FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Limiting Services Can Lead to Increased Liability

December 16, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday Musings, we welcome Nick Pacella. Nick is an architect licensed in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. His practice has spanned several economic swings and he has been able to reposition the eggs in his basket to make the most of each recovery. He is currently focusing on adapting existing commercial buildings to take advantage of materials and processes that promote improved energy efficiency for both the owner and the tenants. For a more colorful rendition of projects you can visit his company’s website. I remember as a kid when the attendant at gas stations would not only clean your windows but also check the oil level of your vehicle as it was filling up with $0.25 per gallon gas. (I did say that I have seen several economic swings) These services have mostly disappeared, and to no great effect to your car since most cars go much longer between oil changes. Other than a slightly dirtier windshield it hasn’t affected your ability to drive and maintain your car. This is not so with professional services. Architects used to include many services that are now sourced to others. Project Management, Owner’s Representatives and Program Managers now populate the landscape. In many cases they came to be because architects either did not provide the service their client’s were looking for or they allowed themselves to be put into an adversarial relationship with their clients. They were likened to foxes watching the chicken coop, especially for project management and owners representative services. Client’s have had others buzzing in their ears “are architects really going to look out for my interests above theirs?’” Of course the clients never ask if the new wave will do any better at rallying behind their interests. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Crossrail Audit Blames Busted Budget and Schedule on Mismanagement

August 13, 2019 — Peter Reina - Engineering News-Record
In a new report on London’s Crossrail, the U.K. National Audit Office says the beleaguered transportation project is around two years late and nearly 20% over budget because of poor management. The NAO, charged by Parliament with monitoring public spending, pointed to ill-conceived “aspirational” plans that proved to be unfit for the technologically challenging and vast program when things went wrong. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Peter Reina, ENR

---

Reporting Requirements for Architects under California Business and Professions Code Section 5588

December 22, 2019 — Jordan Golden - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
Below is an overview of the changes to California Business and Professions Code Section 5588 and its effect on the reporting requirements, for architects, in the construction industry. Section 5588 Prior to 2005 Legislative Changes Section 5588 of the California Business and Professions Code sets forth the reporting requirements for many business professionals including architects. Since 1979, Section 5588 has required architects and their insurers to report to the California Architect Board (the Board) “any settlement or arbitration award in excess of five thousand dollars ($ 5,000) of a claim or action for damages caused by the license holder’s fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice.”1 The language of the code section left open for interpretation the question of what types of settlement claims must be reported to the Board. Thus, in 2004, the Attorney General of the State of California published an opinion stating that a reportable settlement includes “any agreement resolving all or part of a demand for money which is based upon an insured architect’s alleged wrongful conduct.”2 He then went on to conclude that the only qualifications placed on the term “claim” for purposes of Section 5588 is that “(1) the demand be premised on the license holder’s alleged ‘fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice,’ and (2) the value of the claim, as measured by the settlement amount or arbitration award, exceeds $5,000.”3 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jordan Golden, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani

---

Flood Sublimits Do Not Apply to Loss Caused by Named Windstorm

May 07, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The New Jersey Superior Court considered whether recovery for storm surge was limited by the policy's sublimit for loss caused by flood. Public Serv. Enter. Group, Inc. v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., 2015 N. J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 620 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. March 23, 2015). Storm surge from Superstorm Sandy inundated and damaged Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc.'s (PSEG) property, including eight large generating stations. PSEG had coverage of $1 billion under policies with defendant carriers. There was no sublimit in the policies for "named windstorms," other than named windstorms in Florida. A $250 million sublimit appeared in the policies for losses caused by "flood." The carriers paid only a portion of PSEG's claim. The total damages exceeded $500 million. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Washington Court of Appeals Divisions Clash Over Interpretations of the Statute of Repose

August 07, 2023 — Masaki Yamada & Ryanne Mathisen - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The construction statute of repose under RCW 4.16.310 bars any claims arising from construction, design, or engineering of any improvement upon real property that has not accrued within six years after substantial completion or termination of services, whichever is later, even if the injury has not yet occurred. On June 20, 2023, Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals (Div. I) published its decision in Welch v. Air & Liquid Systems severely criticizing and rejecting the statute of repose reasoning contained in Maxwell v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 15 Wn. App. 2d 569, 476 P.3d 645 (2020), a Division Two (Div. II) opinion. More than a mere difference of opinion, the courts in Welch and Maxwell reached different results as to whether claims asserted against Brand Insulations, Inc. were barred by the statute of repose despite involving (i) the same procedural posture, both appeals from summary judgment decisions; (ii) the same facility, Atlantic Richfield Corporation’s (ARCO) petroleum refinery at Cherry Point in Ferndale; (iii) the same activity of installation of asbestos laden insulation on pipes; (iv) the same type of injury, mesothelioma; and (v) application of the same test set forth in Condit v. Lewis Refrigeration Co., 101 Wn.2d 106, 676 P.2d 466 (1984). Reprinted courtesy of Masaki Yamada, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC and Ryanne Mathisen, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Mr. Yamada may be contacted at masaki.yamada@acslawyers.com Ms. Mathisen may be contacted at ryanne.mathisen@acslawyers.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Questions of Fact Regarding Collapse of Basement Walls Prevent Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

December 19, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment on whether the policy covered the collapse of basement walls based upon factual issues presented. Sirois v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158508 (D. Conn. Sept. 18, 2018). The insureds' purchased their home in 2010. In December 2015, a crack in the basement wall was noticed. It was not thought to be a serious problem. But in 2016, the insured read an article about defective concrete problems affecting homeowners in Connecticut. An inspector, Dean Soucy, was hired. He found faults and cracks in the foundation walls. Thereafter, a claim was submitted to USAA under homeowners' policies issued over the years to the insureds. USAA denied coverage. 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

---

Billionaire Row Condo Board Sues Developers Over 1,500 Building Defects

September 29, 2021 — Robert Burnson, Bloomberg
The condo board at one of New York’s tallest and toniest towers sued the building’s developers, claiming design flaws are to blame for flooding, stuck elevators and “horrible and obtrusive noise and vibration.” The residential tower at 432 Park Avenue is a 1,396-foot skyscraper overlooking Central Park that was opened in 2015 on the city’s so-called Billionaire Row. The condo board claims its engineering consultant has identified more than 1,500 construction and design defects — “many of which are described as life safety issues.” The board that represents the condo owners sued the developers, CIM Group and Macklowe Properties, and the company, also known as sponsor, that the developers formed to build the tower. The board is seeking $250 million, plus punitive damages, in the lawsuit, filed Thursday in New York Supreme Court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert Burnson, Bloomberg

---

Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 Not Just for Individual Homeowners Anymore?

March 22, 2017 — Maggie Stewart - Colorado Construction Litigation
On March 9, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals announced its decision in Broomfield Senior Living Owner, LLC v. R.G. Brinkmann Company, No. 16CA0101, 2017 COA 31 (Colo. App. Mar. 9, 2017). As a matter of first impression, the Court evaluated whether a senior living facility constitutes “residential property” protected by the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007 ("HPA") provision of the Construction Defect Reform Act (CDARA). In 2007, Plaintiff Broomfield entered into a contract with Defendant Brinkmann for construction of a senior assisted and independent living facility. The contract contained warranty provisions related to the quality of construction and cautioned that Plaintiff’s failure to provide Defendant with prompt notice of any defects would result in waiver of any claim for breach. The contract also limited Defendant Brinkmann’s liability by identifying three separate accrual provisions that would determine the time period in which Plaintiff could bring a claim. The project was completed in 2009. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Maggie Stewart, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Stewart may be contacted at stewart@hhmrlaw.com

---