Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Haight Welcomes Robert S. Rucci

August 26, 2015 — Robert S. Rucci – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP welcomes new partner Robert S. Rucci. Mr. Rucci joins Haight’s San Diego office in the Construction Law, General Liability and Risk Management & Insurance Law Practice Groups. For 25 years, Mr. Rucci has specialized in defending design professionals, businesses and their employees in addition to representing clients against declaratory relief, breach of contract and bad faith litigation. During his career, he has tried 60 cases to defense verdict and successfully resolved countless matters via mediation, arbitration and settlement conference. His extensive litigation experience is invaluable to our clients. Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP 402 West Broadway Suite 1850 San Diego, CA 92101 www.hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert S. Rucci, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Rucci may be contacted at rrucci@hbblaw.com

Recent Third Circuit OSHA Decision Sounds Alarm for Employers and Their Officers

October 14, 2019 — John Baker - White and Williams LLP
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion that should serve as a warning not only to employers, but to their corporate officers. The case against Altor, Inc., a New Jersey-based construction company, began in 2012 when the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) directed Altor and its sole director and officer to pay a $412,000 penalty (Payment Order) to OSHA for several violations, including the failure to comply with fall protection standards. The company refused to pay, arguing that it did not possess sufficient assets. The Secretary of Labor filed a Petition for Civil Contempt against Altor and its President, Vasilios Saites. The court acknowledged that the company and Mr. Saites could defend against a contempt finding by showing that he and the company were unable to comply with the Payment Order. Beyond merely stating that they could not pay, the court required that they must show that they made good faith efforts to comply with the Order. After considering all of the evidence, the court ultimately relied on Altor’s bank records, which reflected that the company ended each month during a two-year period after the violations with a positive bank balance. Thus, the court determined that Altor could have made “at least relatively modest” payments and emphasized that the company never attempted to negotiate a reduced sum or a payment plan. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Baker, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Baker may be contacted at bakerj@whiteandwilliams.com

Coverage for Collapse Ordered on Summary Judgment

November 21, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
A collapsed floor in a restaurant was found to be covered. J&J Fish on Center Street, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Spec. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163661 (D. Wis. Sept. 12, 2022). J&J Fish rented property from Vision. Vision was obligated to keep the premises insured under an all-risk policy. Vision was also responsible for maintaining and repairing the property "including the slab flooring exterior walls of the premises." Vision never obtained insurance on the building, but J&J Fish secured a commercial property policy from Crum & Forster. On May 29, 2020, approximately 25% of the building's slab floor, the section beneath the walk-in cooler, collapsed into the crawl space below. Dr. Daniel Wojnowski inspected the crawl space and observed overall dampness as well as a pool of water in the space. He concluded that the collapse occurred because the steel support beams and steel elements of the floor corroded after prolonged exposure to moisture. Based on this report, Crum & Forster denied coverage. J&J Fish sued and the parties moved for summary judgment. 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

Water Leak Covered for First Thirteen Days

April 11, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Florida Court of Appeals recently held the policy's exclusion for repeated water seepage over a period of fourteen days or more does not exclude loss caused by the seepage for the first thirteen days. Hicks v. Am. Integrity Ins. Co. of Florida, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 2616 (Fla. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2018). 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

John Paulson’s $1 Billion Caribbean Empire Faces Betrayal

November 27, 2023 — Jim Wyss & Tom Maloney - Bloomberg
In the decade since hedge fund billionaire John Paulson took a grand gamble on Puerto Rico, he’s faced the wrath of the markets and mother nature. He’s navigated hurricanes, earthquakes, the pandemic and the largest municipal bankruptcy in US history to amass a portfolio of luxury hotels and resorts, high-end office blocks, and auto dealerships catering to the island’s rich. Now, just a few months after breaking ground on one of San Juan’s tallest and most exclusive residential towers, Paulson is facing a new wave of threats: lawsuits that strike at the heart of his Caribbean empire. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Wyss, Bloomberg and Tom Maloney, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

January 05, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
One of the many items of construction law that has always been about as clear as mud has been the interaction between a contractual pay if paid clause and payment bond claims either under the Federal Miller Act or Virginia’s “Little Miller Act.” While properly drafted contractual “pay if paid” clauses are enforceable by their terms in Virginia, what has always been less clear is whether a bonding company can take advantage of such a clause when defending a payment bond claim. As always, these questions are very fact specific both under the Federal Act and the state statute. I wish that this post would answer this question, but alas, it will not. A recent case from the City of Roanoke, Virginia looked at the interaction between a payment bond and a “condition precedent” pay if paid clause as it relates to a private project that is not subject to the Little Miller Act. In the case of IES Commercial, Inc v The Hanover Insurance Company, the Court examined a contractual clause between Thor Construction and IES Commercial in tandem with the bond language between Hanover Insurance Company and Thor as it related to a surprisingly familiar scenario. The general facts are these: IES performed, Thor demanded payment from the owner for the work that IES performed and the owner, for reasons that are left unstated in the opinion, refused to pay. IES sues Hanover pursuant to the payment bond and Hanover moves to dismiss the suit because Thor hadn’t been paid by the owner and therefore Hanover could take advantage of the pay if paid language. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Virtual Mediation – How Do I Make It Work for Me?

December 21, 2020 — Adrian L. Bastianelli, III & Jennifer Harris - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mediation took the construction industry by storm in the late 1980’s and has become a staple for resolving construction claims. Today, most construction contracts, including the ConsensusDocs, require mediation as a condition precedent to binding dispute resolution, whether it be arbitration or litigation. As a result, many construction executives have spent long hours sitting in conference rooms trying to reach resolution with their counterpart through mediation in order to avoid the alternative – costly arbitration or litigation that often produces an unsatisfactory result. While many businesses have foreclosed the possibility of meeting in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the contractual requirements for mediation remain. Thus, in most cases, in-person or live mediation is no longer an option; however, attorneys and mediators have developed a virtual process to replace the live process. With a new process comes many questions: Does the virtual process work? What are the best practices and pitfalls for virtual mediation? Will virtual mediation continue when COVID-19 fades away? How do I make virtual mediation work for me? The answers to these questions and more are discussed below. Reprinted courtesy of Adrian L. Bastianelli, III, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Jennifer Harris, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Bastianelli may be contacted at abastianelli@pecklaw.com Ms. Harris may be contacted at jharris@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes

November 04, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
The Federal Miller Act is a great tool that subcontractors and suppliers on Federal projects can use for collection of wrongfully withheld amounts due. However, as a recent federal case from the Eastern District of Virginia points out, the construction contract’s terms affect when a subcontractor or supplier can use this great collection tool and how much it can recover. In Aarow v Travelers the Court looked at the interaction between a typical termination clause, a “pay when paid” clause, and the Miller Act. The key facts are these. The general contractor on the project at issue, Syska, did not get paid some disputed amounts by the owner and subsequently did not pay Aarow, the plaintiff and a subcontractor on the project. Aarow then refused to continue work and was terminated by Syska who then took over the completion of the work. Aarow sued, seeking damages for the value of its work prior to the termination. Travellers, the surety defended stating that, if Aarow was properly terminated for cause by Syska, then Aarow was not entitled to payment under the contract until such time as the work was completed and accepted by the owner. The termination clauses are set out in the linked opinion. The Court agreed with Travelers, stating that the pay when paid clause created a situation whereby Aarow could not stop work merely because of a non-payment by Syska attributed to non-payment by the owner. The Court was clear in stating that the Miller Act trumps “pay when paid” in instances where the only cause for non-payment is non-payment by an owner. The Court then reasoned that it is the interaction between the termination and “pay when paid” provisions, and not the “pay when paid” clause itself, that exonerated Travelers because it created the default by Aarow due to its refusal to continue work. In short, Aarow was properly terminated for cause because it left the job without justification and therefore Travelers was not liable. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES