FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Preclude Coverage

November 13, 2013 — Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law Hawaii
The court rejected the insurer's arguments that the business risk exclusions barred coverage for a contractor. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wisconsin v. Five Star Bldg. Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134122 (D. Mass. Sept. 19, 2013). Five Star was hired by the University of Massachusetts to upgrade the ventilation (HVAC) system on a portion of a building. The large majority of the work involved work in the interior of the building, but a small portion required installation of duct work and supports on top of the roof of the complex. Five Star also penetrated the roof at numerous locations to install supports for duct work and other rooftop structures for the ventilation system. Other subcontractors then secured supports to the concrete roof deck and installed permanent patches where Five Star had penetrated the roofing system. On same days, Five Star could not accomplish the process in a single day after penetrating the roof. It would install temporary patches until the next day. This was the only work on the roof performed by Five Star. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Corps Proposes $4.6B Plan to Steel Miami for Storm Surge

June 22, 2020 — Pam Radtke Russell - Engineering News-Record
A $4.6-billion U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposal to protect Miami from future storm surge, largely by building massive sea walls and elevating infrastructure systems, is the latest of such plans the agency has developed for East Coast communities. Pam Radtke Russell, Engineering News-Record Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Settlement between IOSHA and Mid-America Reached after Stage Collapse Fatalities

April 02, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
On August 13, 2011, “[s]even people were killed and dozens were injured when the stage collapsed during a Sugarland concert” at the Indiana State Fair, according to the JC Online. Recently, Mid-America Sound Corp., the company that provided the stage equipment, has settled with the Indiana Occupational Safety and Health Administration (IOSHA), agreeing “to pay a $50,000 fine and increase employee safety training.” "This agreement is a resolution requiring both extensive safety improvements for the construction or erection of temporary roof structures and specifically related employee safety training that will create a safer workplace for Indiana event production workers," Labor Commissioner Rick Ruble said in a statement, as quoted by JC Online. "The agreement produces a positive outcome for everyone involved." The stage equipment company “made no admission of any wrongdoing by entering into the settlement,” according to Michael Moon, attorney for Mid-America Sound Corp., as quoted by JC Online. “Mid-America believed that it was important to move forward in a cooperative effort with IOSHA and to avoid the costs and expenses of further litigation." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Bribe Charges Take Toll on NY Contractor

February 22, 2018 — Mary B. Powers - ENR
The federal bid-rigging trial of former executives of one-time Buffalo, N.Y., regional contracting giant LPCiminelli won’t start until late spring, more than 18 months after they were indicted, along with others, on bribery, corruption and fraud charges in a New York state contract “pay for play.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record

---

Colorado Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Statute of Limitations for Statutory Bad Faith Claims and the Implied Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege

July 11, 2018 — Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law Blog
The Colorado Supreme Court has been busy the past two weeks, issuing a couple rulings that should be of interest to the insurance industry:

Statute of Limitations for Bad Faith Statute: In Rooftop Restoration, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2018 CO 44 (May 29, 2018), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the one-year statute of limitations that applies to penalties, does not apply to claims brought under C.R.S. 10-3-1116, Colorado’s statutory cause of action for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits. Section 10-3-1116 provides that a first-party claimant whose claim for payment of benefits has been unreasonably delayed or denied may seek to recover attorney fees, costs, and two times the covered benefit, in addition to the covered benefit. A separate Colorado statute, CRS 13-80-103(1)(d) provides a one-year statute of limitations for “any penalty or forfeiture of any penal statutes.” To arrive at the conclusion that the double damages available under section 10-3-1116 is not a penalty, the Court looked at yet another statutory provision, governing accrual of causes of action for penalties, which provides that a penalty cause of action accrues when “the determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . is no longer subject to appeal.” The Court stated that because a cause of action under 10-3-1116 “never leads to a determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . the claim would never accrue, and the statute of limitations would be rendered meaningless.” Para. 15. Presumably, the default two-year statute of limitations, provided by CRS 13-80-102(1)(i), will now be found to apply to causes of action seeking damages for undue delay or denial of insurance benefits.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Ms. Arnett-Roehrich may be contacted at jarnett-roehrich@grsm.com

---

Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)

February 23, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday at Construction Law Musings I welcome Matthew Evans. Matt is the owner of Law Offices of Matthew S. Evans, III, LLC located in Annapolis, Maryland. He has practiced construction, real estate and land use law in Maryland and D.C. for thirteen years. Prior to opening his own firm in May 2011, Mr. Evans was a partner at a mid-sized firm in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Mr. Evans lives in Historic Annapolis (only three short blocks from his office) with his wife Margaret, and three children, Matthew (5), Bo (4) and Peyton (2). Some of the most common calls I get are from irate contractor or subcontractor clients who have not been paid demanding that I “lien the property”. Many times after calming the client down, I determine, to their dismay, that they are not entitled to a mechanic’s lien. In Maryland, the mechanic’s lien law is driven by statute, which contains specific requirements which must be met before the client is entitled to a lien. The first question is whether the contractor or subcontractor is entitled to a lien for the work performed. Under Maryland law, “every building erected and every building repaired, rebuilt, or improved to the extent of 15 percent of its value is subject to establishment of a lien…for the payment of all debts.” It’s easy when dealing with new construction. No matter how small your portion of the work, the property is subject to the establishment of a lien. It is more difficult to determine entitlement when there is either a total or partial renovation or other work. The question becomes how do you determine the value of the building, and whether it has been improved “to the extent of 15 percent of its value.” Believe me, I have seen creative and some not so creative methods of calculation used by counsel to prove that certain work does or does not meet the requirement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Amid the Chaos, Trump Signs Executive Order Streamlining Environmental Permitting and Disbands Infrastructure Council

August 24, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
We’ve been trying to stay focused here at the California Construction Law Blog. But it’s been hard. This past week, a couple of new developments took place at the federal level on infrastructure, although if you blinked, you may have missed it. Executive Order on Environmental Permitting This past Tuesday, at a press conference quickly overshadowed by the President’s comments about the tragic events that took place in Charlottesville, President Trump announced that he had signed a new executive order aimed at streamlining the environmental permitting process for federally-funded projects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Can an Owner Preemptively Avoid a Mechanics Lien?

May 25, 2020 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
Various sections of the California Civil Code, beginning with section 8000, protect the right of contractors, subcontractors and suppliers in the construction industry to obtain payment for work performed and materials supplied to construction projects. Under these statutes, unpaid claimants are entitled to use mechanics liens, stop payment notices and other methods to protect their right to payment. Mechanics liens allow unpaid claimants to sell the property where the work was performed in order to obtain payment. Stop payment notices force the owner or the bank to set money aside to pay unpaid claimants. Article XIV of our California Constitution even elevates the mechanics lien remedy to a “constitutional right”. The system generally works well, and claimants are paid. As someone who practices and teaches construction law, I have noticed a seldom used statutory tool that seems to provide a mechanism for property owners under certain circumstances to prevent subcontractors and suppliers from imposing enforceable mechanics lien on property where work was performed. Under California Civil Code section 8520, it appears that all that an owner of property need do to avoid a mechanics lien on its property is to give a proper notice (per Civil Code section 8100 et seq.) to a person who has a mechanics lien right (a subcontractor or supplier) that the owner is invoking Civil Code section 8520 and that if the claimant is unpaid for work performed or materials supplied to the owner’s property that the claimant must either provide the owner with a stop payment notice or forfeit the right to a mechanics lien on the owner’s property. This would allow an owner to avoid a mechanics lien on its property if the claimant failed to send a stop payment notice to the owner. Providing the “notice” under Civil Code section 8100 appears to be easy. It can be sent by “registered or certified mail or by express mail or by overnight delivery by an express service carrier”. It can even be by “hand delivery”. As far as the notice itself, it would seem that it can be very simple and easily performed under the process described below, which can be implemented within the office of any owner or developer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---