Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Lien Actions Versus Lien Foreclosure Actions

June 02, 2016 — David R. Cook Jr. – AHHC Construction Law Blog
The lawsuits required to perfect and foreclose upon a lien have confused lien claimants and their attorneys for years. This confusion was recently demonstrated in a recent case entitled Founders Kitchen and Bath, Inc. v. Alexander, No. A15A1262, 2015 WL 6875026 (Ga. App. 2015). In the case, the trial court granted an owner’s motion for summary judgment against a subcontractor that sought to foreclose on its materialman’s lien. In deciding to reverse the trial court’s decision, the Court held that issues of material fact still existed as to whether the owner and subcontractor were in privity of contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

AIA Releases State-Specific Waiver and Release Forms

September 05, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The American Institute of Architects (AIA) has released a new series of state-specific waiver and release forms including forms for California. The new California-specific forms are:

G901CA-2022 – California Conditional Waiver and Release on Progress Payment
G902CA-2022 – California Unconditional Waiver and Release on Progress Payment
G903CA-2022 – California Conditional Waiver and Release on Final Payment
G904CA-2022 – California Unconditional Waiver and Release on Final Payment

California is one of twelve states – including Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Texas, Utah and Wyoming – which regulate waiver and release forms on construction projects. California’s waiver and release statute, which is codified at Civil Code section 8120 et seq., sets forth specific language which should be used in waivers and releases. While the exact language set forth under California’s waiver and release statutes does not need to be used, the statute provides that the language must be “in substantially” the same form, and most people follow the statutory language exactly. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Nerves of Steel Needed as Firms Face Volatile Prices, Broken Contracts and Price-Gouging

December 06, 2021 — Richard Korman, Jonathan Barnes, & Greg Aragon - Engineering News-Record
When Elmhurst Group, a Pittsburgh-area developer, started collecting bids for a new mixed-use building last November, the price of the steel frame, roof and cladding panels for the $14-million project came in $382,000 higher than expected—a big enough disappointment to give Elmhurst pause. Overall material costs for the project were running more than $650,000 above what was originally calculated. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record, Jonathan Barnes, Engineering News-Record and Greg Aragon, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Sixth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Property Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship

October 21, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court's order granting summary judgment to the insurer who denied a defense for a construction defect claim. Steel Supply & Eng'g Co. v. Illinois Nat'. Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14363 (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2015). Steel Supply contracted with the Carmel Redevelopment Corporation to fabricate and erect steel for a construction project in Carmel, Indiana. After the steel was erected, an iron worker at the site discovered defects in the steel. Subsequent investigations revealed additional defects. Carmel filed suit against Steel Supply for breach of contract. The complaint alleged that a critical connection that Steel Supply designed was inadequate to handle the forces coming onto it. Carmel claimed that the immediate need to remediate the steel damaged Carmel directly, and that other contractors sought damages from Carmel for harm caused by the delays. 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

Property Damage Caused By Construction Next Door Covered as Ensuing Loss

July 16, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Damage to the insureds' property caused by construction undertaken on the adjacent lot was covered under the insureds' property policy. Chubb Indem. Ins Co. v. 21 E. Cedar, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79906 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2014). The insureds' home sustained damage contemporaneous with demolition, excavation, and construction taking place on a adjacent lot. Chubb paid benefits to the insureds for their loss, and then sought to recover as subrogee from the defendants who performed the construction. The defendants argued there was no coverage under Chubb's policy. Faulty planning, construction or maintenance were excluded. An exception to the exclusion stated, however, "we do insure ensuing covered loss unless another exclusion applies." Defendants argued characterizing the damages as ensuing losses was purely semantic and self-serving, designed to involve the ensuing loss provision in order to protect Chubb's coverage determination. Chubb contended the exclusion applied only to the specific property being insured and not to a neighbor's property where work is being performed. Therefore, the faulty construction exclusion did not apply and the ensuing loss provision was triggered. 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

Insurer's Attempt to Strike Experts in Collapse Case Fails

February 03, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's efforts to exclude two of the insured's experts in a collapse case were unsuccessful. Hudon Specialty Ins. Co. v. Talex Enterprises, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150148 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 4, 2019). The insureds' building collapsed. The remaining portions of the building required immediate stabilization. The insureds hired Mr. Laird, an engineer, to prevent further property destruction. The insured designated Mr. Laird as a non-retained expert for trial. Mr. Laird's report claimed that the collapse was caused because the building had been re-roofed many times without removal of the degraded underlying roofing materials, thereby adding additional weight to the roof structure. The insureds also designated Steve Cox as a non-retained expert. Mr. Cox was an architect who owned property neighboring the building that collapsed. He opined that the building collapsed because of the condition of very old mortar and not because of water standing on the building roof or because of roof repairs. Hudson sought to strike these two experts because their opinions were inconsistent with the admitted facts. A document produced by the insureds stated that a large amount of rainwater had collected on the roof and the weight of the rainfall was the proximate cause of the collapse. Hudson claimed that this statement qualified as a judicial admission, removing the question of causation from contention. The court disagreed that the statement was a judicial admission because it did not form any part of the pleadings. The statement may have been an evidentiary admission that could be controverted or explained by the parties. 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

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaffirms Validity of Statutory Employer Defense

March 31, 2014 — Michelle Coburn and Michael Jervis – White and Williams LLP
In Patton v. Worthington Associates, Inc., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reaffirmed the continuing validity of the longstanding statutory employer doctrine and related five-part test of McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co. In doing so, the court overruled the Superior Court and held that Worthington was immune from tort liability as the statutory employer of plaintiff Earl Patton. Worthington was the general contractor for a project to construct an addition to a church. Worthington subcontracted with Patton Construction, Inc. to perform carpentry work. Earl Patton was an employee and the sole owner of Patton Construction, Inc. He was injured in a scissor lift accident while performing work on the church. Patton sued Worthington alleging failure to maintain safe conditions at the worksite. After a trial, a jury awarded Patton and his wife a little more than $1.5 million in damages. Before trial, Worthington had moved for summary judgment arguing that it was Patton’s statutory employer and thus immune from tort liability under Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act. Under that law, general contractors are secondarily liable for payment of workers’ compensation benefits to employees of subcontractors. Like traditional employers, statutory employers are immune from tort liability for work-related injuries in situations where they are secondarily liable for workers’ compensation payments. Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Coburn, White and Williams LLP and Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP Ms. Coburn may be contacted at coburnm@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Attorney Fee Award Under the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act

February 16, 2016 — William J. Taylor – White and Williams LLP
In late December, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dismissed, as improvidently granted, the appeal in Waller Corporation v. Warren Plaza, Inc., No. 6 WAP 2015 (December 21, 2015). As a result, the Superior Court’s holding in that case that there is no good faith exception to the attorney fee provision of the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA), 73 P.S. §§ 501-516, remains intact. In its decision in Waller, 95 A.3d 313 (Pa. Super. 2014), the Superior Court considered if there was a “good faith” exception to the interest and penalties provision of CASPA, 73 P.S. § 512(a), and whether there was a similar good faith exception to the attorney fee provision of the statute, 73 P.S. § 512(b). The court held that while an award of interest and penalties under § 512(a) could be denied if a party had a good faith basis for withholding payments due under a construction contract, no such exception exists for an award of attorney fees under § 512(b). Rather, an award of attorney fees is appropriate for the “substantially prevailing party” under a CASPA claim, and a claimant can be the substantially prevailing party even if the other party withheld payments in good faith. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William J. Taylor, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES