Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

What You Need to Know About Home Improvement Contracts

July 30, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Given the variety of problems that can arise on a construction project, from defects to delays, it’s difficult to draft a construction contract that addresses every possible problem exactly right. However, so long as you adequately address the “big three” of scope, price and time, it’s also difficult to draft a construction contract wrong. That is, with one exception. And that one exception, in California, is home improvement contracts. In 2004, the California State Legislature enacted the state’s Home Improvement Business statute (Bus. & Prof. Code §§7150 et seq.). Section 7159 of the statute sets forth what must be included in home improvement contracts. It’s a section that could have been written by Felix Unger of the Odd Couple. In addition to setting forth required language that must be included in a home improvement contract, it directs where that language is to be set forth in a home improvement contract, and even how it is to be presented, down to type sizes. 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

Subsequent Purchaser Can Assert Claims for Construction Defects

October 17, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Can a subsequent purchaser pursue construction defect claims relating to the original construction of the property? This was the threshold issue on a motion for summary judgment by a drywall manufacturer against a subsequent purchaser of a home in Karpel v. Knauf Gips KG, 2022 WL 4366946 (S.D. Fla. 2022). This matter deals with the defective Chinese drywall that was installed in homes years ago. The plaintiffs, which were subsequent purchasers of a home, sued the manufacturer of the defective drywall for various theories including negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, breach of express and/or implied warranty, private nuisance, unjust enrichment, and Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The trial court noted, from the onset, that Florida does NOT have a subsequent purchaser rule that prohibits subsequent purchasers from asserting construction defect claims. With this consideration in mind, the trial court went through the claims the plaintiff, as a subsequent purchaser, asserted against the manufacturer to determine whether they were viable claims as a matter of law. Negligence Claim The trial court found that a subsequent purchaser could sue in negligence. “Florida courts have long allowed subsequent purchasers to sue for negligence including in construction defect litigation.” Karpel, supra, at *2. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Duke Energy Appeals N.C. Order to Excavate Nine Coal Ash Pits

April 17, 2019 — Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record
Duke Energy Progress said April 11 it will appeal the North Carolina Dept. of Environmental Quality’s order issued earlier this month to excavate nine remaining large coal ash pits at six power plants in the state and move ash to lined landfills; the firm claims the new mandate at sites previously deemed low-risk will cost up to $5 billion to implement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Navigating the Hurdles of Florida Construction Defect Lawsuits

April 03, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Florida law firm of Williams Law Association reminds readers that under the law, homeowners “cannot immediately file a lawsuit against their contractor if they subsequently discover construction defects.” The contractor must first have a chance to fix the defect. Further, there is a waiting period between informing the contractor and actually filing the lawsuit. For individual homeowners, that wait is 60 days, but for associations of more than 20 parcels, it’s 120 days. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Attorneys' Fee Clauses are Engraved Invitations to Sue

April 19, 2021 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
As we start another trip around the sun, hopefully you are in the process of updating your form contracts, including purchase and sale agreements and express written warranties. Because the law and litigation landscape continually changes, it is a good practice to periodically update the forms you use in order to give yourself a fighting chance if and when the plaintiffs' attorneys come knocking on your door. As you engage in this process, I hope that you will take a critical look at whether your contracts include a prevailing party attorneys' fees clause and, if so, whether you should leave it in there. In Colorado, parties are entitled to recover attorneys' fees only if provided for by statute or by contract. Historically, plaintiffs' attorneys relied on two statutes, the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and Colorado's Statutory Interest statute, to recover attorneys’ fees in construction defect cases. In 2003, the Colorado legislature capped treble damages and attorneys' fees under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act at $250,000, effectively restricting plaintiffs' attorneys from relying on the CCPA to recoup their attorneys' fees, especially in large cases. In 2008, the Colorado Supreme Court issued its decision in Goodyear v. Holmes, stating that plaintiffs can only claim prejudgment interest under Colorado's Statutory Interest statute, in cases where they have already spent money on repairs, not when they are suing for an estimate of what repairs will cost in the future. Without either the CCPA or the prejudgment interest statute to recover attorneys' fees, plaintiffs' attorneys most often now rely on the prevailing party attorney fee clause in contracts between the owner and builder, or in the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions in situations where a claim is prosecuted by an HOA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

OSHA’s Multi-Employer Citation Policy: What Employers on Construction Sites Need to Know

September 09, 2019 — Phillip C. Bauknight - Construction Executive
Multi-employer worksites are a frequent occurrence in the construction industry as employees from various companies often occupy the same site while a project is being completed. While the need for employees from different companies may be necessary to perform the various tasks required by a project, the presence of multiple employers, and their employees, on the same worksite can result in an increased risk of safety hazards. Companies performing construction work should be, and generally are, aware of OSHA’s ability to issue citations for workplace safety violations. What many companies may not know, however, is that OSHA’s ability to cite employers is not limited to workplace conditions that are unsafe only to that employer’s direct employees. Rather, OSHA also has the ability to cite an employer, and often does issue such citations, for conditions that could result in injury or death to another company’s employees. The policy which provides OSHA with this citation ability is CPL 02-00-124 and is called the Multi-Employer Citation Policy (the “Policy”). Under the language of the Policy, OSHA has the ability to cite multiple employers for violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act for the same hazardous workplace condition. Critically, responsibilities under the Policy do not depend on the employer’s job title but are determined by the employer’s role. Reprinted courtesy of Phillip C. Bauknight, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Bauknight may be contacted at pbauknight@fisherphillips.com

OSHA/VOSH Roundup

August 31, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In an unusual flurry of occupational safety related activity, the Virginia courts decided two cases in the last week relating to either the review of occupational safety regulations themselves or their enforcement. In Nat’l College of Business & Technology Inc. v. Davenport (.pdf), the Virginia Court of Appeals considered what constitutes a “serious” violation of the exposure to asbestos Virginia Occupational Safety & Health (VOSH) regulations. The facts found by the Salem, Virginia Circuit Court were that employees of the petitioner college were exposed to asbestos insulation when they were required to enter a boiler room to retrieve paper files. However, no evidence was presented regarding the length of time or level of exposure at the Circuit Court level. Despite the lack of evidence regarding the level or extent of exposure, the Circuit Court upheld the VOSH citation for exposure and the level of violation at a “serious” level with the attendant penalty. The Virginia Court of Appeals disagreed with the second finding. The appellate court determined that the lack of evidence regarding the level of exposure (whether length or extent) made the serious level violation an error. The Court stated that merely presenting evidence that asbestos is a carcinogen is not enough given the number of carcinogenic materials in existence and then remanded the case back to Circuit Court to reconsider the penalty level. 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

Your Work Exclusion Applies to Damage to Tradesman's Property, Not Damage to Other Property

March 30, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The New Mexico Court of Appeals presented a cogent analysis of claims for construction defects and the application of the "your work" exclusion under a CGL policy in Pulte Homes of New Mexico, Inc. v. Indiana Lumbermens Ins. Co., 2015 N.M. App. LEXIS 134 (N. M. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2015). Pulte built 107 homes. Pulte contracted with 'Western Building Supply (WBS) to provide windows and sliding glass doors for the homes. Pulte was named as an additional insured under WBS's policy with Lumbermens (ILM). In 2007, a large group of homeowners sued Pulte, alleging numerous construction defects in their homes. Among the defects were windows that leaked and sliding glass doors that stuck and did not close completely. Many of the homeowners arbitrated their claims against Pulte. In May 2009, Pulte tendered its first demand for a defense to ILM. The arbitration award against Pulte found that windows and doors did not operate properly and had been replaced by Pulte. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES