Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Unqualified Threat to Picket a Neutral is Unfair Labor Practice

January 08, 2019 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
On December 27, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board enforced a decades old policy that a union’s unqualified threat to picket a neutral employer at a “common situs” a/k/a a construction site is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act. Background The case involved area standards picketing by the IBEW of a project owned by the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority (LVCVA). The IBEW sent a letter to various affiliated unions who were working on the project advising them of its intent to engage in area standards picketing at the project directed to the merit shop electrical subcontractor performing work there. The IBEW also sent a copy of the letter to the LVCVA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Judge Who Oversees Mass. Asbestos Docket Takes New Role As Chief Justice of Superior Court

January 02, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Boston, Mass. (December 13, 2023) - Judge Michael Ricciuti, who presides over the Massachusetts state asbestos litigation docket, has been appointed to a new role as Chief Justice of Massachusetts Superior Court, effective December 22, 2023. The appointment is expected to result in the end of his tenure overseeing the state asbestos litigation. Judge Ricciuti was appointed by Governor Charlie Baker to the Superior Court in 2017. He has served in five counties and serves six-month rotations in the Business Litigation Session, in addition to his role overseeing the Massachusetts Asbestos Litigation docket. His current committee participation includes serving on the Superior Court Judicial Education Committee and the Supreme Judicial Court Advisory Committee on Massachusetts Evidence Law. He also serves as a judicial mentor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

New OSHA Rule Creates Electronic Reporting Requirement

June 22, 2016 — John K. Baker & Kevin Conrad – White and Williams LLP
The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a Final Rule revising portions of its Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses regulations (Recording and Reporting Regulations). The revisions take effect August 10, 2016. Employers subject to the new requirements have until July 1, 2017 to submit electronically the required information for calendar year 2016. OSHA will make electronically-submitted workplace-safety data for each reporting employer available publicly in an online database. Reprinted courtesy of John K. Baker, White and Williams LLP and Kevin Conrad, White and Williams LLP Mr. Baker may be contacted at bakerj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Conrad may be contacted at conradk@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New Law Raises Standard for Defense Experts as to Medical Causation

September 05, 2023 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On July 17, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) No. 652, adding Section 801.1 to the California Evidence Code. This section provides additional requirements for expert opinions relating to medical causation. In particular, it allows a party not bearing the burden of proof to offer a contrary expert in response to an expert proffered by a party bearing the burden of proof as to medical causation who is required to opine that causation exists to a reasonable medical probability. The contrary expert may only be proffered, however, if he or she is able to opine that an alternative medical causation is one that exists to a reasonable medical probability. Section 801.1, however, does not preclude an expert witness from testifying that a specific matter cannot meet a reasonable degree of probability in the applicable field. With respect to medical causation, a “reasonable degree of probability” means that the expert is testifying that a particular event or source was more likely than not the cause of a person’s injuries. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

OSHA Begins Enforcement of its Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard. Try Saying That Five Times Real Fast

November 02, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
On October 23, 2017, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) began enforcement of its Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard (Construction Silica Standard). OSHA enforcement of its Construction Silica Standard actually began on September 23, 2017, but for a period of 30 days, OSHA offered compliance assistance in lieu of enforcement for employers who were making good faith efforts to comply with the Construction Silica Standard. California’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) has a nearly identical construction silica standard that requires employers to limit worker exposure to respirable crystalline silica above 25 micrograms per cubic meter of air (25 μg/m3) as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) under any foreseeable condition. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Connecticut Reverses Course for Construction Managers on School Projects

August 05, 2024 — Anand Gupta - Construction Law Zone Blog
On June 6, 2024, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed into law Public Act 24-151 (H.B. 5524) (Bill 5524). Bill 5524 authorized and adjusted bonds of the state and provisions related to state and municipal tax administration, as well as addressed school building projects. Notably, Bill 5524 removed the ban on construction managers self-performing work on public school construction projects, effective July 1, 2024. Allowing construction managers to self-perform certain portions of the work, such as general trades, subject to the standard bidding requirements, is a common industry practice that, theoretically, reduces total project costs by reducing the amount of subcontracted work. However, proponents of banning self-performance argue that construction managers have too much information to bid fairly and competitively. Reprinted courtesy of Anand Gupta, Robinson+Cole Mr. Gupta may be contacted at agupta@rc.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Using the Prevention Doctrine

April 22, 2019 — David Erhart - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
The following scenario happens regularly in the construction industry. A contractor on a project reaches out to a subcontractor to perform work. Excited about the prospect of performing the work, the subcontractor signs a contract and puts it nose to the grindstone. After dutifully completing the work the subcontractor turns to the contractor and asks to be paid. But, the contractor refuses saying that there is a provision in the subcontract that says the contractor is only obligated to pay the subcontractor if the contractor receives payment from the owner. So the contractor has completed the work, but has no money to show for it. One potential remedy for a subcontractor in this situation is the use of the prevention doctrine. “Under the prevention doctrine, ‘if a promisor prevents or hinders fulfillment of a condition to his performance, the condition may be waived or excused.’” Cox v. SNAP, Inc., 859 F.3d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Moore Bros. Co. v. Brown & Root, Inc., 207 F.3d 7171, 725 (4th Cir. 2000)). “Put simply, ‘where a party to a contract is the cause of the failure of the performance of the obligation due him or her, that party cannot in any way take advantage of that failure.’” Haddon Hous Assocs v. United States, 711 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 245; Williston, § 39:4). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Erhart, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Erhart may be contacted at derhart@grsm.com

Federal District Court Declines Invitation to Set Scope of Appraisal

January 18, 2021 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Harrods Eastbelt, Ltd., No. CV H-20-2405, 2020 WL 7632250 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2020), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas addressed a request to set the scope of an appraisal by requiring the appraisers to use a specific format for the appraisal. At issue was a claim for damages to three insured buildings allegedly damaged during Tropical Storm Imelda. The insurer had denied coverage based on the asserted lack of wind-created openings as required for coverage under the policy. Rather, the insurer took the position that the interior leaks were caused by a number of excluded causes including long-term weathering, wear and tear, age-related deterioration, ponding, and long-term leaks. In response to the denial of coverage, the insured invoked the appraisal provision of the policy which provided, among other things, that the “appraisers will state separately the value of the property and amount of loss.” Despite the language of the appraisal provision, the Insurer sought an order requiring the appraisers to state the amount of loss separately for each portion of the property in dispute and for each major building component including separate amounts of loss for roofs, exterior walls, windows, and interior water damage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES