Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Pennsylvania: When Should Pennsylvania’s New Strict Products Liability Law Apply?

February 05, 2015 — Robert Caplan and Timothy Carroll – White and Williams LLP
Pennsylvania has maintained its own peculiar brand of strict products liability law ever since the Supreme Court decided Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.[1] in 1978. Maligned by many as “absurd and unworkable,”[2] if “excessively” orientated towards plaintiffs,[3] Azzarello’s unique approach to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965)[4] has recently been judicially consigned to the dustbin of history. In Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.,[5] decided on November 19, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court expressly overruled Azzarello leaving in its place a new alternative standards approach to proving a Section 402A claim. An injured worker or subrogated insurer[6] must still prove that the seller, whether a manufacturer or a distributor, placed the product on the market in a “defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer.”[7] But now, under Tincher, a plaintiff must use either a “consumer expectation test” or a “risk-utility test” to establish that criterion.[8] Reprinted courtesy of Robert Caplan, White and Williams LLP and Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Remote Work Issues to Consider in Light of COVID-19

March 23, 2020 — Philip K. Lem - Payne & Fears
Many employers have elected to implement a remote work policy in light of the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak. If you are one of them, you should consider the following as you transition your workforce to a remote working environment. Preliminary Steps The first step prior to implementation is ensuring that you have sufficient technological infrastructure and capabilites. You should assess what types of equipment (e.g., desktop computers, laptops, phones, printers, and office supplies) your employees will need to work remotely, and ensure that there is sufficient inventory and that employees can gain access to the equipment. You should also confirm that you have data security measures in place and brief employees on best practices for security and protection of data. You should refer employees to your organization’s technology policy regarding the safeguarding of data. If none exist, you should strongly consider creating and implementing one. One of the more important aspects of any policy is restrictions on where employees may work remotely. For example, some employers prohibit employees from working remotely on public wifi networks due to security concerns. Whether these or other policies are right for your organization depends on the nature of your work and data, security measures you have in place, and your risk tolerance. Beyond technology issues, you should prepare a checklist of necessary work items and materials that employees will need to perform their jobs remotely. You should also clearly communicate to employees which items may be removed from the workplace and taken home and which should remain. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Philip K. Lem, Payne & Fears
Mr. Lem may be contacted at pkl@paynefears.com

Do Engineers Owe a Duty to Third Parties?

June 10, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
A Texas Court of Appeals, in USA Walnut Creek, DST v. Terracon Consultants, Inc., recently ruled that an engineer owed a duty to the buyer of an apartment complex, even though the engineer had no contractual relationship with the buyer. This is an expansion of the duty professionals owe on construction projects and could signal a change in the law. In the case, Walnut Creek purchased a three year old apartment complex. A few years after taking possession, Walnut Creek noticed problems with the apartments, including cracking foundations, walls, breaking windows, and out of square door frames. Walnut Creek sued the developer and general contractor, alleging construction defects. The developer claimed that the engineer, Terracon, was at fault and Walnut Creek added Terracon to the lawsuit, asserting that Terracon was negligent in performing engineering services during construction. Terracon asked the court to dismiss the claim, arguing that it did not owe a duty to Walnut Creek. Walnut Creek in turn argued that engineers do owe a duty to subsequent owners. The trial court dismissed the case against the engineer and Walnut Creek appealed. The appellate court reversed the trial court, finding that the engineer did owe a duty to subsequent purchasers. The court seemed persuaded by the allegations that the engineer actually created the construction defects which were the basis for the litigation. 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

JPMorgan Blamed for ‘Zombie’ Properties in Miami Lawsuit

June 18, 2014 — Christie Smythe – Bloomberg
JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) engaged in a “pattern of discriminatory” lending that led to foreclosures, the city of Miami said in a lawsuit filed last week in federal court, the latest in a series of similar claims against the nation’s largest banks. Last month, Banco Santander SA’s (SAN) U.S. unit was sued by the city of Providence, Rhode Island, over claims it stopped issuing mortgages in minority neighborhoods after the housing bubble burst. Santander Bank, previously named Sovereign Bank, pulled out of the neighborhoods and focused on white communities after being acquired by the Madrid-based lender in 2009, the city alleged. Miami and Los Angeles are among cities to have filed similar lawsuits against Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. (C) and Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) for allegedly “red-lining” black and Hispanic areas as no-loan zones, and then “reverse red-lining,” flooding the areas with predatory mortgages even when minorities qualified for better terms. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christie Smythe, Bloomberg
Ms. Smythe may be contacted at csmythe1@bloomberg.net

What to Expect From the New Self-Retracting Devices Standard

November 29, 2021 — Andre Pelland - Construction Executive
One of the latest and most anticipated changes to occur this year relevant to fall protection is the publishing of the ANSI/ASSP Z359.14 2021 revision. Although the effective date isn’t until August 2022, this change is prompting the need for end user to prepare for using and understanding the new terminology performance requirements that will ultimately alter equipment selection criteria. The reason for its relevance is mostly due to its industry dependence and the increasing popularity of these types of devices. This voluntary consensus standard accounts for a vast portion of the fall protection market equipment and has been adopted as the industry standard, even though it is not the legal requirement. To assure a smooth transition, the immediate priority should be to understand the changes and what it means from a usability standpoint. A clear understanding of what changes devices need to comply will allow users to proceed with a comprehensive transition plan. What Are the Most Relevant Changes for the User? Classes The most significant changes are for Class A and B devices used to designate arrest distances and forces and the introduction of the Class 1 and 2 devices. These classes were known as designators for arresting falls at 24 inches and under with higher forces (Class A), and 54 inches and under with lower forces (Class B). Class 1 devices allow anchoring on overhead anchorages only and limitg freefall to no more than two feet. Reprinted courtesy of Andre Pelland, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Pelland may be contacted at andre.pelland@puresafetygroup.com

How Long does a Florida Condo Association Have to File a Construction Defect Claim?

September 17, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to a post on Orlando Sentinel’s HOA & Condo Blog, sponsored by the firm Becker & Poliakoff, generally a Condominium Association has “4 years from turnover of control of the Condominium Association from the developer” to file a lawsuit for construction defects. However, the association may have additional time to file. If defects from the original construction were discovered after the 4 years have lapsed, “[a] condominium association may still pursue a claim for latent defects,” which is one that “is hidden, and not discovered despite the exercise of due diligence, for the period of 4 years from turnover.” The Statute of Repose in Florida is “10 years from the date the building received its original Certificate of Occupancy.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Aurora Joins other Colorado Cities by Adding a Construction Defect Ordinance

September 03, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the Aurora Sentinel, the city council of Aurora, Colorado, approved an ordinance targeted at making it more difficult for homeowners to sue builders over construction defect claims. Similar to other recent Colorado city construction defect measures, “the new rule gives builders the right to repair defects before the litigation is pursued, requires that the majority of home owners in a home owners association – as opposed to just a majority of HOA board members – approve of any lawsuits, and allows builders to offer monetary settlements to homeowners in lieu of repairs.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Hawaii Federal District Rejects Another Construction Defect Claim

November 30, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Federal District Court, District of Hawaii, continued it long line of cases finding no coverage for claims of faulty workmanship. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Summary Judgment RMB Enters., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200468 (D. Haw. Oct. 28, 2020). Property owners entered a construction contract with RMB Enterprises to develop and construct residential structures and a pond. The pond walls enclosed residential spaces, providing structural foundations for the walls of the building. After completion of the project, the pond leaked into its pump room. RMB performed remedial work by injecting epoxy into cracks. Later, water from the pondleaked into the interior of a residence near a staircase. Water also leaked into the master bedroom area causing musty odor, mood growth, and increased humidity. The owners sued RMB asserting breach of contract, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, and negligence claims. Nautilus denied coverage. The policy provided that faulty workmanship did not constitute an "occurrence." But when faulty workmanship caused property damage to property other than "your work," then such property damage would be considered caused by an occurrence. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES