FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Design Immunity Does Not Shield Public Entity From Claim That it Failed to Warn of a Dangerous Condition

May 17, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Readers of this blog are familiar with the concept of the design immunity defense. Codified at Government Code section 830.6, it provides in pertinent that a public entity is not liable for an injury caused by a plan or design of a public improvement where the plan or design has been “approved in advance . . . by the legislative body of the public entity or by some other body or employee exercising discretionary authority to give such approval or where such plan or design is prepared in conformity with standards previously so approved” if the trial or appellate court finds that there “is any substantial evidence upon the basis of which (a) a reasonable public employee could have adopted the plan or design or the standards therefor or (b) a reasonable legislative body or other body or employee could have approved the plan or design or the standards therefor.” In the next case, Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Case No. B293670 (January 29, 2021), the 2nd District Court of Appeal examined whether the design immunity defense also serves as a defense to a claim that a public entity has a duty to warn of a dangerous condition on public property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Revisiting OSHA’s Controlling Employer Policy

December 21, 2017 — Wally Zimolong - Zimolong LLC
The United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has been asked to review OSHA’s twenty year old “controlling employer” policy. As many contractors are surprised to learn, under OSHA’s controlling employer policy, you can be given an OSHA citation even when your own employee is not exposed to the alleged hazard. A. The Controlling Employer Policy OSHA’s current controlling employer policy has been effective since 1999. That policy applies to multi-employer worksites, which means virtually all construction sites. Under the policy, OSHA can cite the creating, exposing, correcting, or controlling employer. A creating employer is one who creates the hazard to which workers are exposed. The exposing employer is one who permits his employees to be exposed to the hazard, whether it created the hazard or not. The correcting employer is one who is responsible with correcting known hazards. Finally, the controlling employer is one “who has general supervisory authority over the worksite, including the power to correct safety and health violations itself or require others to correct them.” Most general contractors and CM’s are controlling employers. Under OSHA’s policy, a contractor’s OSHA safety obligations hinges on whether it is a creating, exposing, correcting, or controlling employer. The creating, exposing, and correcting contractors obligations are fairly straightforward. However, the controlling contractors obligations are more nuisanced. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

COVID-19 Is Not Direct Physical Loss Or Damage

April 13, 2020 — Joseph Blyskal, Dennis Brown & Michelle Bernard - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law Blog
Is a cash register that is not being used damaged property? When you need to wash a table, a chair, or a section of flooring with readily available cleaning products to make them safe and useable, are you repairing damaged property? Is a spilled cup of coffee waiting to be wiped up actual damage to the premises? If your customers stay home to help stop the spread of a virus, has there been a physical loss inside your shuttered store or restaurant? The insuring agreements typically found in commercial property insurance policies require “direct physical loss of or damage to” covered property as the triggering event. Without establishing direct physical loss or damage a policyholder cannot meet its burden to trigger coverage for a purely economic loss of business income resulting from shuttering its business due to concerns over exposure to—or even the actual presence of—COVID-19. Despite this well-understood policy language, it is already beyond question that insurers will confront creative—albeit strained—arguments from policyholder firms attempting to trigger coverage for pure economic loss. The scope of the human and economic tragedy we all face will be matched by the scope of the effort to force the financial harm onto insurance companies. The plaintiffs in what appears to be the first-filed case seeking a declaratory judgment in the context of first-party insurance coverage rely on the assertion that “contamination of the insured premises by the Coronavirus would be a direct physical loss needing remediation to clean the surfaces” of its establishment, a New Orleans restaurant, to trigger coverage for business interruption.[1] See Cajun Conti, LLC, et. al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et. al. Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. The complaint alleges that the property is insured under an “all risk policy” defining “covered causes of loss” as “direct physical loss.” The plaintiffs rely on the alleged presence of the virus on “the surface of objects” in certain conditions and the need to clean those surfaces. They go so far as to claim that “[a]ny effort by [the insurer] to deny the reality that the virus causes physical damage and loss would constitute a false and potentially fraudulent misrepresentation. . . .” Reprinted courtesy of Gordon & Rees attorneys Joseph Blyskal, Dennis Brown and Michelle Bernard Mr. Blyskal may be contacted at tblatchley@grsm.com Mr. Brown may be contacted at dbrown@grsm.com Ms. Bernard may be contacted at mbernard@grsm.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

What to Do Before OSHA Comes Knocking

December 19, 2018 — Parker Rains - Construction Executive
Every year, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspects workplaces around the country for safety and occupational hazards. In 2017 alone, OSHA conducted 32,408 inspections – more than half of which were unprogrammed inspections. There are six reasons OSHA might come knocking on the door. They are (in order of priority):

1. imminent danger situations;
2. severe injuries and illnesses;
3. worker complaints;
4. referrals;
5. targeted inspections; and
6. follow-up inspections.

Reprinted courtesy of Parker Rains, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Rains may be contacted at prains@fbbins.com

---

Matthew Graham Named to Best Lawyers in America

September 10, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Wendel Rosen’s very own Matt Graham has been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2019 in the area of Construction Law. First published in 1983, Best Lawyers is the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Connecticut Answers Critical Questions Regarding Scope of Collapse Coverage in Homeowners Policies in Insurers’ Favor

February 10, 2020 — Kevin Sullivan - Traub Lieberman
Nationwide, homeowners’ insurers routinely face foundation wall collapse claims. But in Connecticut, where at least 30,000 homes are believed to have been constructed in the 1980s and 1990s with defective concrete, the scope of homeowners insurance for collapse claims has been a closely watched issue. In Jemiola v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 2019 WL 5955904 (Conn. Nov. 12, 2019), the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that a collapse coverage grant requiring “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose” is unambiguous and enforceable. In Jemiola, the insured homeowner purchased her home in 1986 and insured it continuously with the same insurer. In 2006, the homeowner noticed cracking in a basement wall, and was informed that the cracking likely resulted from defective concrete used in the construction of the home. The homeowner made a claim under her policy’s collapse coverage, which the insurer denied because the cracking did not compromise the structural integrity of the foundation walls. In the resulting lawsuit, the insured’s expert opined that the defective concrete substantially impaired the foundation walls’ structural integrity, but that this impairment did not commence until 2006 when the homeowner first noticed the cracking. Accordingly, the court analyzed coverage under the collapse coverage grant in effect in 2006, which defined collapse to mean “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at ksullivan@tlsslaw.com

---

Quick Note: Independent Third-Party Spoliation Of Evidence Claim

June 18, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In an earlier posting I discussed the difference between first-party spoliation of evidence and third-party spoliation of evidence. There is NO independent cause of action for first-party spoliation of evidence because that can be dealt with directly in the underlying lawsuit. This deals with the assertion that an actual party to a lawsuit spoiled evidence. 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

---

Business Interruption, Food Spoilage Claims Resulting from Off Premise Power Failure Denied

June 02, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer denied the insured restaurant's claim for food spoilage and loss of business income when a flood elsewhere caused a power outage. N. Spy Food Co., LLC v. Tower Nat'l. Ins., 2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1033 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. March 22, 2016). Tower denied the claim based on an investigation which revealed that the claims resulted from an off premises power failure. The utility company verified that the cause of the power failure was due to flood, a cause excluded under the policy. The food loss and business interruption, therefore, did not result from direct physical loss or damage by a covered cause, justifying the denial of the claim. 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

---