Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys

April 28, 2014 — David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In conflict with an earlier decision by a different division within the same District, and with a prior decision of another District which followed the earlier case, Division Three of the Second Appellate District has concluded, contrary to established precedent, that the general two-year limitations period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 (“Section 335.1”) applies to malicious prosecution claims against attorneys, rather than the specific one-year statute of limitations for claims against attorneys codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 (“Section 340.6”). In Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC (filed April 15, 2014, Case No. B237424, consolidated with Case No. B239375), Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. (“Cleveland Golf”), filed a malicious prosecution action against Krane & Smith (“the Attorneys”), who had unsuccessfully prosecuted the underlying breach of contract matter for their client against Cleveland Golf. In that action, on April 26, 2010, the trial court entered its order granting a motion for nonsuit and dismissing the complaint in favor of Cleveland Golf. On May 24, 2011, or approximately 13 months after the trial court had dismissed the underlying complaint, Cleveland Golf commenced a malicious prosecution action against the Attorneys. In the interim, the Attorneys initiated an appeal of the underlying judgment, which was eventually dismissed approximately seven months later. In response to the complaint, the Attorneys filed a special motion to strike, commonly referred to as an anti-SLAPP motion, which included the argument that the malicious prosecution claim was time-barred under the one-year limitations period of Section 340.6. The trial court granted the Attorneys’ motion based on the statute of limitations (and Cleveland Golf’s failure to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits) and dismissed the case. Cleveland Golf’s appeal followed. 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

New Hampshire’s Statute of Repose for Improvements to Real Property Does Not Apply to Product Manufacturers

April 22, 2019 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In United Services Automobile Association v. Broan-Nutone, LLC, No. 218 2017 CV 01113, [1] the Superior Court of Rockingham County, New Hampshire recently considered whether the eight-year statute of repose for improvements to real property applied to the manufacturer of a ceiling ventilation fan that was installed in the property during its original construction. The court held that New Hampshire’s statute of repose did not apply to the manufacturer because it was not involved in incorporating its product into the property. In 2012, Chad St. Francis purchased a home in Northwood, New Hampshire. The home was originally constructed in 2008, at which time a Broan-Nutone ceiling ventilation fan was installed in the first-floor bathroom. In 2016, a fire occurred at the home. United Services Automobile Association (USAA) provided property casualty insurance for the home and paid Mr. St. Francis for the damage. In 2017, USAA filed a subrogation lawsuit against Broan-Nutone, alleging that its ceiling fan caused the fire due to a design defect within the product. Broan-Nutone filed a motion for summary judgment on grounds that USAA’s action was barred by New Hampshire’s statute of repose for improvements to real property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Jury's Verdict for Loss Caused by Collapse Overturned

September 18, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Florida Court of Appeal overturned the jury's verdict findng loss caused by collapse. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Caboverde, 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 4474 (Fla. Ct. App. June 28, 2023). The insured homeowners had two claims. One was a 2016 ceiling collapse; the second was loss caused by Hurricane Irma in 2019. The homeowners' policy covered collapse defined as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building with the result that the building . . . cannot be occupied for its intended purpose." Collapse had to be caused by, among other things, decay or insect damage that was hidden from view. 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

Washington State Updates the Contractor Registration Statute

June 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Ryan W. Sternoff of Ahlers & Cressman PLLC, analyzed SHB 1749, which recently amended RCW 18.27.010, Washington State’s legislature’s contractor’s registration statute. According to Sternoff, “a broad reading of the contractor’s registration statute, RCW Ch. 18.27, would require just about any person or entity, other than a residential homeowner, who is involved at any level in improving real property to be registered as a ‘Contractor,’ irrespective if that person or entity hired a licensed contractor to perform work on real property that they own.” SHB 1749 amended the statute “so that those who ‘offer to sell their property without occupying or using the structures, projects, developments or improvements’ are excluded from the definition of ‘contractor’ and not required to be registered, provided that the person or entity ‘contracts with a registered general contractor and does not superintend the work.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Warranties: Have You Seen Me Lately?

February 07, 2022 — Christopher D. Cazenave - ConsensusDocs
A construction contract typically contains many different types of warranties. Owners expect contractors to explicitly warrant their workmanship, contractor-provided materials and equipment, and in many instances to assume other warranty risks that may obligate the contractor years after the project is completed. No contractor wants to be surprised years after a project is completed by the existence of warranty obligations that were not considered or negotiated at the outset of the project. To help avoid this situation, warranties should be treated similar to other critical risk-sharing provisions in the contract in concert with other bargained-for provisions, including for example price and schedule. This article provides a brief overview of warranty obligations found in typical construction contracts followed by a few practical considerations for contractors to consider when negotiating warranty obligations. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher D. Cazenave, Jones Walker, LLP (ConsensusDocs) Mr. Cazenave may be contacted at ccazenave@joneswalker.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

What California’s COVID-19 Reopening Means for the Construction Industry

July 05, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
This past Wednesday, Governor Newsom announced that California would reopen after being in lockdown for over a year due to COVID-19. Gone is Governor’s Stay at Home Executive Order. Gone is California’s Blueprint for a Safer Economy. And gone is the state’s somewhat confusing four-tier, yellow (minimal), orange (moderate), red (substantial) and purple (widespread), risk-level mapping system. So what does this mean for the construction industry? Well it’s not quite business back to usual. CalOSHA’s Standards Board voted this past Thursday to pass revised COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (“Revised Standards”). That same day, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-09-21 implementing the Revised Standards immediately while they are being reviewed by the Office of Administrative Law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Overtime! – When the Statute of Limitations Isn’t Game Over For Your Claim

August 07, 2022 — Bradley E. Sands, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocs
Statutes of limitations establish the period of time within which a claimant must bring an action after it accrues. An action can be filing a lawsuit and, in some instances, filing a demand for arbitration. But a multi-year construction project could be longer than the applicable statute of limitations. For example, under Delaware or North Carolina law, the statute of limitations for a breach of contract is only three years.1 So a claim for breach of a construction contract that occurred (i.e. accrued) at the beginning of a four-year project under Delaware or North Carolina law may expire before the project is completed. Generally, a claim accrues at the time of the breach (however, it is important to note that this is not always the case and claim accrual could be the subject of an entirely different article). During the course of a multi-year construction project, proposed change orders or claims for additional compensation can sit, unanswered or unpursued, for months. Or, the parties may informally agree as part of regular project communications to put off dealing with a claim head-on until the end of the project. On certain projects, slow-walking a claim is understandable, as a contractor may be hesitant to sue an owner in the middle of a multi-year project and risk upsetting an otherwise good working relationship. But a delay in formally asserting a put-off claim after it accrues could result in the claim falling subject to a statute of limitations defense. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bradley E. Sands, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Sands may be contacted at bsands@joneswalker.com

A Court-Side Seat – Case Law Update (February 2022)

March 06, 2022 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
It is already early in 2022, but several important environmental cases have already been decided by the federal district and federal appellate courts. THE COURTS OF APPEAL The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit West Virginia State University Board of Governors v. The Dow Chemical Company, et al. On January 10, 2022, the court decided this case, in which Dow and the other defendants attempted to remove a state groundwater contamination lawsuit to federal court, citing the federal officer removal statute and the presence of a significant federal question. Both the federal district court and the appellate court rejected these arguments and remanded the lawsuit to the state court. For many years, Dow and other parties had been engaged in a RCRA hazardous waste cleanup at an industrial site located in Institute, West Virginia. RCRA permits and corrective action authorizations were issued or supervised by EPA. The plaintiffs complained that the groundwater cleanup, insofar as it affected their property, was deficient, which compelled them to supplement the ongoing federal cleanup with a lawsuit based on West Virginia causes of action and unique to their property. After a careful review of the record, the Fourth Circuit held that the defendants were not acting under the “subjection, guidance or control” of the EPA, and therefore the federal officer removal statute did not apply. Moreover, there was no federal question to resolve as the separate state lawsuit did not challenge a CERCLA cleanup nor did it arise from the RCRA remedial measures that had been taken. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES