FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Is an Initial Decision Maker, Project Neutral, or Dispute Resolution Board Right for You?

July 14, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
Recently, I participated in a roundtable hosted by JAMS with experienced South Florida construction lawyers and retired circuit court judges to discuss the pros and cons of utilizing an initial decision maker (“IDM” and also referred to as a project neutral) or a dispute resolution board (“DRB”) to resolve disputes on construction projects. The IDM and DRB are designed to resolve disputes, specifically claims (whether for time, money, or both), during construction to keep the project progressing forward without being bogged down by the inevitable claim. There are numerous avenues to resolve disputes without resorting to filing a lawsuit or a demand for arbitration. The thought is that dispute resolution will be facilitated by techniques designed to assist the parties with the resolution of claims during construction. While direct discussions between the parties, meetings with the executives for business decision purposes, mediations, etc., are certainly helpful, sometimes these avenues are simply not enough to truly resolve a complex claim on a construction project that occurs during construction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Washington Supreme Court Upholds King County Ordinance Requiring Utility Providers to Pay for Access to County’s Right-of-Way and Signals Approval for Other Counties to Follow Suit

March 02, 2020 — Kristina Southwell - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
On December 5, 2019, the Washington State Supreme Court released its opinion in King County v. King County Water Districts, et al.,[1] upholding King County’s Ordinance 18403, which requires utility companies who are franchise grantees to pay “franchise compensation” for their use of the County rights-of-way. Generally, utility companies must apply for and obtain from the County a franchise permitting it to do necessary work in the County rights-of-way. [2] Previously, King County only charged an administrative fee associated with issuing such a franchise. But with the new franchise compensation charges, King County estimates that it will raise approximately $10 million dollars per year for its general fund. Ordinance 18403 passed in November 2016 and was the first of its kind in the state. The ordinance created a rule, set forth in RCW 6.27.080, requiring electric, gas, water, and sewer utilities who are granted a franchise by King County to pay “franchise compensation” in exchange for the right to use the County’s rights-of-way. The rule provides that franchise compensation is in the nature of an annual rent payment to the County for using the County roads. King County decides an initial estimate of the charge by considering various factors such as the value of the land used, the size of the area that will be used, and the density of the households served. But utility companies can negotiate with the County over the final amount of franchise compensation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kristina Southwell, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Southwell may be contacted at kristina.southwell@acslawyers.com

---

Quick Note: Remember to Timely Foreclose Lien Against Lien Transfer Bond

July 09, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When a construction lien is transferred to a lien transfer bond pursuant to Florida Statute s. 713.24, instead of foreclosing the lien against the real property, you are foreclosing the lien against the lien transfer bond. This is not a bad deal and, oftentimes, is probably ideal. Remember, however, just because a construction lien was transferred to a lien transfer bond (pre-lawsuit) does not mean you get more time to file your lien foreclosure lawsuit. A lawsuit must still be filed within one year (short of that period being specifically shortened under operation of the law). 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

---

Client Alert: California’s Unfair Competition Law (B&P §17200) Preempted by Federal Workplace Safety Law

September 24, 2014 — R. Bryan Martin, Yvette Davis, & Kristian Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Solus Industrial Innovations LLC v. Superior Court (No. G047661, filed 9/22/2014) (“Solus”) the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code §17200) is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“Fed/OSHA”) because the Unfair Competition law, as approved by the United States Secretary of Labor, does not include any provision for civil enforcement of workplace safety standards by a state prosecutor through a complaint for penalties. Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC (“Solus”) is a plastics manufacturer. In 2007, Solus installed a residential water heater at its commercial facility in Orange County. The water heater exploded in March 2009, killing two workers. California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) investigated and determined the explosion was caused by a failed safety valve and lack of any proper safety feature on the water heater. Cal/OSHA charged Solus with five violations of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. Because deaths were involved, Cal/OSHA forwarded the results of its investigation to the Orange County District Attorney. In March 2012, the Orange County District Attorney filed criminal charges against Solus’ plant manager and maintenance supervisor. The District Attorney also filed a civil action against Solus, including two causes of action for violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 – the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). The action sought civil penalties under the UCL in the amount of $2,500 per day, per employee, from November 29, 2007 through March 19, 2009. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin, Yvette Davis and Kristian Moriarty Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

This New Indicator Shows There's No Bubble Forming in U.S. Housing

April 01, 2015 — Michelle Jamrisko and Nina Glinski – Bloomberg
When a parking space in Manhattan costs $136,000 and only 15 percent of San Francisco's homes are affordable for the middle class, it's easy to worry that another housing bubble is around the corner. The vast majority of American homeowners have little to fear: A new gauge from Nationwide Insurance in Columbus, Ohio, suggests the national market is in its best shape since 2001 and there's no reason to fear a national downturn, no less a bursting bubble. In its first data release, the national Leading Index of Healthy Housing Markets rose to 109.8 in the fourth quarter. Values greater than 100 indicate a robust industry. The index uses local data in 373 metropolitan statistical areas that are underlying drivers of the housing market, including measures on employment changes, demographics and the mortgage market. Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Jamrisko, Bloomberg and Nina Glinski, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Class Actions Under California’s Right to Repair Act. Nope. Well . . . Nope.

January 15, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s the holidays. A time when family and friends, and even neighbors, gather together. And nothing brings neighbors closer together than class action residential construction defect litigation. In Kohler Co. v. Superior Court, Case No. B288935 (November 14, 2018), the Second District Court of Appeal addressed whether neighbors can bring class action lawsuits under the Right to Repair Act. For those who are regular readers of the California Construction Law Blog you’re familiar with the Right to Repair Act codified at Civil Code sections 895 et seq. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Fifth Circuit Holds Insurer Owes Duty to Defend Latent Condition Claim That Caused Fire Damage to Property Years After Construction Work

September 21, 2020 — Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman
Most general liability policies only provide coverage for “property damage” that occurs during the policy period. Thus, when analyzing coverage for a construction defect claim, it is important to ascertain the date on which damage occurred. Of course, the plaintiffs’ bar crafts pleadings to be purposefully vague as to the date (or period) of damage to property. A recent Fifth Circuit decision applying Texas law addresses this coverage issue in the context of allegations of a condition created by an insured during the policy period that caused damage after the policy expired. In Gonzalez v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 969 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2020), Gilbert Gonzales (the insured) was a siding contractor. In 2013, the underlying plaintiff hired Gonzales to install new siding on his house. In 2016, the underlying plaintiff’s house was damaged in a fire. The underlying plaintiff sued Gilbert in Texas state court alleging that when Gonzalez installed the siding in 2013, he hammered nails through electrical wiring and created a dangerous condition that caused a fire three years later in 2016. At the time Gilbert performed construction work, he was insured by Mid-Continent Casualty Company. Mid-Continent disclaimed coverage to Gonzales on the basis that the complaint unequivocally alleged that property was damaged in 2016 and there were no allegations that property damage occurred prior to 2016 or was continuing in nature. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

---

Bert Hummel Appointed Vice Chair of State Bar of Georgia Bench & Bar Committee

October 24, 2021 — Bert Hummel - Lewis Brisbois
Atlanta, Ga. (October 4, 2021) – Atlanta Partner Bert Hummel was recently named Vice Chair of the State Bar of Georgia's Bench & Bar Committee for the 2021-2022 year. The Bench & Bar Committee identifies and facilitates solutions to issues of mutual interest between State judges and Georgia lawyers for the benefit of the bench, the bar and the public. It also oversees the annual Justice Thomas O. Marshall Professionalism Award, which honors one lawyer and one judge who have demonstrated the highest professional conduct and paramount reputation for professionalism. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bert Hummel, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Hummel may be contacted at Bert.Hummel@lewisbrisbois.com

---