Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

New Jersey Construction Company Owner and Employees Arrested for Fraud

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Frank Chimento, Jr., the owner of Chimento Construction of Parsippany, New Jersey, and three of his employees, Joseph Carsillo, Frank Chimento III, and Carl J. Corso, were arrested by federal agents. The elder Chimento is accused of falsifying his own income taxes, as well as failing to collect and turn over federal and state payroll taxes. He is additionally charged with falsifying union benefit fund contributions. The three employees are also accused of filing false income tax statements and also of attempting to defraud the state of New Jersey of unemployment compensation benefits. An additional unnamed conspirator made transactions at multiple financial institutions in order to pay employees directly in cash. One of the three employees, Mr. Carsillo, worked for the company and received cash payments while maintaining to the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development that he was unemployed. Mr. Carsillo was receiving $526 per week from the NJDOL-WD in unemployment benefits, starting in 2009. From 2009 through 2011, Mr. Carsillo received $19,988 in unemployment benefits and an additional $351,788 in wages from Chimento. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Does the Miller Act Trump Subcontract Dispute Provisions?

May 16, 2018 — Christopher M. Horton - Smith Currie
All general contractors performing public building or public works contracts with the federal government must be familiar with the Miller Act. It is a requirement for doing business with the federal government. Pursuant to the Miller Act, a general contractor entering into a public building or public works contract with the federal government must furnish a payment bond in an amount equal to the contract price, unless the contracting officer determines that it is impractical to obtain a bond in that amount and specifies an alternative bond amount. Miller Act payment bonds guarantee payment to certain subcontractors and suppliers supplying labor and materials to contractors or subcontractors engaged in the construction. As a result, subcontractors have an avenue of relief should they not get paid for work done on the project. Specifically, subcontractors have a right to bring an action against the surety within 90-days after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material for which the claim is made. Any such action must be brought no later than one year after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material. 40 United States Code § 3133. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher M. Horton, Smith Currie
Mr. Horton may be contacted at cmhorton@smithcurrie.com

Florida Law: Interplay of SIR and the Made-Whole Doctrine

March 12, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Amanda Baggett of Roger Towers explained the nuances of self-insured retention or “SIR,” which “typically refers to a dollar amount stated in a liability policy that the insured must satisfy before the insurer is required to defend or indemnify a claim.” Baggett stated that most of the time, the SIR is satisfied by the insurer paying the initial defense costs up to the SIR. However, “the Florida Supreme Court has held that an insured may satisfy the SIR using funds received from a third party. Intervest Construction of Jax, Inc. v. General Fidelity Ins. Co., 133 So. 3d 494 (Fla. 2014).” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Did You Get a Notice of Mechanic’s Lien after Project Completion? Don’t Panic!

October 20, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
So, you own a piece of property. You decided to have some work done and after what you thought was proper due diligence, you hire a general contractor to build a great office building on the property. Your architect designs the space, you sign the construction contract for a price you find fair and that the bank approves. Construction starts and with a few minor hiccups, a couple of written changes and one minor but slightly annoying change required by the local building inspector, completes relatively on schedule. You write the final check to the general contractor for its final draw and start the process of leasing the space out. All is right with the world as best you can tell. A month later, you walk to your mailbox and lo and behold, you have a certified mailing containing a notice that the plumbing subcontractor has recorded a mechanic’s lien on your property. After counting to 10 to let the various emotions pass, you call the general contractor to see what is going on. You’re told that there is a dispute regarding a change order about which you knew nothing and that the general contractor feels it is in the right and should not have to pay the money represented in the memorandum of lien so it won’t be paying the subcontractor unless and until it is told to do so by a court or an arbitrator. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Pollution Exclusion Does Not Apply To Concrete Settling Dust

November 28, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Applying Virginia law, the federal district court determined that the pollution exclusion did not bar coverage. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Zenith Aviation, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14727 (E.D. Va. Aug. 29, 2018). Zenith Aviation, Inc. hired Abby Construction Company to install an elevator at its warehouse. A wet saw was used to cut away concrete, but Abby did not use any water with the wet saw. This created a significant amount of concrete dust to leave the warehouse. Surrounding businesses contacted the fire department because they thought the dust was smoke from a fire. The concrete dust settled inside Zenith's building, damaging airplane parts stored in the warehouse. 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

North Carolina Appeals Court Threatens Long-Term Express Warranties

April 09, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Jonathan Massell of the firm Nexsen Pruet explained how a “recent holding by the North Carolina Court of Appeals is threatening to render many long-term express warranties ineffective,” in the online publication Lexology. In Christie v. Hartley Construction, Inc., “the court held that the six-year North Carolina statute of repose for improvements to real property trumps the bargained-for duration terms of an express warranty.” In the Christie case, this meant that even though the homeowners had a twenty year warranty, because of the statute of repose, the warranty effectively expired after six years. Massell stated to “be mindful of jurisdiction.” If the express warranty is in a state other than North Carolina, it’s possible that the claim could be filed in that state instead of North Carolina. For instance, according to Massell, South Carolina’s “statue of repose does not expire until eight years after the date of substantial completion for an improvement to real property.” Furthermore, “long-term warranties are not trumped by the South Carolina statute of repose.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Eight Things You Need to Know About the AAA’s New Construction Arbitration Rules

August 19, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
I just finished a construction arbitration this past week, which also explains my sporadic posts as of late, sorry. Coincidentally, on July 1, 2015, the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) implemented their newly revised Construction Industry Arbitration and Mediation Procedures. For those of you who follow our blog, you know I’m not a big fan of arbitration, which, from my experience, doesn’t deliver on its promise of better, faster, or cheaper, and ends up being pretty much the same thing as trial without the benefit of discovery, the rules of evidence, or appealability. The AAA is trying to change all of that though and in a news release announced that its new “Rules” “directly address preferences of users for a more streamlined, cost-effective, and tightly managed arbitration process that avoids the high costs of litigation.” Which makes you wonder whether they had to survey their “users” to come to this realization. But I digress. With the AAA’s new Rules come eight new changes, as follows: 1.Fast Track Procedures: Newly revised Rule F-1 now applies to two-party cases where no party’s claim or counterclaim exceeds $100,000. Under old Rule F-1 the monetary cap was $75,000. 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

Insurer Defends Denial in Property Coverage Dispute Involving Marijuana Growing Operations

March 14, 2018 — Michael Levine and Geoffrey Fehling - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Last month, we reported on the ongoing insurance coverage dispute between commercial landlord KVP Properties, Inc. and its property insurer, Westfield Insurance Company. The dispute arises from an October 2015 DEA raid on KVG-owned rental units in Novi, Michigan, which uncovered damage to the units related to the tenants’ marijuana growing operations. The arguments raised by KVG on appeal highlight a number of important marijuana-related coverage issues, which Westfield has now addressed in opposition. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Levine, Hunton & Williams LLP and Geoffrey Fehling, Hunton & Williams LLP Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@hunton.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@hunton.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES