Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

NLRB Broadens the Joint Employer Standard

September 17, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Perhaps in anticipation of Labor Day, the National Labor Relations Board issued its ruling in Browning-Ferris Indus. of Cal. d/b/a BFI Newby Island Recyclery, establishing an easier standard for unions to prove that a joint employer relationship exists. This will make it easier for unions to make the upstream company, like a parent company, liable for unfair labor practices, even if the upstream company had no direct involvement. Some Background BFI runs a recycling plant and contracts with Leadpoint to provide workers to sort garbage in the recycling plant. The staffing agreement specifically stated that Leadpoint was the sole employer of the personnel it supplied and Leadpoint handled supervision of the employees, not BFI. Leadpoint’s employees sought to unionize and an election was held. The union filed a petition seeking a determination that Leadpoint and BFI were a joint employers. 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

Request for Stay Denied in Dispute Over Coverage for Volcano Damage

August 10, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Although there were concurrent state and federal proceedings regarding the insureds' claims for damage caused by Kilauea Volcano, the federal district court refused to dismiss or stay the federal action. Aqulina v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's Syndicate #2003, 2020 U.S. District Ct. LEXIS 101832 (D. Haw. June 10, 2020). Plaintiffs held homeowner's policies from Lloyd's that were brokered and underwritten by various defendants. Coverage from the May 2018 eruption of Kilauea Volcano was denied based upon an exclusion precluding coverage for lava-related damage. Plaintiffs sued Lloyds and various brokers in federal court, alleging that defendants had engaged in a deceptive scheme to defraud plaintiffs and deprive them of meaningful coverage. Lawsuits were also filed in state court, with plaintiffs arguing their losses were covered by their policies and that defendants wrongfully relied solely on the lava exclusion to deny claims. 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

Contracts and Fraud Don’t Mix (Even for Lawyers!)

August 24, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In prior posts here at Construction Law Musings, I have discussed how fraud and contracts are often like oil and water. While there are exceptions, these exceptions are few and far between here in Virginia. The reason for the lack of a mix between these two types of claims is the so-called “source of duty” rule. The gist of this rule is that where the reason money is owed from one party to another (the source of the “duty to pay”) is based in the contract, Virginia courts will not allow a fraud claim. The rule was created so that all breaches of contract, claims that are at base a failure to fulfill a prior promise and could, therefore, be considered to be based on a prior “lie,” would not be expanded to turn into tort claims. This rule has been extended to claims that most average people (read, non-lawyers) would consider fraud because there was no intent to fulfill the contract at the time it was signed. Just so you don’t think that lawyers are exempt from this legal analysis, I point you to a recent case where a law firm sued a construction client of theirs for failure to pay legal fees. In EvansStarrett PLC v. Goode & Preferred General Contracting, the Fairfax County Circuit Court considered a motion by the Plaintiff law firm seeking to add a count of fraud to its breach of contract lawsuit. The Court considered the following facts. 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

Five Pointers for Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement in Texas

June 08, 2020 — Kristopher M. Stockberger - The Grindstone Lewis Brisbois' Labor & Employment Blog
1. The Devil’s in the Details Under Texas law, for a non-compete agreement to be enforceable, it must meet strict requirements as to timing, geography, and the type of conduct that it prohibits. While courts have enforced agreements for between one and two years, your situation could be subject to a shorter time period. If the geographical scope of the agreement is too broad or vague, that could render the agreement unenforceable. Also, the type of conduct prohibited by your agreement should be tied to the specifics of your business, because categorical barriers to other employment are often not enforced. If an employer knowingly instructs an employee to enter an overbroad non-compete agreement, the employer runs the risk of paying the employee’s attorneys’ fees. 2. Timing on the Front End If an employee has been with an employer for years and the employer suddenly decides to have her sign a non-compete without any other meaningful change in the employee’s role, then the agreement will probably not be enforceable, unless the employee receives “consideration.” In this context, consideration is something of value, other than money or benefits, which the law deems to warrant protection by a non-compete agreement. For example, allowing an employee to learn the secret formula to Coca-Cola or to gain access to an employer’s confidential financials constitutes legally sufficient consideration given to an employee in exchange for the employee’s promises in a non-compete agreement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kristopher M. Stockberger, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Stockberger may be contacted at Kris.Stockberger@lewisbrisbois.com

Florida Appellate Court Holds Four-Year Statute of Limitations Applicable Irrespective of Contractor Licensure

June 22, 2016 — Clay Whittaker – Florida Construction Law Update
In Brock v. Garner Window & Door Sales, Inc.,[1] Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal rejected a novel attempt to circumvent Florida’s well-established four-year statute of limitations for all actions founded on the construction of an improvement to real property. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract as a result of water intrusion damage following the installation of windows.[2] It was undisputed that Plaintiff commenced the litigation more than four years following the discovery of the allegedly latent defect in the window installation.[3] Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the window contractor could not rely on the four-year statute of limitations because the window subcontractor was not a licensed contractor and, therefore, the five-year statute of limitations for actions founded on written contracts should apply. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Clay Whittaker, Cole, Scott, & Kissane, P.A.
Mr. Whittaker may be contacted at clay.whittaker@csklegal.com

North Carolina Court Rules In Favor Of All Sums

July 13, 2020 — Lorelie S. Masters & Patrick M. McDermott - Hunton Andrews Kurth
A North Carolina court recently ruled in favor of all sums allocation. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC v. AG Insurance SA/NV, No. 17 CVS 5594 (N.C. Sup. Ct.). In that case, Duke Energy is seeking coverage for “liabilities linked to coal combustion residuals (‘CCRs’), i.e., coal ash, at fifteen Duke-owned power plants in North and South Carolina.” In a recent summary judgment decision, the court resolved a dispute between Duke and TIG Insurance Company, as successor to Ranger Insurance Company, about whether all sums allocation or pro rata allocation applied. The court found that “the non-cumulation provisions make plain” that all sums allocation applied. It also noted that “a large majority of the courts in other jurisdictions that have considered this issue have recognized that non-cumulation provisions such as those here compel all sums rather than pro rata allocation.” The decisions to the contrary, according to the court, had ruled “done so on public policy grounds” and not based on “the application of the rules of contract interpretation.” Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Drones Used Despite Uncertain Legal Consequences

March 12, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Francis Manchisi of Wilson Elser discussed how several industries—including construction—are using unmanned aircraft systems or unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly referred to as drones, and are either exploiting legal loopholes or ignoring laws altogether. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has recently released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which is now in a 60-day “notice and comment” period that is open to the public. Once that period ends, the FAA will consider the comments before putting the rules into law. According to Manchisi, the proposed rules include:

Unmanned aircraft must weigh less than 55 lbs. (25 kg).
Unmanned aircraft must remain within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the operator or visual observer.
Maximum altitude is 500 feet above ground level.
Preflight inspection by the operator is required.
Operators are required to obtain an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a sUAS rating from the FAA.

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

Judgment for Insurer Reversed Due to Failure to Establish Depreciation

August 01, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The trial court erred in placing the burden on the policyholder to establish depreciation in determining the actual cash value of the loss. SFR Serv., LLC v. Tower Hill Prime Ins. Co., 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 3570 (Fla. Ct. App. May 26, 2023). The insureds' roof was damaged by Hurricane Irma. They submitted their claim to their insurer, Tower Hill. The cost of repair was assessed at $7,726.94, below the amount of the deductible. Therefore, there was no recovery under the policy. The insureds assigned their claim to SFR Services, LLC, their roofing contractor. SFR submitted a claim to Tower Hill for $162,083.84. Tower Hill refused to pay and SFR sued. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES