FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Former Mayor Arrested for Violating Stop Work Order

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The former mayor of Springfield, Florida has been arrested on charges of insurance fraud. More than a year ago, an investigator for the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation found that an employee of Walker’s construction company was working without workers’ compensation and issued a stop work order. Walker’s employees continued work. The charges were delayed because Walker challenged the stop work order. Once it was determined that the stop work order was issued properly, Walker was charged with a third-degree felony. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Traub Lieberman Partner Michael Logan and Associate Christian Romaguera Obtain Voluntary Dismissal in Favor of Construction Company Under the Vertical Immunity Doctrine

June 21, 2024 — Christian Romaguera - Traub Lieberman
In a lawsuit filed in Orange County, Traub Lieberman Partner Michael Logan and Associate Christian Romaguera achieved a voluntary dismissal in favor of their Client, a construction company. The Plaintiff claimed that he was seriously and permanently injured, and demanded $1,000,000.00. The Plaintiff turned out to be an employee of our Client’s subcontractor, and the Plaintiff received worker’s compensation benefits from his employer, the subcontractor. Under Florida Statute § 440.11(1), “The liability of an employer . . . shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability, including vicarious liability, of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee . . .” When a subcontractor provides workers’ compensation benefits to its injured employee, workers’ compensation immunity would not only apply to the subcontractor but to the general contractor as well. This is also known as “vertical immunity.” The Traub Lieberman team filed a detailed motion and memorandum of law to argue its case, and the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the claim against the Client just before that motion was set to be argued before the Judge. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christian Romaguera, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Romaguera may be contacted at cromaguera@tlsslaw.com

---

New Jersey School Blames Leaks on Construction Defects, May Sue

January 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Carlstadt Board of Education recently commissioned a investigation into the water leaks at Carlstadt Public School. The report has not been released in full, but redacted board minutes make reference to "a lack of waterproofing, drainage and clogged or buried weep holes." The investigation is ongoing and the board's business administrator, Pamela Baxley, states that its "ability to recover damages in potential litigation may be impacted should this information be released prior to the conclusion of their investigation." The building in question opened in April 2007, and the leaking began that October. The contractor has fixed leaks, but further leaks have occurred. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

HOA Has No Claim to Extend Statute of Limitations in Construction Defect Case

October 28, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals ruled on September 20, 2011 in the case of Arundel Homeowners Association v. Arundel Green Partners, a construction defect case involving a condominium conversion in San Francisco. Eight years after the Notice of Completion was filed, the homeowners association filed a lawsuit alleging a number of construction defects, including “defective cabinets, waterproofing membranes, wall-cladding, plumbing, electrical wiring, roofing (including slope, drainage and flashings), fire-rated ceilings, and chimney flues.” Three years of settlement negotiations followed.

Negotiations ended in the eleventh year with the homeowners association filing a lawsuit. Arundel Green argued that the suit should be thrown out as California’s ten-year statute of limitations had passed. The court granted judgment to Arundel Green.

The homeowners then filed for a new trial and to amend its complaint, arguing that the statute of limitations should not apply due to the doctrine of equitable estoppel as Arundel Green’s actions had lead them to believe the issues could be solved without a lawsuit. “The HOA claimed that it was not until after the statute of limitations ran that the HOA realized Arundel Green would not keep its promises; and after this realization, the HOA promptly brought its lawsuit.” The trial court denied the homeowners association’s motions, which the homeowners association appealed.

In reviewing the case, the Appeals Court compared Arundel to an earlier California Supreme Court case, Lantzy. (The homeowners also cited Lantzy as the basis of their appeal.) In Lantzy, the California Supreme Court set up a four-part test as to whether estoppel could be applied. The court applied these tests and found, as was the case in Lantzy, that there were no grounds for estoppel.

In Arundel, the court noted that “there are simply no allegations that Arundel Green made any affirmative statement or promise that would lull the HOA into a reasonable belief that its claims would be resolved without filing a lawsuit.” The court also cited Lesko v. Superior Court which included a recommendation that the plaintiffs “send a stipulation?Ķextending time.” This did not happen and the court upheld the dismissal.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Ohio Condo Development Case Filed in 2011 is Scheduled for Trial

April 09, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In a recent hearing regarding the Cleveland, Ohio case Stonebridge Towers Homeowners v K&D Group, Judge John O’Donnell scheduled a trial for May 28th. Lead attorney for the homeowners stated that they would settle for “ten million and change,” according to The Plain Dealer. However, an attorney for K&D Group retorted that “the damaged condos could be fixed for much less money.” “The lawsuit claims negligent design, poor construction and multiple defects resulted from fraud and bribe-paying by the developers,” reported Plain Dealer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Couple Gets $79,000 on $10 Million Construction Defect Claim

September 24, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A Florida couple who sought more than $10 million in damages in a construction defect suit, has received a jury verdict of only $79,000. Leo and Kathryn Vecellio bought the 25,000 square-foot home in 2008, after which they discovered water intrusion issues. They sued both the builder and couple from whom they had bought the house. Although the Vecellios spent more than $11 million to repair their home, the jury concluded that the builder did not know about the construction defects. The jury did determine that the builder, Dan E. Swanson, did either lie about or conceal certain facts about the construction. He was ordered to pay the $79,000 in damages to the Vecellios. Lawyers for the defendants argued that the leaks were not from the original construction of the home, but were instead caused by the renovations made by the Vecellios. The Vecellios are pursuing whether they are entitled to money from home warranties. “There will be more evidence to be considered. I’m determined to see this through,” said Leo Vecellio. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Someone Who Hires an Independent Contractor May Still Be Liable, But Not in This Case

April 18, 2023 — Katherine Dempsey - The Subrogation Strategist
In Allstate Veh. & Prop. Ins. Co. v. Glitz Constr. Corp., 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1180, 2023 NY Slip Op 01171, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department (Appellate Court), considered whether a contractor could be found liable for its subcontractor’s alleged negligence in causing injury to a homeowner’s property. The homeowner’s insurer, as subrogee of the homeowner, sought to recover damages from the contractor despite an allegation that the subcontractor – an independent contractor – caused the injury to the homeowner’s property. Finding that there was no evidence that any of the exceptions to the non-liability rule related to hiring independent contractors applied, the Appellate Court affirmed the lower court’s decision granting judgment in favor of the contractor. In this case, the homeowner hired the contractor (defendant) to convert her garage area into a bedroom and an office. The defendant later hired a subcontractor to perform the electrical rough-in work. At trial, the homeowner’s insurer (plaintiff) presented evidence that the subcontractor, who damaged an existing wire with a drill bit, caused an electrical failure that resulted in a fire. The defendant argued that it could not be held liable for the subcontractor’s alleged negligence because the subcontractor was an independent contractor and, on appeal, the Appellate Court agreed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Katherine Dempsey, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Dempsey may be contacted at dempseyk@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Additional Elements a Plaintiff Must Plead and Prove to Enforce Restrictive Covenant

April 19, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Florida Statute s. 542.335 is a statute that deals with restrictive covenants in contracts that impose a restraint on trade. It is an important statute to determine invalid restraints on trade that unreasonably or unfairly prevent competition. Any invalid restraint on trade is unenforceable. Restrictive covenants–or covenants in agreements that restrict you or prevent you from doing something–may unsuspectingly be included in contracts or the impact of the restrictive covenant may not be appreciated at the onset. A party seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant in a contract has the additional burden of PROVING the validity and reasonableness of the restrictive covenant:

Under section 542.335, three requirements must be satisfied for a restrictive covenant to be enforceable: (1) the restrictive covenant must be “set forth in a writing signed by the person against whom enforcement is sought”; (2) the party seeking to enforce the restrictive covenant “shall plead and prove the existence of one or more legitimate business interests justifying the restrictive covenant”; and (3) the party seeking to enforce the restrictive covenant “shall plead and prove that the contractually specified restraint is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest or interests justifying the restriction.”

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

---