Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

City Covered From Lawsuits Filed After Hurricane-Damaged Dwellings Demolished

January 15, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding that a duty to defend was owed St. Bernard Parish after it was sued for condemning and demolishing housing destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Lexington Ins. Co. v. St. Bernard Parish Gov't, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24292 (5th Cir. Dec. 6, 2013). St. Bernard's policies with Lexington provided coverage for "property damage" and "personal and advertising injury." The policies included a $10,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate limit, subject to a $250,000 retained limit. Lexington denied coverage and filed for a declaratory judgment that the policies' $250,000 retained limit applied separately to each alleged demolition or property damage asserted in the underlying actions. Under this theory, no defense would be owed because no property had a value exceeding $250,000. The District Court found that only one retained limit applied. 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

California Beach Hotel to Get $185 Million Luxury Rebuild

September 17, 2014 — Nadja Brandt – Bloomberg
Rick Caruso, a Los Angeles shopping-mall developer, plans to spend about $185 million to rebuild a Southern California seaside hotel with a troubled past into a luxury getaway. The 170-room Miramar Beach Resort and Bungalows in Montecito, near Santa Barbara, will have such amenities as a beach club, spa, restaurants and two swimming pools, said Caruso, founder of closely held developer Caruso Affiliated. The site’s former hotel, known as Miramar by the Sea, has already been razed. Caruso bought the property in 2007 from H. Ty Warner, the billionaire creator of Beanie Babies plush toys and owner of the Four Seasons Hotel New York. The California hotel, on about 15 acres (6 hectares), had been out of service for more than a decade as past revival efforts were stalled by local opposition to development and the property market’s crash. Former owners include hotelier Ian Schrager. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nadja Brandt, Bloomberg
Ms. Brandt may be contacted at nbrandt@bloomberg.net

Gilbert’s Plan for Downtown Detroit Has No Room for Jail

October 08, 2014 — Chris Christoff – Bloomberg
Billionaire Dan Gilbert envisions a vibrant and shiny downtown Detroit, where he owns a casino and about 60 buildings. His urban Eden doesn’t include a jail with 2,000 criminals. Gilbert is resisting county officials’ plans to restart construction on a half-finished jail mired in cost overruns, criminal investigations and debt. The project, which the Wayne County Commission may revive tomorrow, would replace a complex on land that Gilbert, the 52-year-old founder and chairman of Detroit-based Quicken Loans Inc., offered to buy for $50 million to build a hotel, housing and stores. The dispute over the jail, which has sat unfinished for 16 months, pits one of Detroit’s most prominent boosters against a county government over how to reinvigorate the city’s heart. Gilbert, whose company is the nation’s largest online retail mortgage lender, has invested $1.3 billion there, betting on the former auto-manufacturing capital’s resurgence after decades of decline that pushed it into a record $18 billion municipal bankruptcy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chris Christoff, Bloomberg
Mr. Christoff may be contacted at cchristoff@bloomberg.net

Condominium Association Wins $5 Million Judgment against Developer

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Belgravia Condominium Association, a group of condo owners in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, have secured a $5.05 million judgment against the contractor who converted their 1902 building into condominiums. The suit alleged that the developers and engineers failed to disclose structural problems to the condominium buyers. One issue at hand was the maintenance of the building’s façade which has historic status. Repairs to the façade alone are expected to require $2 million. Ronald Williams, the lawyer for the association, noted that the iron canopy at the entrance had begun to break away and fall even before the condominium association came into being. The decision isn’t yet final, as the developer has an opportunity to appeal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Who Says You Can’t Choose between Liquidated Damages or Actual Damages?

October 11, 2017 — Kevin Walton - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In Colorado, courts enforce liquidated damages provisions if three elements are satisfied: (1) the parties intended to liquidate damages; (2) the amount of liquidated damages was a reasonable estimate of the presumed actual damages caused by a breach; and (3) at the time of contracting, it was difficult to ascertain the amount of actual damages that would result from a breach. But what happens when a contract gives a party a right to choose between liquidated damages or actual damages? This seems troublesome because it allows a party to set the floor for their damages without limitation if actual damages exceed the contractual amount. As a matter of first impression, the Colorado Supreme Court addressed this issue in Ravenstar, LLC v. One Ski Hill Place, LLC, 401 P.3d 552 (Colo. 2017). In Ravenstar, plaintiffs contracted to buy condominiums from a developer. As part of their contracts, plaintiffs deposited earnest money and construction deposits equal to 15% of each unit’s purchase price. Plaintiffs breached their contract by failing to obtain financing and failing to close by the closing date. Each contract’s damages provision provided that if a purchaser defaulted, the developer had the option to retain all or some of the deposits as liquidated damages or, alternatively, to pursue actual damages and apply the deposits to that award. After plaintiffs defaulted, the developer chose to keep plaintiffs’ deposits as liquidated damages. Plaintiffs sued for return of their deposits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Walton, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Walton may be contacted at kwalton@swlaw.com

OSHA Set to Tag More Firms as Severe Violators Under New Criteria

November 01, 2022 — Richard Korman & Stephanie Loder - Engineering News-Record
In announcing last month broadened criteria for classifying employers as severe safety violators, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration official Douglas Parker singled out a steel fabricator near El Paso, Texas. The U.S. Labor Dept. assistant secretary for occupational safety and health, he posted a blog stating that OSHA had placed Kyoei Steel Ltd. in its severe violators program, which subjects the firm to numerous re-inspections until it is allowed to exit. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record and Stephanie Loder, 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

CA Supreme Court Rejects Proposed Exceptions to Interim Adverse Judgment Rule Defense to Malicious Prosecution Action

August 24, 2017 — David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Parrish v. Latham & Watkins (No. S228277 - August 10, 2017) (“Parrish”), the California Supreme Court examined the “interim adverse judgment rule” in a different context than previous decisions on the subject. The rule provides that if an earlier action succeeds after a hearing on the merits, this success establishes the existence of probable cause and precludes a subsequent malicious prosecution action. In a typical case applying the rule, a plaintiff in the underlying action defeats the defendant’s motion for summary judgment but then loses the case at trial leading to a subsequent malicious prosecution claim. In Parrish, the Court addressed whether the rule applies when the trial court had denied the defendant’s summary judgment motion but concluded after the defense prevailed at a bench trial that the suit had been brought in “bad faith” due to a lack of evidentiary support. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Arizona Purchaser Dwelling Actions Are Subject to a New Construction

September 04, 2019 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
Arizona recently amended its Purchaser Dwelling Action statute to, among other things, involve all contractors in the process, establish the parties’ burdens of proof, add an attorney fees provision, establish procedural requirements and limit a subcontractor’s indemnity exposure. The governor signed the bill—2019 Ariz. SB 1271—on April 10, 2019, and the changes go into effect and apply, retroactively “to from and after June 30, 2019.” The following discussion details some of the changes to the law. Notice to Contractors and Proportional Liability Under the revised law, a “Seller” who receives notice of a Purchaser Dwelling Action (PDA) from a residential dwelling purchaser pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1363* has to promptly forward the notice to all construction professionals—i.e. architects, contractors, subcontractors, etc., as defined in A.R.S. § 12-1361(5)—that the Seller reasonably believes are responsible for an alleged construction defect. A.R.S. § 12-1363(A). Sellers can deliver the notice by electronic means. Once construction professionals are placed on notice, they have the same right to inspect, test and repair the property as the Seller originally placed on notice. A.R.S. § 12-1362(B), (C). To the extent that the matter ultimately goes to suit, A.R.S. § 12-1632(D) dictates that, subject to Arizona Rules of Court, construction professionals “shall be joined as third-party defendants.” To establish liability, the purchaser has the burden of proving the existence of a construction defect and the amount of damages. Thereafter, the trier of fact determines each defendant’s or third-party defendant’s relative degree of fault and allocates the pro rata share of liability to each based on their relative degree of fault. However, the seller, not the purchaser, has the burden of proving the pro rata share of liability for any third-party defendant. A.R.S. § 12-1632(D). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES