Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Landmark Contractor Licensing Case Limits Disgorgement Remedy in California

November 09, 2020 — Candace Matson - Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
Contractors performing work in California are required to be licensed by the California State License Board (“CSLB”). Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §7065. Except for sole proprietors, contractors are typically licensed through “qualifiers,” i.e., officers or employees who take a licensing exam and meet other requirements to become licensed on behalf of the contractor’s company. Contractors who perform work in California without being properly licensed are subject to a world of hurt, including civil and criminal penalties (see, e.g., Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 7028, 7028.6, 7028.7, 7117, and Cal. Labor Code §§ 1020-1022), and the inability to maintain a lawsuit to recover compensation for their work. Cal. Bus & Prof. Code § 7031(a); Hydra Tech Systems Ltd. v. Oasis Water Park, 52 Cal.3rd 988 (1991). But arguably the worst ramification of not being property licensed is that established in Business & Professions Code Section 7031(b), which provides that any person who uses the services of an unlicensed contractor may bring an action for the return of all compensation paid for the performance of the work, commonly known as “disgorgement.” This remedy is particularly harsh (often described as “draconian”) because it makes no allowance for the fact that an unlicensed contractor will likely have already paid out the bulk of its compensation to its subcontractors, suppliers and vendors, but nevertheless can be ordered to disgorge all compensation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Candace Matson, Sheppard Mullin
Ms. Matson may be contacted at cmatson@sheppardmullin.com

Gone Fishing: Tenant’s Insurer Casts A Line Seeking To Subrogate Against The Landlord

October 17, 2022 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
In J&J Fish on Ctr. Str., Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-644-bhl, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16361, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (District Court) recognized that “[t]here will be no further fish fries on Center Street until someone pays to repair the collapsed floor at J&J Fish on Center Street, Inc. (J&J Fish).” The contenders were: 1) J&J Fish; 2) its’ insurer, Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (Insurer); and 3) J&J Fish’s landlord, Vision Land, LLC (Vision). Recognizing Insurer’s right to subrogate against Vision based on the terms of the parties’ lease, the District Court held Insurer owed J&J Fish coverage for the losses it sustained, but that Insurer could subrogate against Vision for anything it had to pay J&J Fish. In J&J Fish, Vision and J&J Fish signed a lease (Lease) for a building (the Building) located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Lease required Vision to “purchase and keep in full force and effect on the building(s) . . . insurance against fire and such other risks as may be included in all-risks policies . . .” Vision, however, never obtained any insurance on the Building. Pursuant to the Lease, Vision also agreed to “maintain and repair the structure including the slab floor and exterior walls of the Premises.” With respect to J&J Fish, the Lease required J&J Fish to maintain “Physical Damage insurance, including but not limited to fire . . . and all other risks of direct physical loss as insured . . . for the full replacement cost of all additions, improvements (including leasehold improvements) and alterations to the Premises.” J&J Fish purchased a commercial property and casualty insurance policy (the Policy) from Insurer. The Policy covered “additions, improvements . . . and alterations” as the Lease required. In addition, it insured the Building itself against “collapse,” subject to certain exceptions. 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

Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Bars Coverage for Collapse of Building

July 31, 2013 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
The court rejected the insured's argument that there was coverage for the collapse of a building caused by water leakage (a covered peril) and landslide (an uncovered peril). Stor/Gard, Inc. v. Strathmore Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. LEXIS App. 11015 (1st Cir. May 31, 2013). A severe rain storm caused soil to slide down a hill and over a retaining wall, thereby damaging a building owned by the insured. Investigators hired by Strathmore Insurance Company determined that rain had soaked into the soil, causing the landslide. Although the investigators found some water leakage, they determined the leakage was not a cause or contributing factor, and was negligible compared to the rain amount. The insured's policy with Strathmore was an all-risk policy. Loss caused by a landslide was excluded. Further, loss caused by collapse was excluded from coverage except as set forth in the policy's "additional coverage for collapse" section. This section provided coverage for a collapse caused by water damage or a leakage of water. Another exclusion barred coverage for loss caused by weather conditions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Beam Cracks Cause Closure of San Francisco’s New $2B Transit Center

October 09, 2018 — David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
After two billion dollars and two decades, San Francisco’s newest transportation hub opened on August 11th of this year only to be closed a month later, on September 25th, after a cracked beam was discovered, according to The Real Deal. Later, workers found an additional, though smaller, crack in another beam parallel to the first. The Real Deal described the crack in the first beam: “The Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) – which built and now operates the center – said the tear was 2.5 feet long and 4.5 inches deep on a 60-foot beam that holds a 5.4-acre rooftop park above a bus deck.” Steel supports are now being installed to reduce the pressure on the beams. While officials have not discovered the cause of the problem, The Real Deal reported several possibilities, including “fabrication problems, installation error, too much weight, or an issue in the initial design.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California’s High Speed Rail Project. Are We Done With the Drama?

October 22, 2014 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Proponents of California’s high-speed rail project cleared a major hurdle this past week when the California Supreme Court declined to review a California Court of Appeals ruling which held that the state’s funding plan did not violate Proposition 1A, the voter-approved initiative passed in 2008, which provided initial funding for the project. For those like me who have been following the fits and starts of California’s high-speed rail project, it may be hard to remember how it all got started, and how we got to where we are. California's High-Speed Rail Project California’s high-speed rail project involves the construction of a high-speed passenger rail system running from Northern California to Southern California. The $68 billion system, expected to begin operation in 2029, will initially run from San Francisco to the Los Angeles basin in under 3 hours with train speeds capable of over 200 miles per hour. The system will eventually extend from Sacramento to San Diego covering a distance of approximately 800 miles with up to 24 stations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor's Employee

November 17, 2016 — Renata L. Hoddinott & Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The Court of Appeal of the State of California – Second Appellate District in Khosh v. Staples Construction Company, Inc. (10/26/16 – Case No. B268937) affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant under the Privette doctrine where plaintiff presented no evidence that the defendant affirmatively contributed to his injuries. Plaintiff Al Khosh (“Khosh”) was injured while performing electrical work on a project. He was employed by Myers Power Products, Inc. (“Myers”) a subcontractor for the project. Khosh sued the general contractor, Staples Construction Company, Inc. (“Staples”) to recover damages for his injuries. Reprinted courtesy of Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

‘Hallelujah,’ House Finally Approves $1T Infrastructure Funding Package

November 15, 2021 — Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-Record
After nearly three months in a holding pattern and a long day of back-and-forth negotiations among House Democrats, the chamber approved a sweeping, multi-year infrastructure funding package late on Nov. 5 that will provide an estimated $1 trillion for a wide range of infrastructure categories, including highways, transit, rail, water, power and broadband. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Appraisal May Include Cause of Loss Issues

March 21, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court determined that an appraisal can include causation issues when determining the amount of loss. B&D Inv. Grp., LLC v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 246853 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2021). B&D commercial building was damaged by hail. B&D submitted a claim to Mid-Century, but the parties disagreed as to the damage. Mid-Century found there was hail damage to metal vents on the roof and estimated the repair costs to be $4,271.95. Mid-Century found no hail damage to the roof itself. B&D disagreed and insisted that there was additional damage to the property, specifically the roof. B&D requested an appraisal, but Mid-Century denied the request. Mid-Century found that the condition of the roof was due to wear and tear and therefore constituted an excluded cause under the policy. B&D filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment compelling the parties to proceed with an appraisal. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES