Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

SAFETY Act Part II: Levels of Protection

June 21, 2024 — Lorelie S. Masters, Kevin W. Jones & Charlotte Leszinske - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Part I of this series, SAFETY Act is Powerful Protection Against Emerging Liabilities, addressed the benefits of obtaining SAFETY Act coverage, including:

From a reputational perspective, SAFETY Act protection provides benefits even absent a security incident: it demonstrates that a knowledgeable federal agency has examined the relevant technology and determined that it is both safe and effective.
SAFETY Act protection can benefit companies taking steps to enhance the security of their physical premises and operations, or their cybersecurity defenses, to reduce their potential liability and enhance their reputation.
Other benefits include—depending on the level of protection—powerful liability protections including exclusive federal jurisdiction and choice of law for the venue where the incident occurred, caps on liability, prohibitions on punitive damages, and government contractor immunity.

This post will explain the levels of protection that a company can seek under the SAFETY Act. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Kevin W. Jones, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Charlotte Leszinske, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Jones may be contacted at kjones@HuntonAK.com Ms. Leszinske may be contacted at cleszinske@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Modified Plan Unveiled for Chicago's Sixth-Tallest Tower

February 15, 2018 — Jeff Yoders – ENR
The Chicago Plan Commission on Jan. 18 approved a $700-million development that, as presented, would include the city’s sixth-tallest building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com

Florida Adopts Daubert Standard for Expert Testimony

October 07, 2019 — Michael L. DeBona - The Subrogation Strategist
Seven months ago, the Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt Daubert as the standard for admitting expert testimony in Florida state courts. In DeLisle v. Crane Co., 258 So. 3d 1219 (2018), the court reaffirmed that “Frye, not Daubert, is the appropriate test in Florida.” On May 23, 2019, however, Florida’s high court did an about-face. In In Re: Amendment to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC19-107, the Florida Supreme Court overruled its decision in DeLisle and declared that Florida will now apply the Daubert standard to determine whether scientific evidence is admissible. The Daubert standard comes from the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which held that the longstanding Frye test[1] for admitting expert testimony was superseded by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Daubert instructed that federal judges should act as “gatekeepers” to ensure expert testimony is rooted in scientifically valid principles and that those principles are properly applied to the facts at issue. In determining whether scientific evidence should be admitted, Daubert sets forth several factors to consider: the testability of the theory or technique; the peer review and publication of the theory or technique; the error rate for the technique; the standards controlling the technique’s operation; and the general acceptance of the theory or technique.[2] The Daubert standard is generally considered a more onerous test than Frye, precluding expert testimony that might otherwise go to the jury under Frye.[3] Whereas Frye is a single factor test that applies only to new or novel science, Daubert is a multifactor test that applies to all expert testimony. Since Daubert, a growing number of states have moved away from the Frye test in favor of the Daubert standard; it is now followed by a majority of jurisdictions in the country. In 2013, the Florida State legislature attempted to move Florida in this direction by amending the Florida Evidence Code to codify the Daubert standard. But because the Florida Supreme Court is vested with the power to make procedural rules and it was unclear whether the Daubert standard was a procedural or substantive rule, it was uncertain whether the 2013 Daubert amendments were controlling law. Then in 2017, in In Re: Amendment to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC16-181, the Florida Supreme Court expressly declined adopting the Daubert amendments to the extent they were procedural. This decision signaled that, if faced with the Daubert standard on appeal from a litigated case, the Florida Supreme Court would reaffirm that Frye – not Daubert – controlled the admissibility of expert testimony in Florida state courts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLP
Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

Burden Supporting Termination for Default

January 11, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Terminating a contractor for default is a “‘drastic sanction’ and ‘should be imposed (or sustained) only for good grounds and on solid evidence.’” Cherokee General Corp. v. U.S., 150 Fed.Cl. 270, 278 (Fed.Cl. 2020) (citation omitted). This is true with any termination for default because terminating a contract for default is the harshest recourse that can be taken under a contract. It is a caused-based termination. For this reason, the party terminating a contract for default needs to be in a position to carry its burden supporting the evidentiary basis in exercising the default-based (or caused-based) termination. Stated differently, the party terminating a contract for default needs to justify the reasonableness in terminating the contract for default. A party looking to terminate a contract for default should smartly work with counsel to best position its justification in exercising the termination for default. Likewise, a contractor terminated for default should immediately work with counsel to best position the unreasonableness or the lack of justification for the default-based termination. 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

Subcontractors Aren’t Helpless

July 26, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As a construction attorney here in Virginia, I often have the pleasure of assisting subcontractors seeking advice on their all important contracts with general contractors. I often sense that these subcontractors feel that they are at the bottom of the food chain and don’t have the “clout” necessary to push back at all against the myriad clauses in these contracts that seek to push the risk downhill. “Pay if Paid” clauses, subordination of lien clauses (which may or may not be enforceable), indemnification language that seems to make the subcontractor liable for way too much, and the dreaded incorporation clauses , would seem to make the subcontractor hold one big “bag of risk” on any construction project. While this may seem bleak, never fear, as a subcontractor you are not totally helpless. Remember, you don’t have to take a job from a general contractor that you get a bad feeling about. Often the best indicator of whether you want to move forward is your “spidey sense” that something seems a bit off or that the GC is trying to cram too much down your throat. Use your experience in the construction industry to guide your contracting activities. It is better to avoid the bad job than to take it in the long run. If you are a quality subcontractor (and I know you are or you wouldn’t be reading this), other work will come along because general contractors need good subs to get their work done. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Condominium Association Wins $5 Million Judgment against Developer

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Belgravia Condominium Association, a group of condo owners in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, have secured a $5.05 million judgment against the contractor who converted their 1902 building into condominiums. The suit alleged that the developers and engineers failed to disclose structural problems to the condominium buyers. One issue at hand was the maintenance of the building’s façade which has historic status. Repairs to the façade alone are expected to require $2 million. Ronald Williams, the lawyer for the association, noted that the iron canopy at the entrance had begun to break away and fall even before the condominium association came into being. The decision isn’t yet final, as the developer has an opportunity to appeal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

City and Contractor Disclaim Responsibility for Construction Error that Lead to Blast

November 13, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The city of Grand Junction, Colorado and their contractor, Aperion Utility Construction, LLC, have both denied any wrongdoing in the construction accident that lead to the destruction of two homes. Aperion was drilling in order to repair traffic signals. Their drill damaged a gas line. In the subsequent explosion, three people were injured and two homes destroyed. Homes for 10 blocks were subsequently evacuated. The three men who were injured have filed a lawsuit claiming negligence on the part of the contractor and the city. The city has released a report from their insurers that concluded that the city was not responsible. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Chinese Telecommunications Ban to Expand to Federally Funded Contracts Effective November 12, 2020

September 21, 2020 — Lori Ann Lange & Sabah Petrov - Peckar & Abramson
In our previous alert, we discussed the Federal Government’s Ban (the “Ban”) on certain Chinese covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment and services in federal government contracts. The ban prohibits government contractors and subcontractors from supplying to the Federal Government or using in their own internal operations certain telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services produced by Huawei Technologies Company, ZTE Corporation, Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, and Dahua Technology Company, as well as their subsidiaries and affiliates. The Ban currently applies to companies contracting directly with the Federal Government. Soon, however, the Ban – at least in part – will expand to contractors and subcontractors who are awarded certain federally assisted contracts and subcontracts. On August 13, 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) published Final Guidance revising its grants and agreements regulations (2 CFR Part 200) to prohibit recipients and subrecipients from using loan or grant funds to purchase or obtain covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment or services. Effective November 12, 2020, recipients and subrecipients are prohibited from obligating or expending loan or grant funds to:

Procure or obtain;
Extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain; or
Enter into a contract (or extend or renew a contract) to procure or obtain equipment, services, or systems that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system.

Reprinted courtesy of Lori Ann Lange, Peckar & Abramson and Sabah Petrov, Peckar & Abramson Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com Ms. Petrov may be contacted at spetrov@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES