Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

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

U.S. Steel Invoking Carnegie’s Legacy in Revival Strategy

July 23, 2014 — Sonja Elmquist – Bloomberg
In March 2013, Mario Longhi lobbed an unexpected question into a roomful of 150 U.S. Steel Corp. managers: Who here would buy the company’s stock, tomorrow? He gave them three seconds, and “only a few reacted in that time frame positively,” Longhi said. Since that meeting, Longhi has been promoted to chief executive officer, and nine months into his tenure he’s closed one plant permanently, two more are temporarily idled and he’s planning to overhaul another. It’s all part of his plan to transform the 144-year-old company into a lean, modern steel producer. Investors are taking note, with the shares up 53 percent since he took over. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sonja Elmquist, Bloomberg
Ms. Elmquist may be contacted at selmquist1@bloomberg.net

Court Rules that Damage From Squatter’s Fire is Not Excluded as Vandalism or Malicious Mischief

April 15, 2015 — Valerie A. Moore, Christopher Kendrick, and Colin T. Murphy – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Ong v. Fire Insurance Exchange (No. B252773, filed 4/3/15), a California appeals court ruled that a vacancy exclusion limited to damage caused by “vandalism or malicious mischief” did not bar coverage for damage to a vacant property caused by a warming fire purposely started by a transient that got out of control and spread to other parts of the property. In Ong, the insured’s rental premises had been vacated by tenants and the utilities turned off. Nearly two years later, the insured submitted a claim for fire damage that had just occurred. An investigator reported finding signs that a squatter had been living in the building, stating that: “[I]t appears the fire may have been initiated as the result of an uncontrolled warming fire started by an unauthorized inhabitant.” The investigator found firewood and a mattress, and concluded that holes burned in the floor were the result of the squatter attempting to throw burning wood out the door when the fire got out of control. The policy excluded vandalism as follows: “We do not cover direct or indirect loss from: . . . 4. Vandalism or Malicious Mischief, breakage of glass and safety glazing materials if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days . . . just before the loss. A dwelling under construction is not considered vacant.” The term “Vandalism” was not defined in the policy. The insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion, stating: “Our investigation indicates that this loss was the result of vandalism. A trespasser entered the vacant dwelling and intentionally set a fire on the kitchen floor.” Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Valerie A. Moore, Christopher Kendrick and Colin T. Murphy Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com. Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Mr. Murphy may be contacted at cmurphy@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

October 10, 2013 — Bret Cogdill — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
An issue that has plagued builders in Colorado construction defect litigation is the difficulty of getting additional insured carriers to fully participate in the builder’s defense, oftentimes leaving the builder to fund its own defense during the course of the litigation. Many additional insurers offer a variety of positions regarding why they will not pay for fees and costs during the course of a lawsuit. Some insurers argue that, until after trial, it is impossible to determine its proper share of the defense, and therefore cannot make any payments until the liability is determined as to all of the potentially contributing policies. (This is often referred to as the “defense follows indemnity” approach.) Others may make an opening contribution to defense fees and costs, but fall silent as fees and costs accumulate. In such an event, the builder may be forced to fund all or part of its own defense, while the uncooperative additional insured carrier waits for the end of the lawsuit or is faced with other legal action before it makes other contributions. Recent orders in two, currently ongoing, U.S. District Court cases provide clarity on the duty to defend in Colorado, holding that multiple insurers’ duty to defend is joint and several. The insured does not have to go without a defense while the various insurers argue amongst themselves as to which insurer pays what share. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bret Cogdill
Bret Cogdill can be contacted at cogdill@hhmrlaw.com

Traub Lieberman Partners Lisa Rolle, Erin O’Dea, and Nicole Verzillo Win Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

September 30, 2024 — Lisa M. Rolle, Erin O’Dea, Nicole Verzillo - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partners Lisa Rolle, Erin O’Dea, and Nicole Verzillo won motion for summary judgment in a premises liability matter brought before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County. The Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell in a pothole on the common driveway of five abutting properties and sustained an injury. The firm represented one of the multiple property owners. Traub Lieberman moved for summary judgment, asserting that the claims against the firm’s client should be dismissed as they did not own, operate, control or make special use of the driveway where the incident occurred. The firm also asserted that the alleged condition of the driveway that allegedly caused Plaintiff’s accident was a non-actionable, trivial defect. The firm also moved to dismiss the cross-claims asserted against them, contending that there was no evidence of negligence on behalf of the firm’s client. As such, the court found that the defect was a non-actionable, trivial defect. The firm secured dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against the firm’s clients and against all moving and non-moving Defendants. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman, Erin O’Dea, Traub Lieberman and Nicole Verzillo, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Ms. O'Dea may be contacted at eodea@tlsslaw.com Ms. Verzillo may be contacted at nverzillo@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New Jersey Judge Declared Arbitrator had no Duty to Disclose Past Contact with Lawyer

October 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the New Jersey Law Journal, in a recent ruling, a federal judge in Newark “ruled that an arbitration award should not be vacated based on the arbitrator’s failure to disclose his professional contacts with defense counsel during his prior career as a federal judge.” The plaintiff had sought to vacate an award “because he failed to disclose interactions he had with Dennis Drasco, the lawyer for the defendant, while serving on the bench. But Brown was not required to disclose his contacts with Drasco because they would not cause a reasonable person to question Brown’s impartiality, U.S. District Judge William Walls ruled Oct. 21,” reported the New Jersey Law Journal. The plaintiff’s assertions “suggest nothing more than that Judge Brown and Mr. Drasco were familiar with one another in their professional capacities,” Walls stated, as quoted by the New Jersey Law Journal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Prompt Payment Act Obligation is Not Triggered When the Owner Holds Less Retention from the General Contractor

October 27, 2016 — John P. Ahlers – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Most states have laws known as “prompt payment” statutes which govern the timing of payments on public works projects[i] from project owners to general contractors, and from general contractors to subcontractors.[ii] The purpose of these statutes is to ensure that contractors and subcontractors who may have less leverage than the project owners and prime contractors, respectively, are paid for their work on a timely basis. Prompt Payment Act cases are rare, and, since many of the prompt payment statutes are founded on the same principles, when we come across a Prompt Payment Act case, it is “blog worthy.” This dispute arose from the construction of the Exposition Light Rail Line Project connecting downtown Los Angeles with Culver City on which FCI/Fluor/Parsons (“FFP”) was the prime contractor, and Bloise Construction, Inc. (“Bloise”) was the excavation subcontractor to FFP. Under the prime contract, Expo,[iii] the owner, was permitted to withhold ten percent of the payments owed to FFP, and FFP, pursuant to its subcontract with Bloise, was entitled to also withhold ten percent of the payments to Bloise as retention. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

Another Worker Dies in Boston's Latest Construction Accident

June 20, 2022 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
Boston Police and the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration are investigating a June 9 early morning construction accident that killed a worker in Boston’s Seaport district— the latest in a spate of fatalities at worksites across the city's metro area during the past 18 months. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES