FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Stadium Intended for the 2010 World Cup Still Not Ready

June 18, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Four years after the HM Pitje Stadium in Pretoria, South Africa was expected to open, the stadium, which was meant to be used during the 2010 World Cup, remains closed. IOL News reported that upgrades began in 2006, “[b]ut since then there have been delays and problems with construction which may see the stands having to be rebuilt.” One of the defects that prevented the stadium from being used for the World Cup was that the slope of the main pavilion was too steep. City of Tshwane spokesman Selby Bokaba told IOL News: “Upgrading of the stadium will take approximately two calendar years, with the completion date reliant on the approval and budget availability.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Area Variance Standard; Property Owners May Obtain an Area Variance When Special Circumstances Existed at Purchase

October 19, 2017 — Nick Wood, Adam Lang, Noel Griemsmann, & Brianna Long – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In Pawn 1st v. City of Phoenix, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected a Court of Appeals rule that would have unduly restrained alienation of property in Arizona. The Court of Appeals found that the City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment acted beyond its authority when it granted an area variance to a pawn shop where the special circumstances causing a need for the variance existed before the pawn shop purchased the property. Under Arizona law, boards of adjustment cannot grant an area variance where the special circumstances requiring the variance are self-imposed. The Court of Appeals adopted a rule that knowledge of special circumstances at the time of purchase made the special circumstances self-imposed, foreclosing the purchaser’s ability to obtain a variance. This rule would have severely restricted property purchasers’ ability to obtain area variances in Arizona and by extension likely strained property transactions. The underlying case involved a pawn shop that was proposed in southeast Phoenix. After the property purchaser obtained approval for a required use permit (for a pawn shop) and a variance (for a 500 foot residential setback) from the City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment, a competing pawn shop filed a special action arguing that the variance was a use variance, not an area variance, beyond the board of adjustment’s authority. Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer attorneys Nick Wood, Adam Lang, Noel Griemsmann and Brianna Long Mr. Wood may be contacted at nwood@swlaw.com Mr. Lang may be contacted at alang@swlaw.com Mr. Noel may be contacted at ngriemsmann@swlaw.com Ms. Brianna may be contacted at bllong@swlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases

September 01, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Mississippi Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Harry Baker Smith Architects II, PLLC v. Sea Breeze I, LLC. Sea Breeze contracted with Harry Baker Smith Architects II, PLLC (HBSA) to design a condominium complex, which would be built by Roy Anderson Corporation. All parties agreed to arbitration.

Subsequently, Sea Breeze alleged defects and sought arbitration against the architectural firm and started a separate arbitration proceeding against the contractor. The special arbitrator appointed by the American Arbitrators Association determined that it would be proper to consolidate the two actions “since they arose from a common question of fact or law.” HBSA filed in chancery court seeking injunctive relief and a reversal of the decision. Sea Breeze and Roy Anderson filed a motion to compel the consolidated arbitration.

The court noted that the special arbitrator “established that the contract between Sea Breeze and Roy Anderson expressly allowed for consolidation of the two cases.” Further, the arbitrator “concluded that HBSA expressly agreed to consolidation by written consent through its 2008 letter, through which it insisted upon Roy Anderson’s involvement ‘in any mediation and/or arbitration.’”

The court concluded that the chancery court “did not have the power to fulfill HBSA’s request.” The court affirmed the chancery court’s judgment.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

WARN Act Exceptions in Response to COVID-19

April 13, 2020 — Yvette Davis & Kyle R. DiNicola - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
California’s WARN Act requires employers of certain covered establishments to provide 60 days written notice of any mass layoff, relocation, or termination. This notice is required to be given to employees and the Employment Development Department. An employer’s failure to comply with this requirement can result in being held liable for back-pay and value of the cost of any benefits to which the affected employee(s) may have been entitled for up to a maximum of 60 days. Due to the COVID-19 crisis and emergency circumstances in which many employers now find themselves, the Governor of California has issued Executive Order N-31-20, which temporarily suspends the 60-days advance notice requirement and the provisions that impose liability and penalties on an employer for the duration of the COVID-19 emergency. Reprinted courtesy of Yvette Davis, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Kyle R. DiNicola, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com Mr. DiNicola may be contacted at kdinicola@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

BWB&O Attorneys are Selected to 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

July 22, 2024 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
BWB&O is proud to announce Senior Family Law Associate Pamchal Deylami, Newport Beach Partner Kyle Riddles, Newport Beach Partner Courtney Serrato, Newport Beach Associate Kevin Moore, Woodland Hills Associate Brian Taylor have been selected to the 2024 Southern California Super Lawyers list as Rising Stars for their work in Family Law, Civil Litigation, Business Litigation, and Personal Injury.

SELECTED AS RISING STARS Pamchal Deylami: 2020-2024 Kyle Riddles: 2024 Courtney Serrato: 2023-2024 Kevin Moore: 2021-2024 Brian Taylor: 2023-2024

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Delays Caused When Government (Owner) Pushes Contractor’s Work Into Rainy / Adverse Weather Season

January 13, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There are a number of horizontal construction projects where a contractor’s sequence of work and schedule is predicated on avoiding the rainy season (or certain force majeure events). The reason is that the rainy season will result in delays due to the inability to work (and work efficiently) during the adverse weather (including flooding caused by the weather). If the work is pushed into the rainy season, is such delay compensable if the government (or owner) delayed the project that pushed work out into the rainy season? It very well can be. For example, in Meridian Engineering Co. v. U.S., 2019 WL 4594233 (Fed. Cl. 2019), a contractor was hired by the Army Corps of Engineers to construct a flood control project for a channel in Arizona. Due to delays, including those caused by the government, the project was pushed into the monsoon season, which caused additional delays largely due to flooding caused by the heavy rain. One issue was whether such delays were compensable to the contractor – the government raised the argument that the contractor assumed the risk of potential flooding from the rainy season. The Court found this argument unconvincing:

[The contractor’s] initial construction schedule planned for a completion of the channel invert work, a necessary step in protecting the site from flooding, to be completed by late June 2008…[M]any issues arose in the project’s early stages that led to cumulative substantial delay, including those caused by the government’s failure….The government cannot now claim that [the contractor] assumed the risk of flooding from monsoon season when the government was largely responsible for [the contractor’s] inability to complete the project prior to the beginning of the monsoon season. Simply put, the government cannot escape liability for flood damages when the government is responsible for causing the contractor to be working during the flood-prone season. Meridian Engineering, 2019 WL at *7 (internal citations omitted)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Insurance Policy Language Really Does Matter

August 19, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
The debate continues on whether a subcontractor’s faulty work constitutes property damage and an occurrence such that the insurer must cover the claim. The most recent court to weigh in on this issue is the New Jersey appellate court (one step down from the New Jersey Supreme Court) in Cypress Point Condominium Association, Inc. v. Adria Towers, LLC. In this case, the condominium association sued the general contractor, who also acted as the developer, and subcontractors for faulty workmanship. The condominium association also sued the insurer for the general contractor, demanding payment of consequential damages caused by a subcontractor’s faulty work. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer, holding that the subcontractor’s faulty work was not property damage and thus not an occurrence under the Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance policy, so no coverage. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision, finding that the claims for consequential damages caused by faulty workmanship constituted property damage and an occurrence as defined in the policy. This was a shift from earlier opinions in New Jersey. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---

Limitations on the Ability to Withdraw and De-Annex Property from a Common Interest Community

October 10, 2013 — Derek Lindenschmidt — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
On February 28, 2013, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion with regard to the ability of an owner (and in this case, a real estate investment owner) to withdraw and de-annex lots from a common interest community. Specifically, in Vista Ridge Homeowners Ass’n., Inc. v. Arcadia Holdings at Vista Ridge, LLC, 300 P.3d 1004 (Colo. App. 2013), the Court denied Arcadia’s appeal of a lower Colorado District Court ruling which invalidated Arcadia’s attempt to withdraw and de-annex 70 single-family lots which it owned from the 94-lot Vista Ridge Filing No. 9. The applicable Declaration reserved the right to withdraw or de-annex any portion of the community in accordance with the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA), and further limited such right to the extent that “no portion of the Property may be withdrawn or de-annexed after a Lot or Unit in that portion of the Property has been conveyed to an Owner other than a Declarant or a Builder.” The decision ultimately turned on the meaning of a “portion” of the property, as intended by CCIOA, and as applied to the specific language in the Vista Ridge Declaration. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lindenschmidt
Derek Lindenschmidt can be contacted at lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com

---