FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Connecticut Crumbling Concrete Cases Not Covered Under "Collapse" Provision in Homeowner's Policy

July 01, 2019 — Kerianne E. Kane - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
What do you do when your house falls out from underneath you? Over the last few years, homeowners in northeastern Connecticut have been suing their insurers for denying coverage for claims based on deteriorating foundations in their homes. The lawsuits, which have come to be known as the “crumbling concrete cases,” stem from the use of faulty concrete to pour foundations of approximately 35,000 homes built during the 1980s and 1990s. In order to save their homes, thousands of homeowners have been left with no other choice but to lift their homes off the crumbling foundations, tear out the defective concrete and replace it. The process typically costs between $150,000 to $350,000 per home, and homeowner’s insurers are refusing to cover the costs. As a result, dozens of lawsuits have been filed by Connecticut homeowners in both state and federal court. Of those cases, three related lawsuits against Allstate Insurance Company were the first to make it to the federal appellate level.1 The Second Circuit Court of Appeals was tasked with deciding one common issue: whether the “collapse” provision in the Allstate homeowner’s policy affords coverage for gradually deteriorating basement walls that remain standing. The Allstate policies at issue were “all-risk” policies, meaning they covered “sudden and accidental direct physical losses” to residential properties. While “collapse” losses were generally excluded, the policies did provide coverage for a limited class of “sudden and accidental” collapses, including those caused by “hidden decay,” and/or “defective methods or materials used in construction, repair or renovations.” Covered collapses did not include instances of “settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Kane may be contacted at kek@sdvlaw.com

---

Equitable Lien Designed to Prevent Unjust Enrichment

November 09, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There are instances where a party does not have construction lien rights but, nevertheless, feels the need to pursue an equitable lien against the real property. No different than a construction lien, an action to enforce an equitable lien has a one-year limitations period if it arises from the “furnishing of labor, services, or material for the improvement of real property.” Fla. Stat. s. 95.11(5)(b). In other words, an equitable lien–not nearly as powerful as a construction lien because a construction lien is recorded in the official public records whereas an equitable lien is not–is tied to an analogous one-year limitations period for those liening for construction improvements. (Notably, if the equitable lien arises outside of the construction improvement context, the one-year statute of limitations would not apply. See Gabriji, LLC v. Hollywood East, LLC, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2251a (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (one-year statute of limitations period does not apply to all equitable liens such as those that do not arise from furnishing labor, services, or material for the improvement of real property)). 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

---

Jobsite Safety Should Be Every Contractors' Priority

December 09, 2019 — Ray Reese - Construction Executive
Any general contractor understands the range of factors that go into building and sustaining a successful jobsite: hiring the right team, maintaining cutting-edge equipment, ensuring constant communication with clients and effectively leveraging the newest building technologies, just to name a few. But any good general contractor understands that there is one factor that should always be considered as top priority: jobsite safety. The health and wellbeing of a project’s team is paramount for obvious reasons, and it isn’t a lighthearted matter. Injuries and fatalities have too often been a piece of our industry’s story. In 2017 alone, there were 971 reported deaths on construction sites, which accounted for 20% of total worker fatalities, according to a report from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Of these 971 fatalities, 582 were the result of construction’s “fatal four”—falls, workers being struck by objects, electrocutions and workers being caught between equipment. For members of the industry, these are difficult numbers to read and to process; yet, it is extremely important to consider the injuries and lives lost when we take into consideration the seriousness of jobsite safety. Often, general contractors’ and superintendents’ greatest challenge isn’t being convinced of the necessity of jobsite safety practices in protecting employees or the value of safety in creating a productive work environment. Instead, the focus should be providing industry leaders tips on exactly how to improve safety measures on their own jobsites. Understanding that safety is everyone’s responsibility is paramount. Reprinted courtesy of Ray Reese, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Reese may be contacted at rreese@rives.com

---

Construction Spending Highest Since April 2009

October 25, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Commerce Department has announced that construction spending has increased by 0.6 percent, but that modest gain puts it at the highest it has been in four and a half years. The last time construction spending was this high was April 2009. The rise in construction spending is due to increases in both public and private construction project. Public construction was up, despite a decrease in spending by the federal government. Private residential construction is at a five-year high. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Indemnity and Defense Construction Law Changes for 2013

April 03, 2013 — William L. Porter, Esq. - Porter Law Group

Death of “Type 1” Indemnity in California Construction

For many years the prevalence of the “Type 1” indemnity clause has been the subject of fierce debate within the construction industry.  Subcontractors have complained that they are saddled with indemnity obligations that require them to indemnify contractors from construction-related claims for which these subcontractors are truly not responsible.  In defense, contractors have argued that they must be entitled to the freedom to set contractual terms to best protect themselves and they point out that subcontractors are certainly free to negotiate better terms or turn down work.

After many years of debate and small legislative inroads in prohibiting Type 1 indemnity in residential projects and where it concerns the “sole negligence”, “willful misconduct” or the “design defects” of others, the California legislature has finally spoken broadly and definitively on the issue of Type 1 indemnity clauses in construction contracts.  Under new Civil Code section 2782, beginning with contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013, broad “Type 1” indemnity clauses shall be void and unenforceable in the context of both private and public construction projects in California.  Civil Code section 2782 now makes it clear that subcontractors can no longer be required to indemnify against another’s active negligence in connection with construction contracts, whether public or private.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Esq.
William L. Porter, Esq. can be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---

Defective Concrete Blocks Spell Problems for Donegal Homeowners

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A number of recently built homes in Donegal, Ireland are suffering from crumbing cement blocks used in the construction. This was previously seen in homes in the Leinster Region, and seems to be more widespread than previously thought. Damien McKay, an engineer who specializes in building litigation noted that the blocks started cracking about five years after the homes were constructed. In some cases, “the actual concrete blocks beneath the plaster can be easily broken and in some occasions with as little effort as rubbing with your fingers.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

June 10, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals has ruled against a couple who sued their lawyer, after they were unhappy with the results of a construction defect case. Craig and Jeanne Petrik sued Mahaffey and Associates for legal malpractice and breach of contract. Their lawyer, Douglas L. Mahaffey, had settled their case for $400,000. The Petricks claimed Mahaffey did not have the authority make an offer to compromise.

In the original case, Mahaffey held back the $400,000 awarded in the settlement until he and the Petricks came to terms on how much of that was owed to Mahaffey. The lower court concluded that the Petricks were due $146,323,18. The jury did not agree with the Petrik’s claim that conditions had been met in which Mahaffey would not be charging them costs.

Judges O’Leary and Ikola wrote the opinion, with the third judge on the panel, Judge Bedworth offering a dissent only on their view of the cost waiver clause.

Read the court’s opinion

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Virginia Decision Emphasizes Importance of Naming All Necessary Parties

June 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Nate Budde on the Construction Payment Blog, discussed the potential of mechanics liens, and the pitfalls that occur when not all necessary parties are named. Budde analyzed the case Johnson Controls Inc. v. Norair Eng’g Corp. that involved a “claimant’s failure to name all the necessary parties in his claim against a bond,” resulting “in the claimant losing his claim against the bond, and with it, an opportunity to get paid.” Budde concluded, “Unfortunately, as was the case here, when the bond claim is not handled correctly procedurally, a party can be left with no recourse for payment. It’s important to understand which of the parties involved should be named in both mechanics lien claims and bond claims.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---