Fairfield Connecticut Construction Expert Witness Directory

Balancing Risk and Reward: The Complexities of Stadium Construction Projects

April 15, 2024 — Gregory A. Eichorn - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
From grand designs to opening day, stadium construction projects present a captivating blend of high-profile opportunities and significant challenges and risks. Navigating this complex landscape is not easy, but when managed properly, the potential rewards, both in terms of reputation and finances, can make it a gamble worth taking. While each stadium project is different, some of the more common risks include:

Securing adequate labor, materials and equipment based on the size of the project;
Logistical concerns regarding the concurrent performance of multiple trade scopes on a single site;
Protection of work in place from weather due to the large footprint of the stadium project;
Cash flow issues caused by protracted change order processing, conflicting and/or onerous payment requirements from project financing entities, and reimbursement of considerable monthly general condition costs; and
Meeting the schedule requirements for the project.

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gregory A. Eichorn, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Eichorn may be contacted at geichorn@pecklaw.com

Recent Statutory Changes Cap Retainage on Applicable Construction Projects

March 11, 2024 — Patrick McKnight - The Dispute Resolver
Recent reforms to certain state retainage laws have reduced the lawful amount of withholding permitted on construction projects. In theory, retainage allows an owner to mitigate the risk of incomplete or defective work by withholding a certain portion of payment until the construction project is substantially complete. Recent statutory developments in Washington, New York, and Georgia represent significant changes in how much an owner may retain on applicable construction projects in those jurisdictions. The details of each state’s retainage laws vary in many important respects. Most states set caps at 5% or 10%, with important variations depending on the type of project and the amount of progress completed. Some states require retainage to be held in an escrow account, but most do not. Many federal construction projects allow up to 10% retainage, while other federal agencies do not require any retention. See 48 CFR § 52.232-5(e) - Payments Under Fixed-Price Construction Contracts. The ongoing motivation for retainage reform is typically framed in terms of reducing delays in getting payment to subcontractors who complete their scope of work on time and free from defects. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McKnight, Fox Rothschild LLP
Mr. McKnight may be contacted at pmcknight@foxrothschild.com

9th Circuit Plumbs Through the Federal and State False Claims Acts

January 16, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
You may have heard of the False Claims Act and know that it penalizes companies and individuals in contract with the government who present false claims. The federal False Claims Act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 to penalize profiteers during the Civil War who were selling the Union Army moth eaten blankets, boxes of sawdust instead of guns, and sometimes re-selling the Army calvary horses several times over. Since then, many states, including California, as well as municipalities, have enacted their own false claim statutes. As currently written, the federal False Claims Act provides for statutory penalties against any person who:

“[K]nowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval”;
“[K]nowingly makes, uses or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim”;
“[H]as possession, custody, or control of property or money used, or to be used, by the Government an knowingly delivers, or causes to be delivered, less than all of that money or property”;

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Subrogation Waiver Unconscionable in Residential Fuel Delivery Contract

April 29, 2024 — Ryan A. Bennett - The Subrogation Strategist
In a matter of first impression, the Superior Court of Connecticut (Superior Court), in American Commerce Ins., Co. v. Eastern Fuel Corp., No. CV-206109168-S, 2024 Conn. Super. LEXIS 380, held that a waiver of subrogation provision in a consumer fuel service/delivery contract violated public policy. The Superior Court overruled the motion for summary judgment filed by Eastern Fuel Corporation (Eastern) and determined that the clause was impermissible as the contract was entered into by two parties with unequal bargaining power. American Commerce Insurance Company (American) provided property insurance to Arlene and James Hillas (the Insureds) for their home in Woodbridge, Connecticut. The Insureds hired Eastern to service their heating system on or around October 25, 2018. The service work at the property included inspecting the oil filters and flushing the fuel lines. On November 1, 2018, when the Insureds turned the heating system on for the first time that season, the two oil tanks on the property were allegedly full. After a series of deliveries, claims that the oil levels were lower than expected, discovering oil staining on the floor and Eastern’s replacement of the oil lines, Eastern delivered another 429 gallons. However, after the delivery, additional leaks were discovered relating to the oil line replacements. Ultimately, the Insureds submitted a claim to American and American paid in excess of $59,000 for the damage incurred. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan A. Bennett, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at bennettr@whiteandwilliams.com

Port Authority Revises Plans for $10B Midtown NYC Bus Terminal Replacement

March 04, 2024 — Marigo Farr - Engineering News-Record
New York City's Midtown Manhattan bus terminal replacement project advanced last week after the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey released a draft environmental impact statement and a revised project plan based on feedback from commuters, residents and local officials. Reprinted courtesy of Marigo Farr, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story...

Appellate Court of Maryland Construes Notice Conditions of A312 Performance Bond in Favor of Surety

January 02, 2024 — Joel P. Williams - White and Williams LLP
The Appellate Court of Maryland issued a reported opinion in a case construing an American Institute of Architects (“AIA”) A312 performance bond. In Wildewood Operating Company, LLC v. WRV Holdings, LLC, et al. 2023 Md. App. LEXIS 720 (Oct. 30, 2023), the Appellate Court of Maryland held that a performance bond surety was discharged from liability where the owner/obligee failed to give the surety notice of the contractor’s default termination until after a third party had completed the work. The project concerned the construction of an assisted living facility in St. Mary’s County, Maryland. The owner, Wildewood Operating Company, LLC, entered into an A312-2010 performance bond with Clark Turner Construction, LLC, as contractor, and First Indemnity of America Insurance Company, as surety. When Clark Turner failed to complete certain stormwater management work adjacent to the site, Wildewood, Clark Turner, and other parties entered into a Work Agreement to address completion of the work. The surety was not a party to the Work Agreement. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joel P. Williams, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Williams may be contacted at williamsj@whiteandwilliams.com

Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team for Prevailing on a Highly Contested Motion to Quash!

January 08, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to Newport Partners Tyler Offenhauser and Jonathan Cothran, and Associate Anisha Kohli, who recently prevailed on behalf of BWB&O’s client before the Orange County Superior Court on a highly contested Motion to Quash Service based on Plaintiff’s failure to timely file and serve a DOE Amendment, naming our client. BWB&O’s client was the owner of a building where Plaintiff, a licensed electrician, was electrocuted while performing an upgrade to the building’s electrical infrastructure. Plaintiff’s original lawsuit named only the building’s tenant, who was also represented by BWB&O. BWB&O was successful earlier this year on a Motion for Summary Judgment under the Privette Doctrine and won judgment on behalf of the client/tenant. While that MSJ was pending, Plaintiff surreptitiously added the building’s owner to the suit with a DOE Amendment, after several months earlier learning the owner and then tenant were entities operated by the same individual. However, Plaintiff never informed counsel or any other party of the filing. Moreover, after the MSJ was granted, Plaintiff then waited several more months to serve the building’s owner. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Giant Gas Pipeline Owner, Contractor in $900M Payment Battle

January 22, 2024 — David Godkin, Debra K. Rubin
A Canadian partnership including energy developer TC Energy that is building the $10.6-billion Coastal GasLink pipeline, and a key project contractor, are disputing more than $900 million in project costs in court and in upcoming arbitration. The 670-kilometer line in British Columbia that announced mechanical completion last year is set to carry liquefied natural gas to the LNG Canada export terminal under construction on the province’s Pacific Coast—the country’s first such facility. Reprinted courtesy of David Godkin, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story...

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES