Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Contractor Covered for Voluntary Remediation Efforts in Completed Homes

October 10, 2013 — Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law Hawaii
The Texas Supreme Court held that a home builder was covered for the voluntary removal and replacement of a defective insulation product it had installed in hundreds of homes. Lennar Corp. v. Market Am. Ins. Co., 2013 Tex. LEXIS 597 (Tex. Sup. Ct. Aug. 23, 2013). Lennar built homes using an exterior insulation and finish system (EIFS). It was subsequently determined that EIFS trapped water inside homes with wood-frame walls, causing rot and structural damage, mildew and mold, and termite infestation. Lennar decided to contact all its homeowners and offer to remove the EIFS and replace it with conventional stucco. Lennar notified its insurers that it would seek indemnification for the costs. The insurers refused to participate in Lennar's proactive efforts, preferring to wait and respond to homeowners' claims one by one. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Terminator’s Trench Rehab Drives L.A. Land Prices Crazy

June 26, 2014 — John Gittelsohn and Alan Ohnsman – Bloomberg
Ben Stapleton frames the shot with his hands like a movie director, sharing his vision of a junkyard he’s trying to sell for $3.5 million. He sees artist workspaces, retail shops and apartments with Los Angeles skyline views, steps from a riverfront oasis. Right now the river of his dreams is the concrete flood channel where an 18-wheeler chased Arnold Schwarzenegger on a Harley in “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” one of the movies that used the 200-foot-wide (60-meter) ditch to depict industrial bleakness. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plan to return the Los Angeles River to a more natural state would cost $1 billion and has speculators circling even before the funding’s in place. “The private money is already moving,” said Stapleton, a vice president at commercial real-estate brokerage Jones Lang LaSalle Inc. (JLL) “They’re looking for opportunities. It’s the private money that’s going to make the vision happen.” Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net; Mr. Ohnsman may be contacted at aohnsman@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Gittelsohn and Alan Ohnsman, Bloomberg

Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona

March 19, 2024 — Patrick Tighe - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
If a tenant defaults under a commercial lease, Arizona law permits the landlord to re-take possession of the premises by locking out the defaulting tenant. However, if the landlord’s lockout is wrongful, the landlord may be liable for the damages the tenant sustains because of the wrongful lockout. To minimize such liability, here are some general best practices to follow when locking out a defaulting tenant:

Do Not Breach the Peace. It is vital when performing a lockout to not breach the peace. What constitutes a “breach of the peace” depends on the particular circumstances at hand. For example, if a tenant arrives during the lockout and becomes angry or threatens violence, the landlord should stop performing the lockout and return at a later time. As a general rule of thumb, it is best to perform lockouts in the early morning hours or in the late evening hours when the landlord is less likely to encounter the tenant.
Provide A Notice of Default. Many commercial leases require the landlord to provide a notice of default before the landlord can lock out a defaulting tenant. Check, double check, and triple check that the landlord followed the lease’s notice of default provisions correctly, including that the landlord sent the notices to all required parties in accordance with the time requirements set forth in the lease.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Tighe, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Tighe may be contacted at ptighe@swlaw.com

Illinois Town’s Bond Sale Halted Over Fraudulent Hotel Deals

June 26, 2014 — William Selway and Elizabeth Campbell – Bloomberg
A city outside Chicago was blocked from selling bonds after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accused it of defrauding investors and steering secret fees to a municipal official. The case against Harvey, Illinois, a struggling city of 25,000 battered by poverty and crime, involves about $14 million in bonds sold from 2008 to 2010 that were to pay for development of a Holiday Inn hotel and conference venue. The SEC said that the city hoodwinked investors by using $1.7 million to pay payroll and other operating expenses, while the hotel stands in disrepair with holes in its facade, exposed studs and a gutted interior. The SEC said Comptroller Joseph Letke, 55, also profited by receiving $269,000 in undisclosed payments while advising the developer of the ill-fated project. Mr. Selway may be contacted at wselway@bloomberg.net; Ms. Campbell may be contacted at ecampbell14@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William Selway and Elizabeth Campbell, Bloomberg

Utah Becomes First State to Enact the Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act

March 29, 2017 — David Leta - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
On March 25, Utah became the first state to enact the Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act (“UCRERA”) which was drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (the “Conference”) and adopted by the Conference at its annual meeting in July 2015. The Utah Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act, (the “Utah Act”) mirrors UCRERA and applies to all commercial real property receiverships that are filed in the Utah District Courts on and after May 9, 2017. The Utah Act provides both substantive and procedural guidance in an area of law that historically has been marked by inconsistency and uncertainty. This new law not only will provide judges, lenders and other receivership constituents with much needed instruction about their respective rights and responsibilities in commercial receivership proceedings, but it also is likely to reduce the cost and increase the predictability of these receiverships in Utah. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Leta, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Leta may be contacted at dleta@swlaw.com

Waive It Goodbye: Despite Evidence to the Contrary, Delaware Upholds an AIA Waiver of Subrogation Clause

April 19, 2022 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
Subrogation professionals have always been looking for ways to defeat onerous waiver of subrogation provisions in contracts signed by insureds. However, even when contracts are unsigned, if there is intent when the contract is made – usually long before a loss occurs – a waiver of subrogation can doom what otherwise may have been a strong case. The Superior Court of Delaware considered such a scenario to determine whether a waiver of subrogation provision applied to a multimillion-dollar subrogation case. In State of Delaware Insurance Coverage Office and Factory Mutual Insurance Co., both as subrogee of the University of Delaware v. DiSabatino Construction Co., Schlosser & Associates Mechanical Contractors, Inc. and V.E. Guerrazzi, Inc., C.A. No. N19C-08-080, 2022 Del. Super. LEXIS 108 (March 17, 2022), the court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by a waiver of subrogation provision in the underlying contract. Thus, the court held that the plaintiffs could not pursue the defendants in their suit to recover damages as a result of a fire. The court specifically denied the plaintiffs’ argument that since the contract was not signed and another “short form” version was later used the waiver of subrogation provision should not apply. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

MGM Begins Dismantling of the Las Vegas Harmon Tower

June 26, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
MGM has begun to dismantle the $8.5 billion, incomplete Harmon Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The demolition process is expected to take up to a year. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that construction of the tower was halted in 2008 after construction defects were allegedly discovered. Later, “the building was deemed structurally unsound.” “Instead of blowing the building up in grand fashion, contractors hired by MGM Resorts are now removing scrap metal and other materials from the building, along with taking off the blue-tinged glass that has covered the structure for the last five years,” Howard Stutz wrote in the Las Vegas-Review Journal. “The process also includes installing pedestrian protection systems outside the structure above adjacent sidewalks and walkways.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Fair Share Act Impacts the Strategic Planning of a Jury Trial

May 10, 2017 — Andrew Ralston, Jr. - White and Williams LLP
Complex questions surrounding the application of the Fair Share Act, which modified Pennsylvania’s common law “joint and several” liability law, are being taken up by courts in the Commonwealth with increasing frequency. Given the practical consequences of the differences in application between the Act and “joint and several” liability, additional litigation over the application of the Fair Share Act to real world factual situations will undoubtedly arise. Recent Caselaw Currently, in Roverano v. PECO Energy, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania is considering the question of whether, under the Fair Share Act, the jury, or else the trial judge, is responsible for the task of apportioning liability to multiple defendants in a strict liability case. In Roverano – an asbestos case -- a jury awarded the plaintiff $6.3 million. On the verdict sheet were eight joint tortfeasor co-defendants. The judge did not allow the jury to apportion liability to each defendant and, as a result, no guidance was provided by the jury about how much each defendant was to contribute to the award. Instead, the judge merely divided the jury’s award by eight (the number of defendants in the case) and apportioned to each defendant one-eighth of the verdict amount. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrew Ralston, Jr., White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ralston may be contacted at ralstona@whiteandwilliams.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES