FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Should I Pull the Pin? Contractor and Subcontractor Termination for Cause

January 26, 2017 — Patrick McNamara - Porter Law Group
Any owner or general contractor who has a few projects under his or her belt has likely had this thought: “My contractor (or subcontractor) is not performing the way I expected; should I replace him?” The other side of the termination coin is: “This project is not going the way I expected; should I get out?” While there may be an emotional high that immediately comes from terminating a contractor or subcontractor (or leaving a project, in mid-stream), there are many factors to be weighed, before making that decision. Project Delay. Replacing a contractor or subcontractor that has already begun performance always results in delays to the project. Assessing the work in place, interviewing replacement contractors, and negotiating the terms of the new relationship can easily consume weeks, if not months of project time. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McNamara, Porter Law Group
Mr. McNamara may be contacted at pmcnamara@porterlaw.com

---

Manhattan Site for Supertall Condo Finds New Owner at Auction

December 15, 2016 — Oshrat Carmiel – Bloomberg
A development site slated for an almost 1,000-foot condo tower on Manhattan’s far east side found a new owner through a bankruptcy auction Tuesday, removing a hurdle for construction after about a year of delays. Gamma Real Estate, the lender to the project, won the auction with a credit bid of $86 million and is poised to take control of the site, pending approval from the bankruptcy court, said David Schechtman, a broker with Meridian Investment Sales, which handled the auction with another brokerage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg
Mr. Carmiel can be followed on Twitter @OshratCarmiel

---

Insured's Experts Excluded, But Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment Denied

October 26, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Despite barring the insured's expert witnesses from testifying as to the cause of the loss, lay witnesses were still available, making the district court's award of summary judgment to the insurer improper. Greater Hall Temple Church of God v. Southern Mut. Church Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 21934 (11th Cir. July 15, 2020). Hurricane Matthew damaged the Greater Hall Temple Church of God's (Church) roof. Leaks occurred, causing water damage to the Church's interior. A claim was submitted to Southern Mutual. The policy did not cover loss caused by water. Nor did it cover loss to the interior of buildings unless the rain entered through openings made by a specified peril. An independent adjuster found that the damage was caused not by wind, but by pre-exisiting structural issues. Southern Mutual denied the claim. The Church filed suit. Southern Mutual moved for summary judgment and also moved to strike three of the Church's expert witnesses. The district court agreed that none of the witnesses could qualify as experts. Two of the witnesses did not have the requisite experience nor had they used a sufficiently reliable methodology formulating their opinions. A third expert was barred because his expert opinion had not been timely disclosed. Thereafter, Southern Mutual's motion for summary judgment was granted because the Church had not provided admissible evidence that damage to the Church's roof was caused by Hurricane Matthew. 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

---

Evacuations in Santa Barbara County as more Mudslides are Predicted

March 14, 2018 — Dave Suggs – CDJ Staff
Alene Tchekmedyian’s LA times article “Storm triggers evacuations in Santa Barbara County: 'Don't be fooled into thinking that this can’t happen again',” warns of the deadly potential of mudslides following the devastation that occurred in January that caused 21 fatalities and damaged homes in Montecito. Debris flow could be triggered by rainfall rates predicted to exceed half and inch per hour. In some areas as much as seven-tenths of an inch of rain per hour are possible because of a chance of thunderstorms. Mandatory evacuations began Monday to protect residents from the fast-moving storm that is predicted to be worse than January’s. Santa Barbara county officials asked that people help spread the word of the evacuation to everyone in their community. They also created an interactive map to help residents determine their risk level. Matilija Canyon and North Fork in Ventura County are under voluntary evacuation orders. Areas at the highest risk include Thomas, Sherpa, and Whittier burn areas. Residents can find shelter at the Goleta Valley Community Center at 5679 Hollister Avenue. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insurer Must Pay To Defend Product Defect Claims From Date Of Product Installation

January 31, 2018 — Michael S. Levine & Brittany M. Davidson - Insurance Recovery Blog
An Iowa federal court recently ruled that an insurer must pay its policyholder’s defense costs from the date of installation of the allegedly faulty product, even though the underlying suits failed to allege when damage purportedly occurred. The ruling opens the door under each of the policyholder’s successive liability policies from 2000 to 2008, allowing the policyholder to recover millions of dollars in defense costs. The policyholder sought summary judgment concerning the date(s) on which the insurer’s defense obligation was triggered by fourteen of the fifteen claims asserted against it. The policyholder argued that the duty attached from the moment property damage potentially occurred, meaning the time when the underlying claimant installed or potentially could have installed the windows at issue in the underlying claims. The policyholder cited to the following evidence to support its claim: actual dates of installation (where available), dates of delivery, purchase or manufacture of the windows; and policy period referenced in the insurer’s claims notes as being potentially implicated by the claim. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton & Williams and Brittany M. Davidson, Hunton & Williams Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@hunton.com Ms. Davidson may be contacted at davidsonb@hunton.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Strict Liability or Negligence? The Proper Legal Standard for Inverse Condemnation caused by Water Damage to Property

March 30, 2016 — Charles S. Krolikowski – Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
Filing a lawsuit against a government entity can be a daunting task given the complexities of tort claims requirements and governmental immunities. A recent decision by the Court of Appeal in Pacific Shores Property Owners Association v. Department of Fish & Wildlife, Case No. C07020 (Jan. 20, 2016), provided welcome clarification as to the proper legal standard for an inverse condemnation action based upon activities of a government entity which cause water damage to private property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Charles S. Krolikowski, Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
Mr. Krolikowski may be contacted at charles.krolikowski@ndlf.com

---

Subcontractors Have a Duty to Clarify Ambiguities in Bid Documents

August 19, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Several months ago, I wrote about an escalator subcontractor that sued a general contractor, demanding payment for work completed based on approved shop drawings. The trial court agreed with the subcontractor, but the general contractor appealed. Ten months later, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the subcontractor had a duty to bring to the general contractor’s attention major discrepancies or errors they detect in the bid documents.

“The subcontractor failed to disclose ambiguities in the plans and must suffer the peril.”

Construction Difficulties The subcontractor installed 32 inch escalators throughout the project, but the plans called for 40 inch escalators. The general contractor and subcontractor could not reach agreement on how the dispute should be resolved. The subcontractor sued the general to get paid for replacing the escalators and the general sued to subcontractor for concessions it had to pay to the owner. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---

The EPA and the Corps of Engineers Propose Another Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”

February 14, 2022 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On December 7, 2021, the most recent proposed revision to the Clean Water Act’s term, “Waters of the United States” was published in the Federal Register. (See 86 FR 69372.) Comments on this proposal must be submitted by February 7, 2022. This term controls the scope of federal regulatory powers in such programs as the development of water quality standards, impaired waters, total maximum daily loads, oil spill prevention, preparedness and response plans, state and tribal water quality certification programs, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, and the Corps of Engineers’ dredge and fill program. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps of Engineers have jointly drafted this comprehensive proposed rule, which also responds to President Biden’s Executive Order 13990, issued in January 2021. Background The agencies noted that they have repeatedly defined and re-defined “Waters of the United States” since the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972. This level of sustained commitment is unique to this program, perhaps reflecting the importance of the programs that are implemented through the Clean Water Act. The most recent rulemaking efforts took place in 2015, 2017, 2020 and now 2022, and the Supreme Court has issued several landmark rulings in response to these efforts. See City of Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 US 304 (1981), United States v. Riverside Bayview, 474 US 121 (1985), SWANCC v. United States, 531 US 159 (2001), Rapanos v. United States, 547 US 715 (2006), National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, 138 S Ct 617 (2018), and County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, 140 S, Ct 1462 (2020). The rules promulgated in 2015 and entitled, “Clean Water Act: Definition of Waters of the United States” expanded the scope of federal regulatory jurisdiction, but the 2020 rule, entitled the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule,” contracted that scope. Now, the agencies have proposed the “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” which will rescind the 2020 rule and inevitably restore something of the scope of the 2015 rule by returning to the familiar “1986 rules” that were issued by the Corps of Engineers in 1986 and EPA in 1988, as modified by the recent Supreme Court decisions mentioned above. Both the 2015 and 2020 rules were mired in litigation and the Corps and EPA view the resort to the 1986 rules as a fresh start for the Clean Water Act. In short, the topsy-turvy history of regulation under the Clean Water Act continues. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---