Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Charlotte, NC Homebuilder Accused of Bilking Money from Buyers

April 01, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Charlotte Observer reported that a homebuilder couple “was arrested Tuesday on charges alleging that they kept more than $600,000 three families paid them to build Lake Wylie homes that were never completed.” Robert Scott Kuhlkin and wife, Sherry Lynn Kuhlkin “accepted $189,000 from one family, $239,000 from another family, and $233,000 from a third family to build houses, 16th Circuit assistant solicitor Matthew Hogge said in court, but instead they ‘took the money for themselves.’” The alleged victims told the court that the homes had defects or were left unfinished. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

General Contractors Have Expansive Common Law and Statutory Duties To Provide a Safe Workplace

February 18, 2020 — Paul R. Cressman Jr. - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
On November 21, 2019, the Washington Supreme Court handed down its decision in Vargas v. Inland Washington, LLC.[1] At the time of the incident in May 2013, Mr. Vargas, the plaintiff, was helping pour the concrete walls for what would become a parking garage for an apartment building. He was employed by Hilltop Concrete Construction. Inland Washington was the general contractor, and subcontracted with Hilltop to pour concrete. Hilltop, in turn, entered into agreements with Ralph’s Concrete Pumping and Miles Sand & Gravel to provide a pump truck, certified pump operator, and supply concrete. A rubber hose carrying concrete whipped Mr. Vargas in the head. It knocked him unconscious and caused a traumatic brain injury. Vargas, through his guardian ad litem, along with his wife and children, sued Inland Washington, Ralph’s, and Miles. The trial court initially dismissed on summary judgment Vargas’ claims that Inland Washington was vicariously liable for the acts of Hilltop, Ralph’s, and Miles. Later, the trial court also granted Inland Washington’s motion for summary judgment that it was not directly liable as a matter of law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul R. Cressman Jr., Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Cressman may be contacted at paul.cressman@acslawyers.com

Insurance Law Alert: Ambiguous Producer Agreement Makes Agent-Broker Status a Jury Question

September 10, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore & Christopher Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Douglas v. Fidelity National Ins. (No. A137645; filed 8/29/14), a California appeals court held that it was a jury question whether a retail insurance service with limited binding authority should be deemed a broker or an agent for the purpose of determining if application misrepresentations would void coverage. In Douglas, the homeowners needed insurance for a house they had used as a group home. They sought coverage from Cost-U-Less, which provided personal lines insurance from, among others, Fidelity National Insurance Company. According to the couple’s wife, she went to a Cost-U-Less office where she answered application questions from a person on the telephone, who was later identified as an employee of another company, InsZone. InsZone had a producer contract with Fidelity. In practice, InsZone would be contacted by Cost-U-Less via telephone, at which point an InsZone employee would verbally solicit information from the client, with the information being entered into a computer by the InsZone employee and then transmitted electronically to Fidelity. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Cal/OSHA’s Toolbox Has Significantly Expanded: A Look At Senate Bill 606

December 13, 2021 — Michael J. Studenka - Newmeyer Dillion
Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed into law Senate Bill 606, set to take effect on January 1, 2022. With proponents of the bill citing the need to hold large employers accountable for COVID-related workplace hazards, SB 606 creates two new categories of employer violations. First, SB 606 creates a rebuttable presumption that if a type of violation is discovered at one particular worksite, Cal/OSHA can extrapolate that the violation is an “enterprise-wide” violation at all of the other company worksites. Additionally, SB 606 adds a new category of “egregious violations” to Cal/OSHA’s arsenal, adding a penalty multiplier for such violations. Finally, SB 606 increases Cal/OSHA’s investigative capabilities by authorizing Cal/OSHA to issue a subpoena to employers should they fail to “promptly provide” information requested during an investigation. As further explained below, the consequences of violating Cal/OSHA regulations has become significantly greater and more expensive, particularly for larger employers with multiple worksites. ENTERPRISE-WIDE VIOLATIONS AND THE SEVERE REMEDIES THAT FOLLOW Under SB 606, employers with more than one worksite will now face a rebuttable presumption that a violation at one location is actually “enterprise-wide” if either of the following are true:

A written policy or procedure violates any Cal/OSHA standard, rule, order or regulation; OR
Cal/OSHA finds evidence of a “pattern or practice” of the same violation being committed by the employer at one or more of its worksites.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Studenka, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Studenka may be contacted at michael.studenka@ndlf.com

The Credibility of Your Expert (Including Your Delay Expert) Matters in Construction Disputes

October 03, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Here is a quote from a judge in an order after the bench trial of a complex construction dispute between a prime contractor and subcontractor on a federal project:

The evidence received in this case demonstrates the dynamic nature of complicated construction projects. At every step, the details matter, and coordination and cooperation among the companies tasked with performing the job is essential. Thankfully, as even this case shows, most disagreements that arise as projects evolve are handled during construction, far away from a courthouse, by the professionals who know best how to achieve the ultimate goal of a completed project.

U.S. f/u/b/o McKenney’s, Inc. v. Leebcor Services, LLC, 2022 WL 3549980, *1 (E.D. Va. 2022).

This is a true statement. A statement that parties should remember as they navigate the nuances of a complicated construction project and dispute. The facts of the case, however, would hardly be construed as a win for either party. Something else for parties to consider as they navigate the nuances of a complicated construction project and dispute. 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

Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes

September 01, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

This is the fourth installment of posts on Vision One v. Philadelphia Indemnity, a Washington Supreme Court case touching on Washington construction and insurance law. After Williams v. Athletic Field got so much coverage, I wished that I had provided a forum for argument on Builders Counsel. While we await that opinion from the Supreme Court, I decided to let a few good writers have at Vision One here on the blog. Last week, attorney Chris Carr weighed in. Today, insurance expert David Thayer returns to give his final impression. David provided an initial peak at the case earlier this year. Thanks to both Chris and David for contributing to the debate.

In August 2011 the Washington Supreme Court will rule on a pair of joined cases that involve critical insurance coverage issues. The outcome of the ruling will impact a large swath of policyholders in Washington State including builders, developers, and homeowners to name a few.

The cases are Vision One vs. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance and Sprague vs. Safeco. The Vision one case comes from Division Two of the Appellate Court which overturned a lower court decision in favor the plaintiff, Vision One. Division Two decided that the collapse of a concrete pour during the course of construction did not constitute a resulting loss due to faulty workmanship. They further went on to redefine efficient proximate cause in a way that is harmful to policyholders by broadening rather than narrowing the meaning of exclusionary language in Philadelphia’s Builders Risk Policy.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Legal Risks of Green Building

March 22, 2021 — Mark D. Shifton - Construction Executive
All construction projects involve elements of legal risk. Insurance and indemnity claims, delay claims and professional negligence claims are simply accepted risks when involved in construction. Green building projects are no exception to this rule, and often involve unique issues that are not present in typical construction projects. Green building projects commonly employ new or untested construction materials, require construction methods that lack significant track records, and ultimate building performance often fails to meet design expectations. As such, green building projects may give rise to entirely new types of legal risk that should be considered and allocated early in the process. In the past 15 years, the number of buildings for which green certifications have been sought has grown exponentially, and the growth rate of green building and sustainable construction has far outpaced the growth rate of the construction industry as a whole. As green building projects become increasingly common (and often increasingly required by the federal, as well as state and local governments), the unique legal risks presented by green building projects take on an increase importance. Reprinted courtesy of Mark D. Shifton, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Shifton may be contacted at mshifton@gllawgroup.com

Termination of Construction Contracts

November 30, 2020 — Stuart Rosen - Construction Executive
Lately, in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a heightened concern that some construction projects will not proceed as planned. Therefore, it is important to review each party’s right to terminate a construction contract and to examine some of the resulting consequences. While the parties to a construction contract can, as always, agree to other mutually acceptable terms and provisions, in broad terms, a typical construction contract includes four triggering events that can lead to termination. First, an owner can terminate a construction contract if the contractor defaults and thereafter fails to cure such default, which may include, without limitation, the failure to remediate deficient work, the failure to meet the construction schedule, the failure to pay subcontractors and the failure to comply with applicable law. A contractor must be mindful of the fact that in the case of such termination by the owner for cause, the vast majority of construction contracts provide that the contractor will not be entitled to receive any further payment for work performed by the contractor until the work is finished. Reprinted courtesy of Stuart Rosen, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Rosen may be contacted at srosen@proskauer.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES