Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

A Trio of Environmental Decisions from the Fourth Circuit

August 28, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Within the past few weeks, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has issued some very significant rulings regarding the construction of new natural gas pipelines. These cases are Berkley, et al. v. Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, decided July 25; Sierra Club, Inc., et al., v. U.S. Forest Service, The Wilderness Society, et al., v. U.S. Forest Service, and Sierra Club, Inc. et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, decided July 27, 2018; and Sierra Club v. U.S. Department of the Interior and Defenders of Wildlife, et al., v. U.S. Department of the Interior, decided August 6, 2018. The first two cases involve the Mountain Valley Pipeline, and the last case involves the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. 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

Foreman in Fatal NYC Trench Collapse Gets Jail Sentence

December 21, 2016 — Mary B. Powers – Engineering News-Record
Wilmer Cueva, a construction foreman for Queens, N.Y.-based excavation subcontractor Sky Materials, was sentenced on Dec. 15 to up to three years in prison for causing the death of 22-year-old worker Carlos Moncayo, and endangering other workers at a lower Manhattan retail project site. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said the workers were in an unprotected 13-ft trench that collapsed in 2015. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Yet ANOTHER Reminder to Always Respond

July 11, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
You would think I wouldn’t have to discuss the absolute need to respond to any served pleadings, particularly after some of the prior examples of what can happen if you fail to respond. Of course, I wouldn’t be starting a post like this if those that were sued contacted an experienced attorney in a timely fashion and followed this advice. Yet another example of the disastrous results that can occur simply from failing to file responsive pleadings occurred last year in the Eastern District of Virginia federal court in Alexandria, VA. In Pro-Telligent, LLC v. Amex Int’l, Inc. the Court considered a claim for breach of contract (among other causes of action) by Pro-Telligent against Amex. The operative facts are that Pro-Telligent was a subcontractor to Amex that claimed it was unpaid in the amount of $279,660.27, its Complaint was served on January 7, 2021, and Amex did not respond within the required 21-day window. The Court then held a hearing on February 28, 2020, regarding the validity of the Clerk of Court’s entry of default per the rules of court. 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

Brief Overview of Rights of Unlicensed Contractors in California

September 10, 2014 — William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers Blog
Under California Contractor’s State License Law enumerated in Business and Professions Code Sections 7000 to 7191, a contractor may not “bring or maintain” any action for compensation for performing any act or contract for which a license is required unless the contractor was duly licensed “at all times” during performance. Bus & Prof Code Section 7031(a). What does this mean and who does it include? This is a question that often has to be answered on a case by case basis. Basically, California does not want unlicensed contractors to be able to get paid for work that should be performed by a licensed contractor. The law has set forth some general parameters. General contractors, subcontractors, and master developers must be licensed. However, suppliers, manufacturers, laborers and equipment lessors are exempt and do not need a contractor’s license. Essentially, those parties that merely furnish material or supplies without fabricating them into, or consuming them in the performance of work, do not need to be licensed. Bus & Prof Code Section 7052. There are sever fines and penalties for those who improperly perform construction work without a license. A contract between any contractor and an unlicensed subcontractor is a misdemeanor. Lack of a license bars all actions in law or in equity for collection of compensation for the performance of work requiring a license. There are very few exceptions to this rule. A “savvy” unlicensed contractor cannot simply avoid these requirements by “subbing” out all the work to licensed contractors. Any person who uses the services of an unlicensed contractor may file a court action or cross-complaint to recover all payments made to the unlicensed contractor. In addition, a person who uses the services of an unlicensed contractor is a victim of a crime and eligible for restitution of economic losses regardless of whether that person had knowledge that the contractor was unlicensed. Bus. & Prof Code Sections 7028, 7028.16. It goes without saying that performing work without a license on projects is a bad idea. Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Colorado Legislature Considering Making it Easier to Prevail on CCPA Claims

April 03, 2023 — Rachael Bandeira - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
House Bill 23-1192 (“HB 23-1192”) is one of the proposed bills making its way through the Colorado legislative session this year. It purports to create additional protections in the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”), but instead threatens to put construction professionals at an increased risk during litigation. Under the scope of the proposed bill, many construction contracts, as drafted, could automatically add up to $250,000 to any claim by lowering the standard for what constitutes an “unfair or deceptive trade practice.” Further, it would remove elements of a CCPA claim currently required by law to prove that an unfair or deceptive trade practice “constitutes a significant impact to the public.” This bill still has a way to go before becoming law, but given its progress thus far, we believe it is highly probable that it will be enacted unless there is substantial pushback. For the reasons discussed below, we urge all construction professionals to take necessary action to obstruct this bill, and particularly Section 1 of the bill, from becoming enacted. The most concerning proposed amendments to the CCPA, through Section 1 of the bill, do the following:

Remove the knowingly or recklessly mental state from the general unfair or deceptive trade practice provision concerning an unfair, unconscionable, deceptive, knowingly false, or fraudulent act or practice;

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rachael Bandeira, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Bandeira may be contacted at bandeira@hhmrlaw.com

Improperly Installed Flanges Are Impaired Property

February 16, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Answering certified questions from the Fifth Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court found there was no coverage for flanges that leaked after installation. U. S. Metals, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., 2015 Texas LEXIS 1081 (Dec. 4, 2015). U. S. Metals sold Exxon 350 custom-made, stainless steel, weld-neck flanges for use in refineries. Testing after installation showed the flanges leaked and did not meet industry standards. Exxon decided to replace the flanges to avoid risk of fire and explosion. For each flange, this involved stripping the temperature coating and insulation, cutting the flange out of the pipe, removing the gaskets, grinding the pipe surfaces smooth for re-welding, replacing the flange and gaskets, welding the new flange to the pipes, and replacing the temperature coating and insulation. The replacement process delayed operation of the diesel units for several weeks. Exxon sued U.S. Metal for over $6 million as the cost of replacing the flanges and $16 million as damages for lost use of the diesel units during the process. U.S. Metals settled with Exxon for $2.2 million and then sought indemnification from its liability insurer, Liberty Mutual. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

The Colorado Construction Defect Reform Act Explained

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Colorado passed its Construction Action Defect Reform Act twelve years ago, but as Anne K. McMichael of Zupkus & Angell, PC, points out, “while portions of this act are reasonably straightforward, several of the sections are subject to ongoing debate as to how these concepts should be applied to achieve fair and unbiased results.” The process for a construction defect claim under the CDARA starts with filing a notice of defects, after which the construction professional is permitted to inspect the alleged defect. The construction professional can then offer to repair or settle. The law offers protections for construction professionals who follow through with the process. But, as Ms. McMichael notes, these are denied to construction professionals who do not make offers, fail to meet settlement agreements, or offers a settlement that is insufficient for repairs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer’s Consent Not Needed for Settlement

October 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Texas Supreme Court has concluded in Lennar Corp. v. Markel Am. Ins. Co. that “the costs incurred by a builder to locate and repair damage caused by the builder’s defective product are covered under its general liability insurance policy.” Hunton & Williams have issued a Client Alert discussing the case. For the background of the case, Lennar built about 800 homes using EIFS. The EIFS trapped water and the homes suffered from rot, structural damage, mold, mildew, and termites. Lennar fixed all the homes so built, avoiding litigation. Lennar “notifed its insurers of the defects and invited its insurers to participate in the proactive remediation program.” A lower court had agreed with Markel, one of Lennar’s insurers, that the losses were not “caused by property damage,” and that Lennar should not have made “voluntary payments without Markel’s consent.” The Texas Supreme Court granted review, rejecting Markel’s argument and affirming the jury’s finding. According to Hunton & Williams, the implications of the Texas Lennar decision is that it “confirms that all insurers with policy in effect at the time of property damage are responsible for all sums for which the policyholder is liable.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES