Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Who's Who Legal Recognizes Two White and Williams Lawyers as Thought/Global Leaders in Insurance and Reinsurance

August 28, 2023 — White and Williams LLP
Who's Who Legal (WWL), in association with Thought Leaders: USA - Insurance and Reinsurance 2023, has recognized two White and Williams lawyers as leading practitioners in their field. WWL’s research process uses a combination of proprietary digital and in-person qualitative techniques and interviews. WWL named Patricia B. Santelle and Randy J. Maniloff as Thought Leaders in Insurance and Reinsurance 2023. Thought Leaders base their results on recommendations and feedback from private practitioners in the industry, as well as from corporate counsel or other clients who have worked closely with the nominees. Both Patricia and Randy have also been recommended as Global Leaders in their field. Patti is recognized by her clients and peers as a leading attorney in the field of complex insurance coverage, having devoted more than 30 years to the representation of insurance company clients. She is also a leader in the legal and business community, having served as the first female chair of a major law firm in Philadelphia. An advocate of community engagement, Patti supports a large number of business, community, law school and pro bono/volunteer initiatives in the region. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

Oregon Codifies Tall Wood Buildings

October 23, 2018 — Joanna Masterson - Construction Executive
Oregon is the first state to allow wood buildings to exceed six stories without special consideration under the Oregon Building Codes Division’s recent statement of alternative method (SAM), which provides prescriptive path elements for mass timber construction. The SAM establishes three new types of construction—Type IV A, B and C—that allow buildings to go as high as nine to 18 stories with varying percentages of exposed timber surfaces and sprinkler system requirements. Reprinted courtesy of Joanna Masterson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

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

Amada Family Limited Partnership v. Pomeroy: Colorado Court of Appeals Expressly Affirms the Continuing Viability of the Common-Law After-Acquired Title Doctrine and Expressly Recognizes Utility Easements by Necessity

June 28, 2021 — Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
On May 27, 2021, a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Amada Family Limited Partnership v. Pomeroy, 2021 COA 73. In that case, the court decided two significant issues that apparently had never been expressly ruled on by a Colorado appellate court before: (1) that Colorado’s common-law after-acquired title doctrine was not abrogated by adoption of the after-acquired interest statute; and (2) that utility easements may be implied by necessity. As is often the case in matters involving access and implied property rights, the facts and history underlying Amada are complicated, but the case’s two most significant rulings are not. Instead, the basic legal principles established (or confirmed) in Amada appear to be broadly applicable, and real property practitioners should take note of these significant developments (or clarifications) in the law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

Missouri Construction Company Sues Carpenter Union for Threatening Behavior

February 10, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to KMOV News, Raineri Construction Company in Missouri filed suit against the Local Carpenters’ District Council claiming employees had been “stalked and threatened” by the union. However, the Carpenters Union “denies the allegations” and said “it has the right to protest against a company that doesn’t always meet the union standards for pay and benefits.” Tony Raineri, one of the construction company’s executives, said to KMOV News: “For me it wasn’t such a big deal until they started making threats of bodily harm, started following me and my wife to our home, started following my employees to their homes.” KMOV News reported that a “union representative told News 4’s Craig Cheatham that no one acting on behalf of the Carpenters Union ever threatened, harassed or stalked Raineri, his employees or their clients.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

EPA Rejects Most of N.Y.’s $511 Million Tappan Zee Loan

September 17, 2014 — Freeman Klopott – Bloomberg
A $511 million loan approved by a New York environmental agency to help fund the construction of a new $4 billion Tappan Zee Bridge was rejected almost entirely by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The loan was intended to drive down borrowing costs for the replacement span being built across the Hudson River, with half of it being provided at zero interest. The agency, the Environmental Facilities Corp., approved the borrowing in June, saying it could use the funds from a program that targets clean-water projects. The EPA said today in a letter to state officials that building a new bridge doesn’t fit the intention of the program, which is backed by federal dollars. The agency, citing the U.S. Clean Water Act, said only $29.1 million could be allowed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Freeman Klopott, Bloomberg
Mr. Klopott may be contacted at fklopott@bloomberg.net

Winning Attorney Fees in Litigation as a California Construction Contractor or Subcontractor

December 27, 2021 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
The General Rule in California: The Winner Does NOT Receive Attorney Fees and Costs: There is a common misconception that court decisions require the loser in a lawsuit to reimburse the winner for the fees and costs incurred during the lawsuit. Reliance on this misconception in developing a legal strategy for dealing with disputes is a serious strategic error. Where the legal issue is, for example, “breach of contract,” the general rule in California is that there are only two methods by which the winning litigant will be awarded the attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing or defending the lawsuit. The first of these is if the contract in question contains an effective attorney fee clause specifically providing that the prevailing party will recover their attorney fees and costs. The second is if there is a statute on point which provides that the prevailing party will be awarded those fees and costs. The general rule in California is that each party pays their own attorney fees and costs, unless there is an independent legal basis that provides otherwise. This is known as the “American Rule,” used throughout most of the country. The Issue is Important Because Spending More Money Than You Can Be Awarded is a Losing Strategy: The importance of whether the prevailing party in a lawsuit will be awarded their fees and costs cannot be underestimated. The party contemplating whether to bring a lawsuit must seriously consider whether it is even worth the trouble. In many cases, unless the one bringing the lawsuit (the “plaintiff”) is entitled to be reimbursed for the considerable attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing the case, it is just not worth doing so. There is no point spending $50,000 on attorneys on a $40,000 claim unless the plaintiff can be awarded both the $40,000 and the $50,000 if the plaintiff wins. Unless fees and costs are awarded, the plaintiff will still be out $10,000 in the very best of cases. For a party sued (the “defendant”) a similar situation arises in that the defendant faces the reality that it may be less expensive to just pay on a frivolous or false claim than to fight it. Either scenario is unsatisfactory. On the whole, it is beneficial to have an attorney fee clause in a contract when either a plaintiff or a defendant must vindicate its rights. Both deserve to be fully compensated to achieve justice. It is also beneficial to have an attorney fee clause in a contract to encourage the one who is at fault to resolve the case rather than risk paying the fees and costs of the other party who is likely to win the case. In either case, the presence of an attorney fee clause facilitates the party in the right and encourages resolution outside of litigation. These are admirable societal goals. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

Intentional Mining Neighbor's Property is Not an Occurrence

October 30, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Kentucky Supreme Court determined there was no coverage when the insured was sued for mineral trespass. Am. Mining Ins. Co. v. Peters Farms, LLC, 2018 Ky. LEXIS 287 (Ky. Aug. 16, 2018). Beginning in 2007, Ikerd Mining. LLC removed 20,212 toms of coal from land belonging to Peters Farms, LLC. Of that amount, 10,012 tons were wrongfully mined under Ikerd's alleged mistaken belief as to the correct location of Peters' boundaries. The other 1,200 tons were mined by Ikerd knowing that the land thereunder belonged to Peters, but pursuant to a disputed oral lease agreement between the two. Peters claimed that the lease was an ongoing negotiation that was never finalized. 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