FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Home-Rentals Wall Street Made Say Grow or Go: Real Estate

July 23, 2014 — Heather Perlberg and John Gittelsohn – Bloomberg
Alexander Philips joined the rush to buy foreclosed U.S. homes four years ago, spending $40 million on houses in California and Nevada to operate as rentals. Now his firm, Twinrock Partners LLC, is getting ready to sell. “We didn’t want to be the last one standing when the music stopped,” Philips, 38, said in a telephone interview. “We view this as a trade, not as a business.” The U.S. home-rental industry, transformed over the past two years by Wall Street-backed companies that were built on the rubble of the housing crash, is poised to be reshaped again as landlords like Philips get out. Corporate owners with limited capital or deadlines to repay investors are now selling houses in bulk, or one by one, after a 26 percent surge in prices from a March 2012 low. For bigger firms, swallowing smaller competitors is among the best opportunities for growth as they shift their focus to managing scattered properties. Ms. Perlberg may be contacted at hperlberg@bloomberg.net; Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heather Perlberg and John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg

---

California’s Right to Repair Act not an Exclusive Remedy

August 20, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Karen L. Moore of Low, Ball & Lynch in JD Supra Business Advisor analyzed “two decisions holding that California’s Right to Repair Act ('SB 800') is not the exclusive remedy for a homeowner seeking damages for construction defects that have also resulted in property damage.” If property damage occurs due to construction defects, a homeowner “may also pursue common law tort causes of action.” After providing a brief background of California’s SB 800 and Aas v. Superior Court (which precluded the Right to Repair Act), Moore discussed the results of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Broofield Crystal Cove, LLC, followed by a review of Burch v. Superior Court. Moore commented that “[t]hese two cases will likely be used by homeowners to avoid application of the Right to Repair Act’s pre-litigation procedures.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insurer’s Discovery Requests Ruled to be Overbroad in Construction Defect Suit

October 28, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The US District Court has ruled in the case of D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co. Inc. v. American Safety Indemnity, Co. D.R. Horton was involved in a real estate development project. Its subcontractor, Ebensteiner Co., was insured by ASIC and named D.R. Horton as an additional insured and third-party beneficiary. D.R. Horton, in response to legal complaints and cross-complaints, filed for coverage from ASIC under the Ebensteiner policy. This was refused by ASIC. ASIC claimed that “there is no potential coverage for Ebensteiner as a Named Insurer and/or D.R. Horton as an Additional Insured.” They stated that “the requirements for coverage are not satisfied.”

The case same to trial with the deadline for discovery set at March 1, 2011. ASIC stated they were seeking the developer’s “job file” for the Canyon Gate project. D.R. Horton claimed that ASIC’s discovery request was overbroad and that it would be “unduly burdensome for it to produce all documents responsive to the overbroad requests.”

D.R. Horton did agree to produce several categories of documents, which included:

“(1) final building inspection sign-offs for the homes that are the subject of the underlying litigation;(2) an updated homeowner matrix for the underlying actions; (3) the concrete subcontractor files; (4) the daily field logs for D.R. Horton’s on-site employee during Ebensteiner’s work; (5) documents relating to concrete work, including documents for concrete suppliers; (6) documents relating to compacting testing; (7) documents relating to grading; and (8) D.R. Horton’s request for proposal for grading”

The court found that the requests from ASIC were overbroad, noting that the language of the ASIC Request for Production of Documents (RFP) 3-5 would include “subcontractor files for plumbing, electric, flooring, etc. - none of these being at issue in the case.” The court denied the ASIC’s motion to compel further documents.

The court also found fault with ASIC’s RFPs 6 and 7. Here, D.R. Horton claimed the language was written so broadly it would require the production of sales information and, again, subcontractors not relevant to the case.

Further, the court found that RFPs 8, 10, 11, and 13 were also overbroad. RFP 8 covered all subcontractors. D.R. Horton replied that they had earlier complied with the documents covered in RFPs 10 and 11. The court concurred. RFP 13 was denied as it went beyond the scope of admissible evidence, even including attorney-client communication.

The court denied all of ASIC’s attempts to compel further discovery.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

EEOC Suit Alleges Site Managers Bullied Black Workers on NY Project

June 15, 2020 — Emell D. Adolphus - Engineering News-Record
Bullying, threats and racial slurs detail alleged “hostile” working conditions for black employees at a now complete cement plant modernization project near Albany, N.Y., in a lawsuit filed June 2 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against CCC Group Inc., a San Antonio, Texas-based general contractor. Emell D. Adolphus, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Condo Owners Suing Bank for Failing to Disclose Defects

January 17, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Option Owners Association Inc., Condo Owners in Lincoln, Nebraska, filed suit against Security First Bank, “alleging the bank failed to disclose ‘hidden defects,’” reported the Lincoln Journal Star. Alleged defects include defective siding, improperly installed siding, and defective flashing. The condo owners are seeking at least $644,000 which they claim is the “fair market value of the repairs needed to fix the alleged construction defects.” When the Lincoln Journal Star asked Jim Wefso, general counsel for Security First Bank, to comment, he stated, “The bank doesn't feel it has any liability in the case.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

When OSHA Cites You

April 22, 2024 — Michael Metz-Topodas - Construction Executive
With the strong bonds that form among construction project teams, workers looking out for each other helps keep safety foremost in everyone’s mind. But sometimes, even the very best intentions alone can’t prevent an occasional misstep—a forgotten hard hat, a sagging rope line—which can and often does result in an OSHA citation. These regulatory reminders can bring unfortunate consequences: penalties, higher insurance premiums, potential worker injury claims, loss of bidding eligibility, loss of reputation and even public embarrassment, because citations are published on OSHA’s website. Due to citations’ adverse effects, contractors have incentives to minimize them. They can do this by asserting available defenses, because a citation is only an alleged violation, not a confirmed one. But making defenses available begins well before a citation is issued, well before OSHA arrives to a construction site and well before a violation even occurs. Instead, contractors’ ongoing safety programs should incorporate the necessary measures to preserve OSHA citation defenses in three key areas: lack of employee exposure, lack of employer knowledge and impossibility. EMPLOYEE EXPOSURE To sustain a citation against an employer, OSHA must not only identify an applicable standard that the company violated but also show that the violation exposed employees to hazards and risk of injury. Absent evidence of actual exposure, OSHA often makes this showing by asserting that performing job functions necessarily exposes employees to the cited hazard. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Metz-Topodas, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Metz-Topodas may be contacted at michael.metz-topodas@saul.com

---

Court Rules that Collapse Coverage for Damage Caused “Only By” Specified Perils Violates Efficient Proximate Cause Rule and is Unenforceable

January 26, 2016 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Vardanyan v. Amco Ins. Co. (No. F069953, filed 12/11/15) a California appeals court held that policy wording that the collapse coverage for damage “caused only by” certain specified perils did not mean “solely” by those specified perils, but that coverage may nonetheless apply even if excluded causes contributed to the loss, under the Insurance Code section 530 and the efficient proximate cause rule. In Vardanyan, the insured made a claim for water damage from unknown origin to a rental house. An engineer concluded that the various sources of moisture—roof leaks, gutters and downspouts that did not channel the water away from the house, a faucet spraying water on the exterior of the house, leaking toilet and bathtub, and humidity—contributed to the damage to the house, along with poor construction, termite damage and decay. The insurer denied coverage citing multiple policy exclusions, including damage caused by seepage or leakage of water from a plumbing system; deterioration; mold, wet or dry rot; settling of foundations, walls or floors; earth movement; water damage; neglect; weather conditions; acts or decisions of any person; and faulty or defective design, workmanship, repair, construction, or maintenance. The insured retained a public adjuster who disagreed, in particular citing the policy’s “Other Coverage 9” coverage for collapse of a building or part of a building “caused only by one or more” of a list of perils, including hidden decay, hidden insect damage, and weight of contents, equipment, or people. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Rhode Island Closes One Bridge and May Have Burned Others with Ensuing Lawsuit

October 07, 2024 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
The state of Rhode Island recently filed a lawsuit against 13 companies that provided design, construction, and inspection services over the past ten years (the extent allowed by the applicable statute of limitations) to the Washington Bridge, which carries I-195 between East Providence and Providence. The bridge was abruptly closed in December 2023 following the discovery of alleged fractured steel tie-downs critical to the bridge’s stability and additional deterioration in cantilever beams throughout the bridge. Before the closure, approximately 90,000 vehicles per day traveled over the bridge. The complaint alleges that the defendants, the majority of which are experienced, industry-leading firms in their respective fields, were negligent and breached their respective contracts with the State. The State contends that every company that worked on the bridge over the past ten years missed the serious structural conditions alleged. The lawsuit also claims that the State has suffered millions of dollars of damages since the bridge was closed and seeks indemnity and contribution from all defendants to the extent that the State may be liable to third parties in the future. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP

---