Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

OSHA ETS Heads to Sixth Circuit

December 13, 2021 — George Morrison - White and Williams LLP
On November 16, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was selected during the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s lottery to hear the multiple consolidated challenges to the recent COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA is permitted to issue an ETS if the agency arrives at the conclusion that a “grave danger” to worker safety exists. An ETS does not go through the typical notice-and-comment period that federal regulations usually follow. Inheriting the Fifth Circuit’s recent nationwide stay on implementation and enforcement of the ETS, the Sixth Circuit will decide whether the stay should be “modified, revoked, or extended” in the short term. Early this morning, OSHA filed an emergency motion to dissolve the Fifth Circuit’s stay of the vaccine mandate with the Sixth Circuit. OSHA argued, among other things:

The Fifth Circuit erred in holding “that OSHA lacked statutory authority to address the grave danger of COVID-19 in the place on the ground that COVID-19 is caused by a virus and also exists outside of the workplace” because “[t]hat rationale has no basis in the statutory text.”
The Fifth Circuit erred in finding the ETS both over- and underinclusive because “OSHA recounted extensive empirical data showing that all employees can transmit COVID-19 in the workplace and that COVID-19 has spread in a vast variety of workplace.”
The “petitioners have not shown that their claimed injuries outweigh the interests in protecting employees from a dangerous virus while this litigation proceeds . . . . These claimed injuries do not justify delaying the [ETS] that will save thousands of lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of George Morrison, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Morrison may be contacted at morrisong@whiteandwilliams.com

New Strategy for Deterring Intracorporate Litigation?: Delaware Supreme Court Supports Fee-Shifting Bylaws

May 13, 2014 — Marc Casarino and Lori Smith – White and Williams LLP
A fee-shifting bylaw of a Delaware non-stock corporation is not facially invalid according to the Delaware Supreme Court’s May 8, 2014 opinion in ATP Tour, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund. In this case, ATP Tour, Inc., a non-stock membership corporation (“ATP”) governed by a seven member board, had adopted a bylaw provision which provided that current and former members of ATP would be responsible for the litigation costs arising out of any litigation initiated by any such member against ATP or any of the other members in which the initiating party did not obtain a judgment on the merits that substantially achieved in substance and amount the full remedy sought. The bylaw provision had been adopted, in accordance with ATP’s charter, by the Board unilaterally without any consent from the members. The members had agreed at the time they joined ATP to be bound by the bylaws, as amended from time to time. Two members of ATP initiated a suit against ATP relating to certain actions taken with respect the ATP’s tournament schedule and format alleging both federal antitrust claims and Delaware fiduciary duty claims but did not prevail on any of their claims. ATP then moved to recover its legal fees relating to such actions. Reprinted courtesy of Marc Casarino, White and Williams LLP and Lori Smith, White and Williams LLP Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Costs Absorb Two Big Hits This Quarter

July 14, 2016 — Tim Grogan and Bruce Buckley – Engineering News-Record
Two big events hit construction this quarter: Brexit—that is, the British vote to leave the European Union— and the U.S government’s decision to increase tariff duties on Chinese cold-rolled flat steel by 522%. However, neither will have much of an impact on domestic construction costs, according to ENR’s sources. Reprinted courtesy of Tim Grogan, ENR and Bruce Buckley, ENR Mr. Grogan may be contacted at grogant@enr.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Exclaims “Enough!” To Homeowner Who Kept Raising Wrongful Foreclosure Claims

April 01, 2015 — Krsto Mijanovic and Annette F. Mijanovic – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
“There are no free houses,” began the decision issued by the Court of Appeal on March 23, 2015 in Boyce v. T.D. Service Company (B255958). Examining three years of litigation in bankruptcy court, unlawful detainer court, and the superior court, and each of their respective appellate courts, the Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff’s wrongful foreclosure claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. Plaintiff was a borrower who purchased a home subject to a deed of trust. After plaintiff defaulted on the loan, nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings were initiated. To avoid foreclosure, plaintiff engaged in a series of stall tactics, including filing an emergency bankruptcy petition, appealing the bankruptcy court’s decision to grant the trustee relief of stay, refusing to leave the property following the trustee’s sale thereby causing an unlawful detainer action to be filed, and appealing the granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in the unlawful detainer action. Once evicted, plaintiff sued all the entities involved in the foreclosure process for wrongful foreclosure, declaratory relief, violation of Unfair Practices Act, and quiet title. When the trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrers on the grounds of res judicata/collateral estoppel, plaintiff naturally appealed. Reprinted courtesy of Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Annette F. Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Mijanovic may be contacted at amijanovic@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

First Look at Long List of AEC Firms Receiving PPP Loans

July 20, 2020 — Tom Ichniowski & Scott Blair - Engineering News-Record
Thousands of construction and design firm from all parts of the U.S. appear on lists of companies that have received federal Paycheck Protection Program forgivable loans, according to federal documents just made public. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record and Scott Blair, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Mr. Blair may be contacted at blairs@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Strikes a Deathblow to Substantial Factor Causation in Most Cases; Is Asbestos Litigation Next?

March 22, 2021 — Christian J. Singewald, Rochelle Gumapac & Timothy J. Keough - White and Williams LLP
In Doull v. Foster, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) addressed the proper causation standard in a medical malpractice case. In reaching this issue, the SJC reached far beyond the medical malpractice case before it. The SJC concluded that the substantial factor test for causation, which had been regularly employed in the Commonwealth for decades, was “unnecessarily confusing.” In doing so, the SJC effectively ended the use of the substantial factor test in all negligence cases going forward, except in toxic tort litigation. However, the SJC openly questioned its usefulness in toxic tort litigation and all but welcomed a direct challenge to its use there. Reprinted courtesy of Christian J. Singewald, White and Williams LLP, Rochelle Gumapac, White and Williams LLP and Timothy J. Keough, White and Williams LLP Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Gumapac may be contacted at gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Keough may be contacted at keought@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Coverage for Restoring Aesthetic Uniformity

December 10, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found there was no coverage regarding aesthetic uniformity between new materials installed after water damage occurred and the rest of the building. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York v. The Towers of Quayside No. 4 Condominium Assoc., Case No. 15-CV-20056-King (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Fla., Nov. 5, 2015). The insured's high rise condominium suffered water damage when a valve on the air conditioning unit damaged the drywall, carpeting, baseboards, insulation and wallpaper in the east hallways of the eleventh floor and the floors below. Floors three through twenty-five had a uniform appearance by design with respect to the carpet, wallpaper, and woodwork in the common area hallways. The insured submitted a claim under its property policy with Great American. A payment of $170,291.84 was made for damage to the east hallways of the eleventh floor and the floors below. The insured sought coverage to repair or replace undamaged carpeting, wallpaper, baseboards, and woodwork in (1) the west hallways and elevator landings of the eleventh floor and the floors below and in (2) floors twelve through twenty-five.The insured contended that the loss of aesthetic uniformity devalued the building and constituted a loss to the building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Finds Wrap-Up Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage of Additional Insureds

February 18, 2020 — Callie E. Waers - Florida Construction Law News
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, recently took a close look at the application of a “controlled insurance program exclusion” (wrap-up exclusion) to additional insureds on a commercial general liability policy. In Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 886 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2018), the Fourth Circuit examined the interplay of an enrolled party’s additional insured status on an unenrolled party’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy with a wrap-up exclusion. The court applied North Carolina law and found that pursuant to the policy’s own language, the exclusion only applied to the original named insured, not the additional insureds. The case arose out of an injury incurred by an employee of a second-tier subcontractor during the construction of a hospital. On this particular project, the owner maintained a “rolling owner controlled insurance program” (wrap-up insurance program) in which all tiers of contractors were required to enroll, but enrollment was not automatic. The general contractor was enrolled in the owner’s wrap-up policy, but neither the steel manufacturer subcontractor nor its sub-subcontractor, the steel installation company, were enrolled. The underlying plaintiff was injured while he was an employee of the steel installation company, but he did not name his employer in his personal injury lawsuit. The Cont’l Cas. Co. case was instituted by Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) after it defended and settled the underlying plaintiff’s claims against its insured and additional insured, the steel manufacturer and general contractor, respectively. Continental sought to be reimbursed for the $1.7 million settlement and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for the defense and indemnity of the underlying lawsuit. Continental alleged that Amerisure Insurance Company (“Amerisure”) breached its duty to defend and Amerisure’s policy provided the primary coverage for both the general contractor and steel manufacturer, who were additional insureds on the Amerisure policy. Amerisure denied a duty to defend the additional insureds based on the presence of the wrap-up exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Mr. Charlson may be contacted at Ryan.Charlson@csklegal.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES