Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

California Supreme Court Declines Request to Expand Exceptions to Privette Doctrine for Known Hazards

January 17, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
First things first. Happy New Year! Hope you had a good one. To start things off in the new year we’ve got an employment-related case for you – Gonzalez v. Mathis, 12 Cal.5th 29 (2021) – a California Supreme Court case involving the Privette Doctrine. For those not familiar with the Privette Doctrine, the Privette Doctrine is named after the case Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689 (1993), which held that project owners and higher-tiered contractors are not liable for workplace injuries sustained by employees of lower-tiered contractors. Since then, courts have carved out a few exceptions to the Privette Doctrine including the “retained control exception” (also known as the Hooker exception – that’s the name of the case not the occupation of the injured worker) whereby a “hirer,” that is, the higher-tiered party who hired the lower-tiered party whose employee is injured, can be held liable if the hirer: (1) retains control over any part of the lower-tiered party’s work; and (2) negligently exercises that control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the worker’s injury. Another exception is the “concealed hazard exception” (also known as the Kinsman exception) whereby a hirer can be held liable if: (1) the hirer knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard on the property that the lower-tiered contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered; and (2) the hirer railed to warn the lower-tiered contractor of that hazard. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

When Employer’s Liability Coverage May Be Limited in New York

June 28, 2021 — Robert S. Nobel & Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
New York recognizes that coverage under Workers’ Compensation (“WC”) and Employer’s Liability (“EL”) policies is generally unlimited. See Tully Const. Co. v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., 131 A.D.3d 598 (2d Dept. 2015); Oneida Ltd. v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 263 A.D.2d 825, 694 N.Y.S.2d 221 (3d Dept. 1999). However, there is case holding that EL coverage may be limited in certain instances, such as when the primary EL carrier is listed as scheduled underlying insurance on an excess policy. In Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of State of Pennsylvania, 43 A.D.3d 666, 841 N.Y.S.2d 288 (1st Dept. 2007), an employee of General Industrial Service Corporation (“General”), a subcontractor on a construction project, sought to recover under New York’s Labor Law against the project’s owner and construction manager. Those defendants, in turn, brought a third-party action for indemnification against General. The employee’s personal injury claim was ultimately settled for $2.5 million. After the settlement, the excess insurer, Liberty, filed suit against the primary employer’s liability insurers, The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and American International Group of Companies (collectively, “AIG”), which had refused to participate in the defense or settlement of the underlying personal injury litigation. Although the issue of whether the plaintiff in the underling action had sustained a “grave injury” (necessary to support the common law indemnity claim against General and trigger coverage under the Employer’s Lability policy) had not yet been determined, the court held that “[i]n the event the existence of a grave injury is proven, AIG’s liability will be limited to $1 million.” Reprinted courtesy of Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman and Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman Mr. Nobel may be contacted at rnobel@tlsslaw.com Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

In Louisiana, Native Americans Struggle to Recover From Ida

August 07, 2022 — The Associated Press (Rebecca Santana) - Bloomberg
Along Bayou Pointe-Au-Chien, La. (AP) -- Driving through her village along a southeastern Louisiana bayou, tribal official Cherie Matherne points out the remnants of house after house — including her own — wrecked nine months ago when Hurricane Ida roared through the Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe community. Beige trailers from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and travel campers sit next to pilings that elevated homes 14 feet (4.3 meters) off the ground to protect them from flooding. But it was the wind that got them this time. For hours, the Category 4 hurricane tore off roofs and siding, ripped out insulation and scattered treasured belongings. It destroyed shrimp boats and tossed crab traps. “It’s going to take years before people can get back to their lives. The majority of people are still at a standstill,” said Matherne, the tribe’s cultural heritage and resiliency coordinator. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

Montana Federal District Court Finds for Insurer in Pollution Coverage Dispute

October 24, 2021 — Melanie A. McDonald - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Applying Louisiana law, a recent federal court decision exemplifies why policyholders should thoroughly read claims-made policies to understand when notice is due to insurers and truthfully complete policy applications. In Admiral Insurance Company v. Dual Trucking, Inc.,1 the Court determined the insurer, Admiral Insurance Company (“AIC”), owed no duty to defend or indemnify Dual Trucking and Transport, LLC (“DTT”), Dual Trucking of Montana, LLC (“DTM”), and Dual Trucking, Inc. (“DTI”) (collectively, the “Dual Entities”) under two Environmental Impairment Liability Policies (“EIL Policies”) and four Contractor Pollution Liability Policies (“CPL Policies”). The Court justified its decision because the Dual Entities: 1) did not give notice during the 2012-2013 EIL Policy period; 2) had discovered or knew of, but did not disclose, potential pollution conditions before the inception of the 2013-2014 EIL Policy and before the expiration of the extended reporting period of the 2012-2013 EIL Policy; 3) failed to provide AIC with notice during the extended reporting period of the 2013-2014 EIL Policy of claims for which the Dual Entities were seeking coverage; and 4) materially misrepresented known facts on the CPL Policy applications. I. Factual Background. The Dual Entities were Louisiana-based companies that provided oilfield equipment rental services. In 2011, the Dual Entities leased land in Montana under three leases, collectively referred to as “the Bainville site.” Shortly afterward, the Dual Entities applied for, and AIC issued, an EIL Policy and two CPL Policies with a policy period of October 1, 2012, to October 1, 2013. AIC renewed all three policies for the October 1, 2013, to October 1, 2014, policy period. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melanie A. McDonald, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. McDonald may be contacted at MMcDonald@sdvlaw.com

Colorado SB 15-177 UPDATE: Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee Refers Construction Defect Reform Bill to Full Senate

April 01, 2015 — Derek J. Lindenschmidt – Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
On March 18th, following a lengthy hearing with testimony and questioning for and against Senate Bill 15-177, the Senate Business, Labor & Technology Committee voted 6 to 2 to refer the bill, with new amendments, to the full Senate. While the main points of the bill remain strongly intact (check here for Senate Bill 177’s particulars), bill sponsors Senators Scheffler and Ulibarri offered four amendments, designed to bring additional compromise and clarity to the bill. The committee ultimately adopted these amendments, described below. Amendment 16 removed a prior prohibition in the bill that would have prevented attorneys from assisting in the preparation of the notice required to be provided to all homeowners before the commencement of a construction defect claim. Amendment 19 complemented 16 by providing further clarification regarding the contents and specificities required in said notice, including a disclosure of projected attorneys’ fees, costs, duration, and financial impact of pursuing construction defect claims. Amendment 17 permitted homeowners to approve the pursuit of construction defect claims through written consent. Lastly, Amendment 18 provided clarification regarding the bill’s requirement that mediators and arbitrators be selected and approved through mutual agreement of the parties. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Derek J. Lindenschmidt, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Lindenschmidt may be contacted at lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com

Growing Optimism Among Home Builders

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
For the first time since 2006, the number of home builders who are optimistic about home sales exceed those who are pessimistic, with 52 percent optimistic. Just last month, the builder confidence index was at 44. This eight-point jump was the largest change in more than a decade. Their confidence has increased as economists and others have been seeing signs of an improved economy. There has been an increase in demand for new homes and even though sales are below what economists would like, homebuilders are finding buyers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

One Way Arbitration Provisions are Enforceable in Virginia

October 07, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Here at Construction Law Musings, I’ve discussed arbitration clauses (pros and cons) as well as the fact that in our fair Commonwealth, contracts are enforced as written (for better or worse). A case out of the Eastern District of Virginia takes both of these observations and uses them to make it’s decision. In United States ex rel. Harbor Constr. Co. v. T.H.R. Enters., the Newport News Division of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court considered the following provision and it’s enforceability:

At CONTRACTOR’s sole election, any and all disputes arising in any way or related in any way or manner to this Agreement may be decided by mediation, arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution proceedings as chosen by CONTRACTOR…. The remedy shall be SUBCONTRACTOR’s sole and exclusive remedy in lieu of any claim against CONTRACTOR’s bonding company pursuant to the terms of any bond or any other procedure or law, regardless of the outcome of the claim. The parties further agree that all disputes under this Subcontract shall be determined and interpreted pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia….

This provision was the crux of the argument made by T. H. R., the Defendant, in making a motion to dismiss or stay the lawsuit for payment filed by Harbor Construction. As background, Harbor Construction contracted with T. H. R. to perform work at Langley Air Force Base. Alleging non-payment of approximately $250,000.00, Harbor filed a complaint with three counts, one under the Federal Miller Act, one for breach of contract, and a third for unjust enrichment. 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

Deck Collapse Raises Questions about Building Defects

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Inquisitor reports that twenty-one people were injured when a deck collapsed at a rental apartment in Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina. Most of the injuries were not serious. The mayor of Ocean Isle Beach attributed the problem to more people crowding onto it than it was designed for. “I do not think the N.C. building code anticipates 20 to 30 to people in a small deck at one time,” she said. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES