Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

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

Construction Defect or Just Punch List?

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A couple in Dickinson, North Dakota have put big, green “buyer beware” signs on their home. They’re not planning on selling, but just trying to warn prospective neighbors of the problems they’ve had since moving into their new home. Andrea Thermes said her problems included leaking windows and uneven floors. “I absolutely love my house,” she said. “If we didn’t have the issues, I would be the happiest girl in the world.” One problem was a leaking picture window in her living room. The builder replaced it, but the first window that arrived was the wrong size. The new home is still under a warranty and the builder has been fixing issues as they arise. “They are upset with some of the problems they have had,” said William Henry, president of B-Dev, the builder of the home. Since Ms. Thermes’s window wasn’t repaired in time for Thanksgiving, Mr. Henry sent wine and beer to her home. “Not that that makes up for not having their window, but we’re trying to make this work and trying to appease them,” he said. But Mr. Henry said that some of the problems “are not really material defects,” characterizing them as “punch-list and warranty items.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Unpaid Subcontractor Walks Off the Job and Wins

September 01, 2016 — John P. Ahlers – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Make the following inquiry of your constructional lawyer, watch him/her sit up in his/her chair and give your question immediate attention: “I haven’t been paid, can I walk off the job?” The answer to this question is a strong “maybe, but it’s risky.” Walking off the project has a significant downside. The risk is that the judge who reviews your decision, sometimes years after the event, may not agree that the non-payment was a material breach and, thus, suspension of performance (walking off) is not justified. A breach of contract occurs where, without legal justification, a party fails to perform any promise that forms a whole or part of the contract. Not all breaches are equal. Some failures to perform a promise are “nominal,” “trifling” or “technical.” These breaches do not excuse performance under the contract by the non-breaching party. If the breach is “material,” that is, goes to the essential purpose of the agreement, is a question that only a judge decides, and only after the decision was made as to whether to walk off the job or not. Therefore, before deciding whether to walk off the job, you have to second guess what a judge may decide under the circumstances. Since not all judges see things the same way, the decision is fraught with uncertainty and risk. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .

February 18, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Recently, I was talking with my friend Matt Hundley about a recent case he had in the Charlottesville, VA Circuit Court. It was a relatively straightforward (or so he and I would have thought) breach of contract matter involving a fixed price contract between his (and an associate of his Laura Hooe) client James River Stucco and the Montecello Overlook Owners’ Association. I believe that you will see the reason for the title of the post once you hear the facts and read the opinion. In James River Stucco, Inc. v. Monticello Overlook Owners’ Ass’n, the Court considered Janes River Stucco’s Motion for Summary Judgment countering two arguments made by the Association. The first Association argument was that the word “employ” in the contract meant that James River Stucco was required to use its own forces (as opposed to subcontractors) to perform the work. The second argument was that James River overcharged for the work. This second argument was made without any allegation of fraud or that the work was not 100% performed. Needless to say, the Court rejected both arguments. The Court rejected the first argument stating:

In its plain meaning, “employ” means to hire, use, utilize, or make arrangements for. A plain reading of the contractual provisions cited–“shall employ” and references to “employees”–and relied on by Defendant does not require that the persons performing the labor, arranged by Plaintiff, be actual employees of the company or on the company’s payroll. It did not matter how the plaintiff accomplished the work so long as it was done correctly. The purpose of those provisions was to allocate to Plaintiff responsibility for supplying a sufficient workforce to get the work done, not to impose HR duties or require the company to use only “in house” workers. So I find that use of contracted work does not constitute a breach of the contract or these contractual provisions.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Confidence Among U.S. Homebuilders Little Changed in January

January 28, 2015 — Bloomberg News
(Bloomberg) -- Confidence among U.S. homebuilders hovered in January close to a nine-year high, indicating the residential real estate market is poised to expand this year. While the National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo builder sentiment gauge fell to 57 this month from 58 in December, readings greater than 50 mean more respondents report good market conditions, according to figures issued from the Washington-based group Tuesday. The median forecast in a Bloomberg survey called for 58. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News

Consequential Damage Claims for Insurer's Bad Faith Dismissed

April 22, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Partial dismissal of the insured's complaint seeking consequential damages for the insurer's bad faith was granted by the court. Bryant v. General Cas. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15369 (N.D. N.Y. Jan. 30, 2019). Bryant purchased from General Casualty Company of Wisconsin (GCCW) a commercial property and casualty policy to cover the insured premises. While the building was rented to a tenant who operated a restaurant, it sustained a collapse. GCCW refused to cover the loss. Bryant sued. In addition to the cost of repairing and replacing the damage to the property, Bryant alleged he was out the value of rental revenue from his tenant, which was forced to close the restaurant and relocated as a result of the unrepaired damage. 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

Steven Cvitanovic Recognized in JD Supra's 2017 Readers' Choice Awards

April 05, 2017 — Steven M. Cvitanovic - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
JD Supra named Partner Steven Cvitanovic among the Top 10 Authors in the construction industry in its 2017 Readers’ Choice Awards, which recognizes the excellence and achievement of firms and authors who published their substantive work on JD Supra in 2016. JD Supra editors chose the 25 industries and topics covered in these awards for their timeliness as well as their proven, ongoing importance. In each category, one firm and ten authors were recognized for consistently achieving the highest readership and engagement for all of 2016. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com

Colorado Court of Appeals Confirms Senior Living Communities as “Residential Properties” for Purposes of the Homeowner Protection Act

November 06, 2023 — Hal Baker - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
The Third Division of the Colorado Court of Appeals recently interpreted the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 (the “HPA”) in Heights Healthcare v. BCER, 2023 COA 44, decided on May 25, 2023. The Court held that a senior living community that is located on a parcel zoned “commercial” or “mixed use” constitutes “residential property” that is protected by the HPA, regardless of the zoning designation. The claims in Heights Healthcare arose from a contract between BCER and Heights Healthcare for BCER to provide mechanical and electrical services relating to the installation of Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner units at the senior living community. The contract between the parties included a limitation of liability clause, limiting BCER’s liability to a total of $22,500 for the total cost of services rendered. After the installation, Heights Healthcare discovered that the air conditioner units were malfunctioning, causing too few of the eighty-four units to run and tripping the breaker—shutting down the entire system—when the outdoor temperature dropped too low. Following the discovery of the malfunction, Heights Healthcare filed suit against BCER for breach of contract under the Construction Defect Action Reform Act (“CDARA”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hal Baker, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Baker may be contacted at baker@hhmrlaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES