Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Construction Litigation Roundup: “I Never Had a Chance”

May 29, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
“I never had a chance.” Such was the plea of a general contractor to a Maryland federal court after having been terminated for failure to perform. “The Agreement provides no express right to cure,” found the court, weighing in on the contractor’s wrongful termination claim. Indeed, the contract was also very clear on termination, allowing for termination for cause on numerous bases, including a common catchall: if the contractor “persistently fails to perform the provisions of this Agreement.” In advance of the actual date of termination, the owner wrote to the contractor, in accordance with the contract: “Notice is also given that seven days from the date of this correspondence, [owner] will exercise its [termination] rights under Section 13.2.2.2 of the Contract." The communication from the owner contained no discussion of allowing the contractor an opportunity to cure its alleged default. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

New York Labor Laws and Action Over Exclusions

February 01, 2021 — Theresa A. Guertin & Ashley McWilliams - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
One of the most important methods for shifting risk in the construction context is insurance coverage. Upstream parties such as owner/developers and general contractors typically require that their downstream subcontractors who perform work on their properties or projects bring specific insurance to the table. These insurance requirements have a twofold purpose: protect the upstream parties, through additional insured coverage, from liabilities caused by the subcontractor; and protect the downstream parties by ensuring that they have adequate insurance for their own potential liabilities. In New York, subcontractor insurance coverage can have some surprising terms which frustrate risk transfer. Numerous policies contain “Action Over” exclusions, which bar coverage for one of the most significant exposures faced by owner-developers and general contractors: bodily injury lawsuits brought by subcontractor employees. It is critical that upstream parties understand the unique impact of New York’s labor laws on the insurance market and be prepared to identify and request removal of Action Over exclusions on subcontractor insurance policies. Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Ashley McWilliams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Guertin may be contacted at TGuertin@sdvlaw.com Ms. McWilliams may be contacted at AMcWilliams@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Defect Reform Dies in Nevada Senate

May 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Nevada’s SB161 has failed to move out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill would have reduced the time in which homeowners could file suits and also would have forbidden the inclusion of attorney’s fees as damages. A similar bill remains active in the Nevada House. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Neighbor Allowed to Remove Tree Roots on Her Property That Supported Adjoining Landowners’ Two Large Trees With Legal Immunity

July 14, 2016 — Paul R. Cressman, Jr. – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC Blog
A recent Washington Court of Appeals opinion addressed the rights of a neighbor to destroy roots and branches on her property that belonged to trees located on an adjoining landowner’s property.[1] Mustoe had two large Douglas-fir trees located entirely on her property, about two and one-half feet from the property line with her neighbor Ma. Ma caused a ditch to be dug on her property along the border with Mustoe’s lot. The ditch was 18-20 inches deep. In the process, Ma exposed and removed the trees’ roots, leaving them to extend only three-four feet from the trunks of the trees. This resulted in a loss of nearly half of the trees’ roots, all from the south side, exposing them to southerly winds with no support. The damaged trees posed a high risk of falling on Mustoe’s home. The landscape value of the trees was estimated to be $16,418. The cost of their removal was estimated to be $3,913. Mustoe filed suit against Ma asserting that Ma had negligently, recklessly, and intentionally excavated and damaged her trees, along with other property, and also sought emotional distress damages. The trial court dismissed Mustoe’s suit. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul R. Cressman, Jr., Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Cressman may be contacted at pcressman@ac-lawyers.com

New York’s Second Department Holds That Carrier Must Pay Judgment Obtained by Plaintiff as Carrier Did Not Meet Burden to Prove Willful Non-Cooperation

November 23, 2020 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
In the recent case of DeLuca v. RLI Insurance Company, 2020 WL 5931054 (October 7, 2020), the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department held that RLI had a duty to pay a judgment obtained by an underlying plaintiff against RLI’s insured, MLSC. The underlying plaintiff brought the action directly against the carrier after obtaining a judgment against MLSC, and when the judgment remained unsatisfied, serving RLI with the judgment. As an initial matter, the court found that the direct action by the plaintiff was proper under New York Insurance Law 3420(a), which allows for an injured plaintiff to maintain a direct action against a carrier if a judgment against that carrier’s insured remains unsatisfied for a period of 30 days and the carrier is served with that judgment. In that event, the plaintiff steps into the shoes of the insured and is entitled to the rights of the insured (and is also subject to the carrier’s coverage defenses). Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Second Circuit Denies Petitions for Review of EPA’s Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures

August 20, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On July 23, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided the case of Cooling Water Intake Structure Coalition v. EPA. Environmental conservation groups and industry associations petitioned for review of a final rule promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), establishing requirements for cooling water intake structures at existing facilities. Denying the petitions for review, the Court of Appeals summarized:

“Because we conclude, among other things, that both the Rule and the biological opinion are based on reasonable interpretations of the applicable statutes and sufficiently supported by the factual record, and because the EPA 3 gave adequate notice of its rulemaking, we DENY the petitions for review.”

This is a significant CWA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) decision involving the operation of major industrial facilities requiring the daily use of large amounts of water taken from adjacent bodies of water. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Subcontractor’s Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

September 07, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Since I wrote my ebook on the application of federal Miller Act payment bonds, I have not discussed a case applying the Miller Act. Until now! Below is a case that reinforces two important points applicable to Miller Act payment bond claims. First, the case reinforces what a claimant needs to prove to establish a Miller Act payment bond claim. Very important. Second, the case reinforces that a subcontractor is going to be governed by its subcontract. This means that those provisions regarding payment and scope of work are very important. Not that you did not already know this, but ignoring contractual requirements will not fly. In U.S.A. f/u/b/o Netplanner Systems, Inc. v. GSC Construction, Inc., 2017 WL 3594261 (E.D.N.C. 2017), a prime contractor hired a subcontractor to run cabling and wiring at Fort Bragg. The subcontractor claimed it was owed a balance and filed a lawsuit against the general contractor the Miller Act payment bond. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

Counsel Investigating Coverage Can be Sued for Invasion of Privacy

January 28, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Strawn v. Morris, Polich & Purdy (No. A150562, filed 1/4/19), a California appeals court held that policyholders could state a claim for invasion of privacy against an insurer’s coverage counsel and law firm, where the counsel had disseminated inadvertently produced tax returns to forensic accountants while evaluating coverage. In Strawn, a couple’s home was destroyed by fire and the husband was prosecuted for arson, but the criminal case was dropped. Notwithstanding, their insurance claim was denied on the ground that the husband intentionally set the fire and fraudulently concealed his actions. In addition to the insurance company, the insureds also named the carrier’s coverage counsel and his firm in the ensuing bad faith lawsuit, alleging causes of action for elder financial abuse and invasion of privacy. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES