Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Architect Responds to Defect Lawsuit over Defects at Texas Courthouse

October 08, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Lee County, Texas has sued the architect responsible for designing the drainage system at its historic courthouse. The suit seeks $1.7 million in damages to pay for replacing the defective system and repairing the building from damage sustained due to soil saturation. Dale A. Rabe responds that the county commissioners were more concerned with “beautifying the building” than on needed foundation repairs. Further, Mr. Rabe notes that “Lee County contracted directly with a civil engineering firm to design a drainage system.” But according to Mr. Rabe what they used instead was “a cheaper pump-based design to save money.” And even there, “Lee County failed to maintain the drainage system properly. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Haight’s John Arbucci and Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2020 Southern California Rising Stars

July 20, 2020 — T. Giovanni “John” Arbucci & Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Congratulations to attorneys T. Giovanni “John” Arbucci and Kristian Moriarty who were selected to the Super Lawyers 2020 Southern California Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5% of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Reprinted courtesy of T. Giovanni “John” Arbucci, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Mr. Arbucci may be contacted at jarbucci@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

“To Indemnify, or Not to Indemnify, that is the Question: California Court of Appeal Addresses Active Negligence in Indemnity Provisions”

April 05, 2017 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & Omar Parra – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In California, it is well-established that the extent of a party’s obligation under an indemnity agreement is an issue of contractual interpretation, and it is therefore the intent of the parties that should control. What is the parties’ intent, then, when a subcontractor (indemnitor) agrees to indemnify the general contractor (indemnitee) “except to the extent the claims arise out of the general contractor’s active negligence or willful misconduct”? Does this mean the general contractor is barred entirely from recovering any indemnity if its active negligence contributed to the injury? Not according to the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal, which recently held that an actively negligent general contractor may still recover indemnity for the portion of liability attributable to the fault of others. Oltmans Construction Co. v. Bayside Interiors, Inc., No. A147313, 2017 WL 1179391, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2017). In Oltmans Construction, an employee of O’Donnell Plastering, Inc. (“O’Donnell”), a sub-subcontractor of Bayside Interiors, Inc. (“Bayside”), which was a subcontractor to Oltmans Construction Company (“Oltmans”), sustained injuries when he fell through a skylight opening in the roof of a building under construction. The employee filed suit against Bayside, Oltmans, and the building’s owner, arguing Oltmans negligently cut and left unsecured the skylight opening. Oltmans subsequently filed a Cross-Complaint against Bayside and O’Donnell, contending it was entitled to indemnification under the governing agreements. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Guide to California’s Changes to Civil Discovery Rules

April 29, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
San Diego, Calif. (April 10, 2024) - California legislators have changed the rules of discovery in civil cases through the passage of amendments to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2016.090 and 2023.050, effective January 1, 2024. Section 2016.090 creates a new set of rules for civil litigators in cases filed on or after January 1, 2024, which permits any party to the litigation to demand initial disclosures be provided within 60-days. Such a demand can be made any time after a party has filed a responsive pleading, including a demurrer or motion to strike. Notably, this rule requires production of all information relevant to any causes of action that are pled at the time of the demand, meaning the parties may be required to disclose information related to claims that are being challenged on demurrer or a motion to strike, such as claims for punitive damages. This statute is only implicated when one of the parties to the action makes a demand and may be modified by stipulation of the parties. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Is A Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound by A Default or Default Judgment Against Its Principal?

February 08, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Maguire-O’Hara Construction, Inc. v. Cool Roofing Systems, Inc., 2020 WL 6532852 (W.D. Oklahoma 2020) is an interesting case dealing with suretyship law and the subject of whether a Miller Act payment bond surety is bound by a default or default judgment against its prime contractor (bond principal). In this case, a subcontractor sued a prime contractor for breach of contract and the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond surety for a breach of the payment bond. The prime contractor did not respond to the lawsuit and the subcontractor obtained a default against the contractor. The Miller Act payment bond surety did engage counsel to defend itself in the dispute. Prior to trial, the subcontractor moved in limine to preclude the surety from raising defenses at trial under the subcontract because a default was entered against the prime contractor. The subcontractor argued that the surety should be bound by the default and, therefore, precluded from raising liability defenses under the subcontract. Such a ruling would leave the surety no defenses disputing liability at trial.

[A] suretys’ liability under the Miller Act coincides with that of the general contractor, its principal. Accordingly, a surety [can] plead any defenses available to its principal but [can]not make a defense that could not be made by its principal. Maguire-O’Hara Construction, supra, at *2 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

“If It Walks Like A Duck . . .” – Expert Testimony Not Always Required In Realtor Malpractice Cases Where Alleged Breach Of Duty Can Be Easily Understood By Lay Persons

April 17, 2019 — David W. Evans & Renata L. Hoddinott - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Ryan v. Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc., et al. (No. D072724, filed 2/26/19), the Fourth Appellate District reversed a trial court’s granting of summary judgment and finding that expert testimony is not required in a professional negligence action where the claimed acts or omissions are within the understanding of a lay person. Daniel and Patricia Ryan hired Defendants David Schroedl, David Schroedl & Associates, and Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc., doing business as Pacific Sotheby’s International Realty to list, market, and sell their property. During an open house, the Ryans’ neighbor informed Defendant David Schroedl that he planned significant construction on his own property which would impact the Ryans’ property including, but not limited to, building a large addition that would obstruct the property’s westerly ocean view. Schroedl never disclosed this information to the Ryans or to the subsequent purchasers of the Ryans’ property. The day after escrow closed, the new owners’ interior decorator spoke with that neighbor who again explained his extensive remodeling plans. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Colorado Finally Corrects Thirty-Year Old Flaw in Construction Defect Statute of Repose

March 29, 2017 — Jesse Howard Witt - The Witt Law Firm
The Colorado Supreme Court has finally settled a decades-old conundrum surrounding the state’s construction defect statute of repose. A statute of repose is similar to a statute of limitations insofar as both restrict the time a party can bring a claim. A statute of repose period begins on a fixed date (such as the day someone finishes work on a project), while a statute of limitations period begins when someone discovers an injury (such as a defectively installed window). In 1986, at the height of the so-called “tort reform” movement, the Colorado General Assembly voted to shorten both the statute of repose and the statute of limitations for construction defect claims. Historically, Colorado’s statute of repose had given a homeowner ten years following construction to file an action, and its statute of limitations had required that any such action be filed within three years of the date that the claimant discovered a defect. After 1986, however, these time periods changed; the new statute of repose required suits to be filed within six years of the end of construction, and the new statute of limitations gave claimants only two years following discovery of the physical manifestation of a defect to seek legal relief.[1] Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The BUILDCHAIN Project Enhances Data Exchange and Transparency in the EU Construction Industry

January 23, 2023 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Trace Labs, a WEB 3 developer, joins the EU’s efforts to create a smarter and more sustainable built environment with the BUILDCHAIN project. With its 11 EU partners, Trace Labs aims to improve efficiency, reduce errors, and increase transparency and trust in construction. Efficient, transparent, and trusted data exchange is a powerful tool for driving sustainability, resilience, and energy efficiency in construction. However, there are several obstacles to trusted data exchange in the industry today:

Data silos: Construction projects involve multiple parties and stakeholders, each of which may have its systems for storing and sharing information. This can lead to data silos and a lack of coordination, making it difficult to access and trust the data.
Lack of standardization: Construction projects may use different formats for storing and sharing data, leading to difficulties in comparing and combining information from various projects.
Data security: Construction projects often involve sensitive information, such as building plans, materials lists, and inspection results. Ensuring this information is secure and protected from unauthorized access can be a significant challenge.
Lack of incentives: There are often few incentives for construction companies and other stakeholders to share data and collaborate on projects, making establishing trust and transparency challenging.

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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES