Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Poor Pleading Leads to Loss of Claim for Trespass Due to Relation-Back Doctrine, Statute of Limitations

April 13, 2017 — Brett G. Moore & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co. (No. C070770, Filed 4/6/2017), the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District held that the relation-back doctrine could not save a property owner’s trespass claim against an adjacent neighbor where the property owner’s original complaint was factually devoid and was later amended to include the trespass claim after the statute of limitations had run. The relation-back doctrine is a well-settled legal principle which allows a plaintiff to amend a complaint to add a cause of action which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. As long as the factual allegations “relate back” to the those alleged in the original complaint, an additional cause of action will not be subject to the applicable statute of limitations. The policy behind statutes of limitation is to put a defendant on notice of the need to defend against a claim in time to prepare an adequate defense. On May 21, 2007, a fire broke out at defendant Lambirth Trucking Company’s (“Lambirth”) soil enhancement facility adjacent to plaintiff Vincent Scholes’ (“Scholes”) property. Scholes had previously notified Lambirth that wood chips and rice hulls were accumulating on his property as a result of Lambirth’s operations. Local authorities also warned Lambirth of the hazards presented by storage of those materials. Reprinted courtesy of Brett G. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moore may be contacted at bmoore@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New Plan Submitted for Explosive Demolition of Old Tappan Zee Bridge

December 19, 2018 — Eydie Cubarrubia - Engineering News-Record
Worker safety concerns sparked a new plan on how to demolish the remnants of the old Tappan Zee Bridge in New York. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eydie Cubarrubia, ENR
Ms. Cubarrubia may be contacted at cubarrubiae@enr.com

Haight Celebrates 2024 New Partner Promotions!

January 22, 2024 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight is celebrating new partner promotions in 2024. Congratulations to Gary LaHendro, Melvin Marcia and Philip McDermott! Gary LaHendro became a member of the California State Bar in December 1993. He is a member of the Risk Management & Insurance Law Practice Group. He focuses his practice on insurance coverage and bad faith litigation. Gary’s clients include carriers within the United States and London Markets for whom he has provided coverage advice on various lines of coverage, including commercial general liability, excess, errors and omissions, auto, and representations and warranties. Gary also monitors the defense of insureds with respect to third-party lawsuits. In addition to coverage work, Gary has over 20 years of litigation experience as lead defense counsel on cases involving soil and groundwater contamination, professional liability, construction defect and personal injury cases. He is also a skilled appellate attorney and Certified Mediator. Melvin Marcia became a member of the California State Bar on June 1, 2016. Melvin is a member of the firm’s Transportation Law, General Liability, Product Liability and Fire Litigation Practice Groups. His practice focuses on litigation of high value cases, ranging from catastrophic injury, wrongful death, premises liability, business disputes, product liability, uninsured/underinsured arbitrations and subrogation matters. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

Is Settling a Bond Claim in the Face of a Seemingly Clear Statute of Limitations Defense Bad Faith?

October 11, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
We have often discussed payment and performance bonds here at Construction Law Musings, most often in the context of payment bond claims relating to federal and state-owned. construction projects. A late 2020 case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court examined what happens after such a claim, in this case, based upon a developer’s subdivision bonds, is made and negotiations commence between the surety and the claimant. Specifically, Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Ransgate Corp., et. al. looked at claims for indemnity by a surety and the principal/indemnitors in the event that the Surety settled such a claim. In the Ramsgate case, Surety provided two separate subdivision subcontract bonds to Ramsgate. Pursuant to those bonds and the indemnity clause of its indemnity agreement, the Surety sought reimbursement of its $80,000.00 settlement payment to the local building authority that it paid to resolve what was originally a claim for over $420,000.00 by the City. The project was started in 2002 and after many years of failures to complete (according to the City of Suffolk), the City made its claim for expenses in 2017. Ramsgate claimed that it completed the subdivisions in 2003. 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

Issuing Judgment After Confirmation of Appraisal Award Overturned

May 01, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Florida Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the trial court's judgment in favor of the insured because after confirming the appraisal award, judgment was issued before the insurer could offer policy defenses. State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Hochreiter, 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 743 (Fla. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2023. After a dispute arose over the scope and amount of damage suffered by the insureds' roof, they sued State Farm. State Farm responded to the complaint by demanding an appraisal, a stay of litigation, and an extension of time to respond to the complaint. The trial court granted the demand and retained jurisdiction regarding post-appraisal matters once the appraisal was complete. The court further ordered State Farm to respond to the complaint within twenty days of the conclusion of the appraisal "if any issues remain." The order did not specify whether the issues that remained had to relate to the initial appraisal stage of the litigation or the subsequent stage during which the trial court had jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed issues related to coverage. 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

Colorado Legislature Considering Making it Easier to Prevail on CCPA Claims

April 03, 2023 — Rachael Bandeira - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
House Bill 23-1192 (“HB 23-1192”) is one of the proposed bills making its way through the Colorado legislative session this year. It purports to create additional protections in the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”), but instead threatens to put construction professionals at an increased risk during litigation. Under the scope of the proposed bill, many construction contracts, as drafted, could automatically add up to $250,000 to any claim by lowering the standard for what constitutes an “unfair or deceptive trade practice.” Further, it would remove elements of a CCPA claim currently required by law to prove that an unfair or deceptive trade practice “constitutes a significant impact to the public.” This bill still has a way to go before becoming law, but given its progress thus far, we believe it is highly probable that it will be enacted unless there is substantial pushback. For the reasons discussed below, we urge all construction professionals to take necessary action to obstruct this bill, and particularly Section 1 of the bill, from becoming enacted. The most concerning proposed amendments to the CCPA, through Section 1 of the bill, do the following:

Remove the knowingly or recklessly mental state from the general unfair or deceptive trade practice provision concerning an unfair, unconscionable, deceptive, knowingly false, or fraudulent act or practice;

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rachael Bandeira, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Bandeira may be contacted at bandeira@hhmrlaw.com

“Made in America Week” Highlights Requirements, Opportunities for Contractors and Suppliers

August 14, 2023 — Sarah Barney & Amy Hoang - The Construction Seyt
On July 21, 2023, President Biden designated July 23-29, 2023, as “Made in America Week.” This proclamation builds on the Biden Administration’s efforts to bolster domestic manufacturing through evolving policies attached to government funds that require contractors and suppliers to feature varying amounts of U.S.-made content in their products and services. To commemorate this week, here is a refresher on “Made in America” and what it means for government contractors and suppliers. What does “Made in America” mean? Under Executive Order 14005, the Administration defined “Made in America” laws as “all statutes, regulations, rules, and Executive Orders relating to Federal financial assistance awards or Federal procurement, including those that refer to “Buy America” or “Buy American,” that require, or provide a preference for, the purchase or acquisition of goods, products, or materials produced in the United States, including iron, steel, and manufactured goods offered in the United States.” Generally speaking, “Made in America” or “Buy American” requirements refer to:

The Buy American Act (BAA) of 1933, establishing domestic sourcing preferences for unmanufactured and manufactured articles, materials, and supplies procured by the federal government for public use, including those used on federal construction contracts;

Reprinted courtesy of Sarah Barney, Seyfarth and Amy Hoang, Seyfarth Ms. Barney may be contacted at sbarney@seyfarth.com Ms. Hoang may be contacted at ahoang@seyfarth.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Denial of Coverage For Bodily Injury After Policy Period Does Not Violate Public Policy

May 12, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Rhode Island Supreme Court agreed that the insurer had no coverage obligations for bodily injury occurring after the policy had been canceled. Hoesen v. Lloyd's of London, 2016 R.I. LEXIS 41 (R.I. March 24, 2016). The plaintiff, Mark Van Hoesen, was seriously injured on July 23, 2012, when he fell from a deck of his house. He sued his contractor, Brian Leonard, alleging that the deck had been negligently constructed. Lloyd's, Leonard's insurer, was later named as a defendant. Lloyd's admitted it issued the policy to Leonard, but it was cancelled on August 29, 2007. Even if it had not been canceled, the policy had expired long before the injuries alleged in plaintiff's complaint occurred. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES