Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Colorado Homebuyers Must be in Privity of Contract with Developer to Assert Breach of Implied Warranty of Suitability

May 03, 2017 — Maggie Stewart - Colorado Construction Litigation
On April 17, 2017, the Colorado Supreme Court announced its decision in Forest City v. Rogers, No. 15SC1089, 2017 CO 23 (Colo. Apr. 17, 2017). The Court held that privity of contract is necessary for a homebuyer to assert a claim for breach of implied warranty of suitability against a developer. In other words, one must be a party to a contract to pursue a claim for breach of any implied warranty of suitability therein. Defendant Forest City was the developer of a mixed use property in Stapleton. Forest City subdivided the land and sold the vacant lot at issue to a professional builder, Infinity. Infinity then built a residence and sold it to the plaintiff, Tad Rogers. After moving into the home, Rogers came to believe that the water table beneath the house along with calcite leaching from the road material led to a buildup of calcite in the foundation drain, making the basement uninhabitable and causing the sump pump to work overtime. Rogers sued Forest City on various theories, including breach of the warranty of suitability. In particular, Rogers alleged that Forest City impliedly warranted to him that his lot was suitable for a home with a finished basement, when in fact it was not. He prevailed on this claim at the trial court level. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Maggie Stewart, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Stewart may be contacted at stewart@hhmrlaw.com

Homebuyers Aren't Sweating the Fed

December 17, 2015 — Rani Molla – BloombergGadfly
Home prices are escalating, but the culprit isn't the Federal Reserve. The Fed is expected to raise its benchmark rate for the first time since 2006, meaning mortgage rate hikes are likely to follow. Small mortgage-rate increases and, by extension, incrementally higher monthly mortgage payments, usually won't undermine sales because buyers aren't sensitive to small payment changes. Mortgage rates, still at historic lows, have already baked in an expected rate increase of 25 basis points, according to PwC Real Estate Advisory Leader Mitch Roschelle. The National Association of Home Builders Chief Economist David Crowe agrees, adding that the housing market could even digest a cumulative 50 basis point hike by the end of 2016. The real stress in the housing market is coming from somewhere else: labor shortages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rani Molla, BloombergGadfly

Risk Spotter Searches Internal Data Lakes For Loaded Words

October 11, 2017 — Tom Sawyer - Engineering News-Record
A tech start-up recently announced that it has been granted seven U.S. patents for a system that applies a “deep learning” algorithm to examine corporate e-mail databases and flag those with message fields or attachments containing language that might increase risk for a company involved in a federal discrimination lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Sawyer, ENR
Mr. Sawyer may be contacted at sawyert@enr.com

Triable Issue of Fact Exists as to Insurer’s Obligation to Provide Coverage Under Occurrence Policy

March 08, 2021 — Valerie A. Moore & Kathleen E.M. Moriarty – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Guastello v. AIG Specialty Ins. Co. (No. G057714. filed 2/19/21 ord. pub. 2/23/21), a California appeals court held that triable issues of material fact exist which precluded summary judgment for an insurer seeking to disclaim coverage on the basis that the “occurrence” pre-dated the policy period where a dispute exists as to the timing of the subject “occurrence.” In Guastello, a subcontractor built retaining walls from 2003 to 2004 for a housing development in Dana Point, California. In 2010, one of these retaining walls collapsed causing damage to a residential lot owned by Thomas Guastello. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kathleen E.M. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Ms. Moriarty may be contacted at kemoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pennsylvania Sues Firms to Recoup Harrisburg Incinerator Losses

June 06, 2018 — Jonathan Barnes - Engineering News-Record
The state of Pennsylvania continues to try to recover funds from professional firms involved in the city of Harrisburg’s disastrous incinerator project in the early 2000’s and has named, Buchart Horn, Inc., an engineering, architecture and planning firm based in York, Pa. as a defendant. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Barnes, ENR
ENR staff may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Cal/OSHA Approves COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards; Executive Order Makes Them Effective Immediately

July 11, 2021 — Leila S. Narvid - Payne & Fears LLP
On June 17, 2021, California's Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Standards Board) passed amended COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS). Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an Executive Order to make the amended ETS effective as soon as filed with the Secretary of State. The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) filed them, and the Secretary of State posted them, making the ETS effective immediately. These changes attempt to bring the ETS in alignment with recent changes to California Department of Public Health Order and the latest guidance from the Center for Disease Control (CDC). Highlights of the changes to the ETS can be found here. Face Coverings in the Workplace; Elimination of Physical Distancing Notably, fully vaccinated employees do not have to wear a face covering indoors except in limited circumstances. Unvaccinated workers will still need to wear face coverings indoors (unless they are alone in a room or eating and drinking) and in shared vehicles. All employees regardless of vaccination status do not have to wear masks outdoors. Unvaccinated employees must be trained that face coverings are recommended outdoors for individuals who are not fully vaccinated when six feet of physical distance cannot be maintained. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Leila S. Narvid, Payne & Fears LLP
Ms. Narvid may be contacted at ln@paynefears.com

California Builders’ Right To Repair Is Alive

March 19, 2014 — David J. Byassee - Ulich & Terry LLP
The California Supreme Court surprised everyone on December 11, 2013 when it denied Brookfield Homes’ request for review of the ruling in the case of Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2014) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, which was decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District Division Three (Orange County). In that case the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act aka SB800 is not the exclusive remedy for a homeowner seeking damages for construction defects that have resulted in property damage. Under the ruling, homeowners may choose to sue builders under common law theories of liability such as strict liability and negligence, in addition to liability under the Act. This ruling made homeowners' compliance with the prelitigation requirements of the Act optional and thereby put builders' “right to repair” in jeopardy. The ruling undermined the expectations of California's homebuilders who, for the past decade, understood that their liability is limited by the Act and that they have a right to repair. Since the Liberty Mutual case was handed down, the topic has become a hotbed item with several divisions of the Court of Appeal. On February 19, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Three (Los Angeles County) issued a ruling against Premier Homes in the case of Burch v. Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 159 that, without independent analysis, simply adopted the holding in the Liberty Mutual case. But on February 21, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Four (Los Angeles County) ruled in the case of KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v.Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 167 that a homeowner's failure to give the builder an opportunity to inspect and repair a construction defect excused the builder's liability under the Act. Additionally, the Court of Appeal went out of its way to state it had ruled earlier in that case that the Act is the exclusive remedy. The various rulings lay a foundation for ultimate intervention by the California Supreme Court. In the meantime, these opposing cases will be cited by counsel for homeowners and builders alike for opposing positions as they continue to navigate construction defect disputes. Mr. Byassee is a strategic litigator specializing in representation of builders and developers. For more information regarding dispute resolution procedures under SB800, Mr. Byassee may be contacted at (949) 250-9797 or by email at dbyassee@ut-law.com. Published courtesy of David J. Byassee, Ulich & Terry LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

September 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire has ruled in the case Wyle v. Lees. The Leeses owned a two-unit apartment building in North Conway, New Hampshire. They hired a contractor to add a third, larger apartment, including a two-car garage. The Leeses and their contractor submitted a building permit application. They were informed that site plan review was required. After receiving approval on the site plan, construction started. At no point did they obtain a building permit and the construction was never inspected. The Leeses subsequently added more space to the unit, reducing parking spaces below the minimum required. Again, they did not obtain a building permit.

In 2007, three years after all these changes were complete, the Leeses sold their building to Mr. Wyle. To the question “are you aware of any modifications or repairs made without the necessary permits?” they answered “no.” About six weeks after closing, Wyle “received a letter from the town code enforcement officer regarding the legality of the removal of a garage door from the new unit.” A subsequent inspection revealed “numerous building and life safety code violations.”

Mr. Wyle brought a claim against the Leeses for negligent misrepresentation. The defendants filed a motion “seeking to preclude economic loss damages.” At a two-day bench trial, Mr. Wyle won. The Leeses appealed.

The appeals court found that “the defendants negligently misrepresented that the premises were licensed for immediate occupancy and that the defendants had obtained all necessary permits,” and thus upheld the lower court’s finding of negligent misrepresentation. The appeals court also rejected the Leeses’ argument that damages must be apportioned on all parties, including “the plaintiff himself, the plaintiff’s building inspector, and the defendant’s contractor,” finding a lack of “adequate evidence.”

The Leeses further argued that they were unaware that modifications and repairs were accomplished without the required permits. The appeals court noted that “the trial court found that both the conditional approval and final approval for the site plan stated that a building permit and a certificate of occupancy were required prior to any use.” The court concluded that the Leeses “knew or should have known of the falsity of their representation.”

The appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court.

Read the court’s decision…

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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES