concerns about water, after the seller’s agent disclosed “a problem with the drainage system that is currently being addressed by the Lee Group.”

The house was subsequently bought by the Schlei Trust. The purchase agreement included an arbitration clause which included an agreement that “any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or any resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.” The warranty the Lee Group had given to Hancock was transferred to the Schlei trust and Mr. Schlei moved into the home in May 2003.

Lindemann enquired as to whether the work done would prevent future flooding. Nazarin sent Schlei a letter that said that measures had been taken “to prevent that situation from recurring.” In February, 2004, there was flooding and water intrusion. Lindemann filed a lawsuit against the Lee Group and then added the Hancock Park defendants.

The Hancock Park defendants invoked the arbitration clause, arguing that Lindemann’s claims “were only tangentially related to her construction defect causes of action against the Lee Group.” On June 9, 2010, the trial court rejected this claim, ruling that there was a possibility of conflicting rulings on common issues of law. “With respect to both the developer defendants and the seller defendants, the threshold issue is whether there was a problem with the construction of the property in the first instance. If there was no problem with the construction of the property, then there was nothing to fail to disclose.” Later in the ruling, the trial court noted that “the jury could find there was no construction defect on the property, while the arbitration finds there was a construction defect, the sellers knew about it, and the sellers failed to disclose it.” The appeals court noted that while Hancock Park had disclosed the drainage problems to the Kamienowiczs, no such disclosure was made to Sclei.

The appeals court described Hancock Park’s argument that there is no risk of inconsistent rulings as “without merit.” The appeals court said that the issue “is not whether inconsistent rulings are inevitable but whether they are possible if arbitration is ordered.” Further, the court noted that “the Hancock Park defendants and the Lee Group have filed cross-complaints for indemnification against each other, further increasing the risk of inconsistent rulings.”

The court found for Lindemann, awarding her costs.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Judicial Panel Denies Nationwide Consolidation of COVID-19 Business Interruption Cases

October 05, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied motions to centralize pretrial proceedings in pending COVID-19 business interruption claims. In re COVID-19 Business interruption Protection Insurance Litigation, 2020 U.S. District. LEXIS 144446 (Aug. 12, 2020). Plaintiff policy holders sought consolidation, contending their policies provided coverage for business interruption losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the related government orders suspending, or severely curtailing, operations of non-essential businesses. The Panel considered 15 actions on the pending motions, but had notice of 263 related actions. Some plaintiffs opposed centralization or sought to be excluded from any MDL. Some argued the Panel should centralize the coverage actions on a state-by-state, regional, or insurer-by-insurer basis. The Panel did not accept consolidation of all cases. There was little potential for common discovery across the litigation because there was no common defendant as the actions involved either a single insurer or insurer-group. The various cases involved different insurance policies with different coverages, conditions, exclusions, and policy language, purchased by different businesses in different industries located in different states. 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

AB 3018: Amendments to the Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements on California Public Projects

February 18, 2019 — Alex R. Bagdassarian & Nathan A. Cohen - Peckar & Abramson
What California Contractors Need To Know About AB 3018 California contractors used to face limited consequences for non-compliance with the state’s skilled and trained workforce requirements on public works projects. A sea-change to the statutory landscape went into effect on January 1, 2019 as a result of Assembly Bill No. 3018 (“AB 3018”).1 The Code re-defines what constitutes a skilled/trained workforce by eliminating existing exemptions, strengthens monthly reporting guidelines and agency oversight, and empowers the Labor Commissioner and public agencies with enforcement tools that include monetary penalties and debarment. Contractors who fail to institute a program to comply with AB 3018’s reporting requirements do so at their peril. What Does The 30% Requirement Mean? Previously, in order to comply with the skilled workforce requirements2, 30% of skilled journeypersons had to be graduates of an apprenticeship program, except for certain listed trades which were exempt from the apprenticeship percentage requirement3. AB 3018 eliminates this exception for the listed occupations and requires 30% of all trades to be comprised of apprenticeship program graduates. Reprinted courtesy of Alex R. Baghdassarian, Peckar & Abramson and Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Baghdassarian may be contacted at Abaghdassarian@pecklaw.com Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES