Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

The Court of Appeals Holds That Indifference to Safety Satisfies the Standard for a Willful Violation Under WISHA

May 16, 2022 — Cameron Sheldon - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In March 2022, the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division One, issued Marpac Constr., LLC v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., No. 82200-4-I, 2022 WL 896850, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2022) holding Marpac Construction, LLC (“Marpac”) liable for three willful Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973 (WISHA) violations pertaining to safe crane operation near energized power lines. Marpac was the general contractor on an apartment complex construction project in West Seattle. The worksite had high voltage power lines running throughout the site. Seattle City Light had flagged some with a 10-foot offset, but none of the other power lines were flagged. Marpac’s superintendent assumed that the lines were between 26 kilovolts (kV) and 50 kV based on their connection to the lines flagged by Seattle City Light. The superintendent never called Seattle City Light to check the voltage of the lines and the lines remained above ground. In September 2016, a subcontractor began work on the project’s structural foundation. The subcontractor expressed concerns about working around the power lines, but Marpac promised it was working on mitigation of the power line hazard and directed the subcontractor continue working. At one point, the subcontractor’s employees had to move the crane and concrete forms away from the power lines to allow a cement truck to park in its place. The crane’s line contacted the power lines, causing serious injuries to two of the subcontractor’s employees. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Cameron Sheldon, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Sheldon may be contacted at cameron.sheldon@acslawyers.com

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Denies Bad Faith Claim in HO Policy Dispute

September 24, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Patrick Nugent of Saul Ewing LLP’s article in JD Supra Business Advisor, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered a summary judgment for the insurer on a statutory bad faith claim in a coverage dispute under a homeowner’s policy. The coverage dispute was over “the collapse of a wall in the plaintiffs’ home.” The Plaintiffs alleged that “the collapse resulted from excessive rainfall during a storm in March 2011.” However, Metropolitan Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Company’s engineer concluded that the collapse “resulted from long-term and on-going water infiltration attributable to poor maintenance.” Water damage had occurred a year prior to the collapse, but had not been repaired. In response, “Plaintiffs filed a complaint in Pennsylvania state court alleging breach of contract and statutory bad faith.” The court “determined that Metropolitan’s denial of benefits ‘was not only reasonable, but correct under the Policy language,’” and “ruled that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that Metropolitan lacked a reasonable basis for denying their claim and entered summary judgment for Metropolitan on the plaintiffs’ bad faith claim.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Fundamental Fairness Trumps Contract Language

September 24, 2014 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled that a “no-damages-for-delay” clause would not be enforced where the delay was caused by the owner. The court’s ruling flies squarely in the face of the contract language that attempted to insulate the owner from any delay claims, even those it caused. In the case of Zachary Construction v. Port of Houston underlying contract, proposed by the Port of Houston, was heavy handed, to say the least. The contract provided: “[Contractor] shall receive no financial compensation for delay or hindrance to the Work. In no event shall the Port Authority be liable to [Contractor] … for any damages arising out of or associated with any delay or hindrance to the Work, regardless of the source of the delay or hindrance, including events of Force Majeure, AND EVEN IF SUCH DELAY OR HINDRANCE RESULTS FROM, ARISES OUT OF OR IS DUE IN WHOLE OR IN PART, TO THE NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR OTHER FAULT OF THE PORT AUTHORITY. [Contractor’s] sole remedy in any such case shall be an extension of time.” Wow, that’s some one-sided language. If the contract was enforced, the contractor could not get any damages for delay, even those damages caused by the active interference of the Port of Houston. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

New Jersey Law regarding Prior Expert’s Testimony

April 15, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Mary Pat Gallagher writing for the New Jersey Law Journal reported that “[l]awyers who track down an opposing expert's testimony from prior cases must disclose that fact during discovery but need not say whether they plan to use it in cross-examining the expert at trial, a New Jersey appeals court says.” In Dalton v. Crawley, the Appellate Division held that “[d]ecisions about cross-examination ‘involve the attorney's mental processes, so they are inherently work product.’” The issue began when “one of the defense lawyers, Michael McGann, figured out from the deposition questions Mahoney directed at one of his experts that he had transcripts of testimony from earlier cases,” according to the New Jersey Law Journal. “Hit with a notice to produce the transcripts, [Plaintiff attorney Brian] Mahoney refused, saying they were ‘attorney work product and we will not be telling you what we have developed regarding this expert.’" The New Jersey Law Journal declared that the “ruling means both sides will have to indicate what transcripts they have gathered for use—giving the name of each expert as well as the name and docket number of the prior cases where those experts testified. “ Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Caution to GCs! An Exception to Privette Can Leave You Open to Liability

February 01, 2023 — Nicole Whyte - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
In a recent important decision, Brown v. Beach House Design & Development the Court of Appeal addressed an issue that frequently arises under the Privette doctrine—the extent to which a general contractor can be held liable for injuries to a subcontractor’s employee. The injuries in Brown arose when a window casing subcontractor’s employee fell from a scaffold erected by a plastering subcontractor at a construction site. According to evidence offered by the plaintiff in opposition to a motion for summary judgment filed by the general contractor, the scaffold was not properly secured to the building where the work was being performed. As a result the scaffold was defective and failed, causing the injuries. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicole Whyte, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Ms. Whyte may be contacted at nwhyte@bremerwhyte.com

Owners Bound by Arbitration Clause on Roofing Shingles Packaging

December 04, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In today’s age, you are probably familiar with terms such as a shrinkwrap contract (terms and conditions), which is a boilerplate contract included with a retained product, or a clickwrap contract (terms and conditions), which is generally a boilerplate contract that is digitally accepted when purchasing software or an electronic product. These are are boilerplate terms from manufacturers or vendors of products or software. Arbitration provisions in these types of agreements have generally found to be enforceable. In the recent ruling by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Dye v. Tamko Building Products, Inc., 2018 WL 5729085 (11th Cir. 2018), the court held that an arbitration provision included in a product-purchase limited warranty agreement on the package of every roofing shingles binds a homeowner to arbitrating disputes over the opened and retained product with the manufacturer, irrespective of whether the shingles were purchased by an owner’s roofer. The shingles do not have to be purchased and opened by the owner for the arbitration provision to apply. If the roofer uses or retained the shingles for purposes of the owner’s home, such knowledge of the product-purchase limited warranty agreement on the packaging of the shingles is imputed to the owner (end-user of the shingles). 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

Employees in Construction Industry Entitled to Compensation for Time Spent Complying with Employer-Mandated Security Protocols

August 19, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Wage and hour laws dictating how employers must compensate their employees for time worked can, given the innumerable ways that employees perform their jobs, raise a number of questions. The next case, Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, 15 Cal.5th 908 (2024) – which I won’t spend a lot of time discussing since I think it applies in somewhat limited situations – addresses whether employees are entitled to be paid while waiting to enter and exit worksites and for meal periods when they are not allowed to exit a worksite. The Huerta Case The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals requested that the California Supreme Court address three questions related to whether employees should be compensated under California wage and hour laws for time spent waiting to enter and exit worksites and for meal periods when they are not allowed to exit a worksite:

Whether employees should be paid for time spent waiting in a personal vehicle to be scanned in and out of a worksite;
Whether employees should be paid for time spent traveling in a personal vehicle from a security gate to employee parking lots; and
Whether employees should be paid during meal periods if they are not permitted to leave a worksite.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Justin Clark Joins Newmeyer & Dillion’s Walnut Creek Branch as its Newest Associate

May 03, 2017 — Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
WALNUT CREEK, Calif. – APR. 28, 2017 – Up and coming associate and insurance attorney Justin Clark is the newest associate to join the ever-growing litigation practice at Newmeyer & Dillion LLP’s Walnut Creek office. Clark brings experience in the areas of insurance litigation, construction defect litigation, and business transactions. Walnut Creek’s managing partner Brian Morrow explained why he is so excited by the addition of Clark: “We are thrilled to have Clark on board, as his emphasis on insurance coverage will assist in a key area for our clients, and further expand our capabilities in our northern California office.” Clark has a background in a variety of practice areas, including insurance coverage, products liability, and asbestos litigation. He advocates for manufacturers, suppliers, distributers, and contractors in all phases of litigation. Clark represents developers, builders, and general contractors in construction and insurance disputes. He also helps small business clients draft commercial contracts to better serve their growing business needs. Clark can be reached at justin.clark@ndlf.com or 925-988-3263. About Newmeyer & Dillion For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES