Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

California Supreme Court Raises the Bar on Dangerous Conditions on Public Property Claims

February 16, 2016 — Roger Hughes – California Construction Law Blog
Earlier we wrote about the affirmative defense of “design immunity” which can be used by public entities to shield themselves from personal injury claims dangerous conditions on public property. Under the design immunity doctrine a public entity can avoid liability for dangerous conditions on public property if it can show: 1.A causal relationship between the plan or design and the accident; 2.Discretionary approval of the plan or design prior to construction; and 3.Substantial evidence supporting the reasonableness of the plan or design. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.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Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA), and further limited such right to the extent that “no portion of the Property may be withdrawn or de-annexed after a Lot or Unit in that portion of the Property has been conveyed to an Owner other than a Declarant or a Builder.”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

UK's Biggest Construction Show Bans 'Promo Girls'

February 28, 2018 — Debra K. Rubin - ENR
The UK Construction Week megashow, set to attract 35,000 attendees and more than 670 exhibitors October 9-11 in Birmingham, England, released a new "code of conduct" for exhibitors, banning the use of "promo girls" and stressing “equality, diversity and inclusion" in marketing, event organizers announced Feb. 12. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com

Short on Labor, Israeli Builders Seek to Vaccinate Palestinians

February 01, 2021 — Ivan Levingston & Fadwa Hodali - Bloomberg
Israeli builders want the government to vaccinate Palestinian construction workers to help rally a battered housing industry. While Israel is racing to inoculate its citizens, the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority has no vaccination program in place. Beyond being a critical health issue, the gap is also an economic problem because the Israeli construction sector relies heavily on Palestinian workers who’ve been cut off repeatedly from building sites due to lockdowns. Before the pandemic, about 65,000 Palestinians worked for Israeli contractors inside Israel, accounting for a third of their workforce. Closures and restrictions on both sides led to a 30% drop in housing starts despite rising demand. Reprinted courtesy of Ivan Levingston, Bloomberg and Fadwa Hodali, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer

December 20, 2012 — BRADY IANDIORIO, HIGGINS, HOPKINS, MCLAIN & ROSWELL
With the aftermath of Sandy still being felt up and down the Eastern seaboard, the question of many victims turns to how they can rebuild their lives and homes. One of the first things many people do is call on their insurance carriers to help rebuild whatever damaged property they have. In a recent case here in Colorado, those rebuilding efforts got reaffirmed by a Court of Appeals case, Kyle W. Larson Enterprises, Inc., Roofing Experts, d/b/a The Roofing Experts v. Allstate Insurance Company, --- P.3d ----, 2012 WL 4459112 (Colo. App. September 27, 2012). The facts of the case are pretty straightforward and could describe many repair vendors in numerous situations. Roofing Experts contracted with four homeowners insured by Allstate to repair their damaged roofs. The contracts provided that repair costs would be paid from insurance proceeds. The contracts also allowed Roofing Experts full authority to communicate with Allstate regarding all aspects of the insurance claims. Before work began, Roofing Experts met with adjusters from Allstate to discuss the four homes and the amount of each claim. After receiving approval for the claims, Roofing Experts began the repairs. During construction, Roofing Experts discovered additional repairs were necessary to maintain certain manufacturer’s warranties and to conform to applicable building codes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Iandorio can be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

TLSS Partner Burks Smith and Associate Katie Keller Win Summary Judgment on Late Reported Water Seepage Case in South Florida

November 18, 2019 — Burks A. Smith, III & Kathryn Keller - Traub Lieberman
On July 9, 2019, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP Partner, Burks A. Smith, III and Associate, Kathryn A. Keller, secured Summary Judgment on behalf of a major homeowners’ insurer in a breach of contract action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. See Lehrfield v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 2019 WL2994270 (S.D. Fla. 2019). The underlying claim involved a water loss at the Plaintiffs’ residence allegedly resulting in $91,147.32 worth of damage to their home. The claim was reported eight (8) months after the alleged date of loss, and during the inspection, the adjuster observed rot, decay, mold, and warping wood, prompting the carrier to deny the claim based on the Seepage Endorsement. The Plaintiffs filed a breach of contract action alleging that the insurer breached the Policy by denying the claim. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller argued that Plaintiffs’ Policy with the insurer imposes a duty on the Plaintiffs to comply with the Duties After Loss conditions of the Policy, including the requirement to provide prompt notice of the loss and show the damaged property. As mentioned above, the Plaintiffs provided notice of the claim eight (8) months late, and performed various repairs prior to notifying the insurer of the claim. After the close of discovery, Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the insurer based on the late reporting, and further argued that the Plaintiffs had the burden of proving direct physical loss to property within the first 13 days of the loss, given the recent decision of Hicks v. American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida, 241 So.3d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1018). In Florida, when an insured fails to comply with their Duties After Loss, a presumption of prejudice to the insurer arises. Bankers Ins. Co. v. Macias, 475 So. 2d 1216, 1218 (Fla. 1985)). In order to recover, the Plaintiffs bear the burden of overcoming the presumption, and must prove that no prejudice existed. Id. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller’s comprehensive arguments successfully proved to the Court that the Plaintiffs’ failure to timely report the claim prejudiced the insurer by prohibiting the insurer from being able to independently validate the loss, or distinguish between multiple causes of loss. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller further argued that Plaintiffs did not meet their burden to prove that the insurer was not prejudiced by the Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Duties After Loss provision of the Policy. The Motion cited numerous cases and extensive analysis supporting the insurer’s position. Reprinted courtesy of Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman and Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman Mr. Smith, may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

BIM Meets Reality on the Construction Site

September 25, 2018 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
BIM models are mostly used by foremen on construction sites. But what if they could be made available for workers at the press of a button? This question was what the Finnish government-funded KIRA pilot project set out to answer. As a by-product, the project also produced augmented reality (AR) solutions for construction sites. The research project was called ”Digitalization of a construction project based on role and location information” (RoPa). It was conducted by construction company Fira and engineering consultancy Sweco. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Louisiana District Court Declines to Apply Total Pollution Exclusion

December 15, 2016 — William S. Bennett – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana recently decided that a broad total pollution exclusion in a marine general liability policy did not bar coverage. The insurer could not unambiguously establish, based on the facts of the underlying case, that waste from a shipyard’s sandblasting activities met the requirements of the exclusion. The court found that the insurer could not meet Louisiana’s three-part test to determine whether the policy’s total pollution exclusion applied. The Doerr test requires an insurer to refer to the allegations in the underlying complaint to prove 1) the insured is a “polluter”, 2) the injury-causing substance is a “pollutant,” and 3) there was a “discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape” of the pollutant. Total pollution exclusions are extremely prohibitive for policyholders because they eliminate coverage for virtually all pollution incidents, but this decision reinforces that policyholders may still have a path to coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES