FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Tender the Defense of a Lawsuit to your Liability Carrier

January 19, 2017 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
Sometimes you come across a head scratcher. This would be a decision that does not seem to make a whole lot of sense. For instance, if you are sued and you maintain liability insurance that would potentially provide you a defense and indemnification, not notifying your insurance carrier is a head scratcher. You pay substantial dollars towards the premium of that policy. So, not then notifying your carrier about a lawsuit is a head scratcher, and I mean a head scratcher!! If you are sued, not only should the carrier be notified, but the defense of that lawsuit should be tendered to your liability carrier. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

---

You Don’t Have To Be a Consumer to Assert a FDUTPA Claim

February 22, 2018 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
A few years ago, the Fourth District Court of Florida rendered an opinion in Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. v. Better Business Bureau of Palm Beach County, Inc., 169 So.3d 164 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) regarding Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (referred as to “FDUTPA”) (Florida Statute s. 501.201et seq.). This case held that a party can assert a FDUTPA claim even though the party is NOT a consumer. The party still has to prove there was an injury to consumers in filing such claim, but again, the party can bring the claim even though it is NOT a consumer. Caribbean Cruise Line, 169 So.3d at 169 (“[W]hile the claimant would have to prove that there was an injury or detriment to consumers in order to satisfy all of the elements of a FDUTPA claim, the claimant does not have to be a consumer to bring the claim.”).See also Cemex Construction Materials Florida, LLC v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 2018 WL 905752, *15 (M.D.Fla 2018) (relying on Caribbean Cruise Line to find that even though the plaintiff does not need to be a consumer, the plaintiff still must prove an injury to consumers to satisfy elements of a FDUTPA claim). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

---

Colorado Temporarily Requires Employers to Provide Sick Leave While Awaiting COVID-19 Testing

April 06, 2020 — Shawna Ruetz - The Grindstone Lewis Brisbois Labor & Employment Blog
On March 11, 2020, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) issued emergency rules, referred to as Colorado Health Emergency Leave with Pay (Colorado HELP) Rules, requiring employers in certain industries to provide four days of paid sick leave to employees with flu-like symptoms while awaiting test results for COVID-19, or to anyone who is under instructions from a healthcare provider to quarantine or isolate due to a risk of having COVID-19. These rules take effect immediately for 30 days, or longer if the state of emergency declared by Colorado Governor Polis continues. Which industries are covered by the Colorado HELP Rules?

• Leisure and hospitality;
• Food services;
• Child care;
• Education (including transportation, food service, and related work at educational establishments);
• Home health (if working with elderly, disabled, ill, or otherwise high-risk individuals)
• Nursing homes; and
• Community living facilities; and
• Retail establishments that sell groceries (added March 26).

How much paid sick leave must be provided? Employers are required to provide up to four days of paid sick leave to employees with flu-like symptoms who are being tested for COVID-19. If the employee tests negative, the leave ends. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shawna Ruetz, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Ruetz may be contacted at Shawna.Ruetz@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Enforceability Of Subcontract “Pay-When-Paid” Provisions – An Important Update

June 15, 2020 — Patrick McNamara - Porter Law Group
A California Court of Appeals opinion published earlier this month brings a change to payment bond claims brought by unpaid subcontractors and suppliers. The decision (Crosno Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America) places limitations on a payment bond surety’s ability to rely on subcontract “pay-when-paid” language, stating that a payment provision typically found in subcontracts is contrary to the “reasonable time” statutory requirement and will not be enforced. This represents a major shift in California construction payment bond claim rights. Plaintiff Crosno Construction, Inc. (“Crosno) was a subcontractor to general contractor Clark Brothers (“Clark”), who was principal on a public works payment bond issued by Travelers. The owner was a public agency district (“District.”) Crosno had completed most of its subcontract work when a dispute between District and Clark arose, causing the project to stop. Crosno then sought payment through a payment bond claim against Travelers. Travelers denied the claim, relying on the subcontract’s payment provisions and asserting the defense that it had no obligation to pay on the bond claim because the litigation between Clark and the District had not yet reached its conclusion. Subcontract. The subcontract between Clark and Crosno contained a “pay-when-paid” provision stating that Clark would pay Crosno within a reasonable time after receiving payment from the District. In defining “a reasonable time,” the subcontract language provided that the time for payment “in no event shall be less than the time [Clark] and [Crosno] require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against [District] or other responsible party to obtain payment.” 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

---

Can You Really Be Liable For a Product You Didn’t Make? In New Jersey, the Answer is Yes

December 14, 2020 — James Burger & Robert Devine - White and Williams LLP
New Jersey has recently expanded liability for product distributors and manufacturers to products that the distributor/manufacturer did not make or sell. This alert discusses this new law and steps that distributors and manufacturers may consider to reduce their potential liability. In Whelan v. Armstrong International, Inc., the New Jersey Supreme Court held that distributors and manufacturers can be strictly liable for injuries caused by replacement parts added after the point of sale which had not been manufactured or sold by any of the defendants in the case. In Whelan, the defendants’ products had originally been sold with asbestos-containing parts. Mr. Whelan, the plaintiff, argued that asbestos-containing replacement parts were required to repair and maintain the products. The court found that because the products were designed with asbestos-containing parts, “[d]efendants had a duty to provide warnings given the foreseeability that third parties would be the source of asbestos-containing replacement components.” (Emphasis added). This reasoning, based on “foreseeability,” should give pause to all product distributors and manufacturers—even those who do not make or sell products that contain asbestos. Certainly distributors and manufacturers of products with asbestos-containing parts must take heed that they may now be liable for replacement parts that they neither manufactured nor sold. This alone is a significant holding that expands potential liability. Reprinted courtesy of James Burger, White and Williams LLP and Robert Devine, White and Williams LLP Mr. Burger may be contacted at burgerj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Subcontractor Has No Duty to Defend Under Indemnity Provision

July 14, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals [see prior post here] and determined that a subcontractor did not have a duty to defend the developer upon tender under an indemnify provision in the parties' contract. Arthur v. State of Hawaii, 2016 Haw. LEXIS 155 (June 27, 2016). A simplified version of the detailed facts and procedural history follows. The case involved the wrongful death of Mona Arthur. Mona typically gardened on the hillside behind her home. She would cross a concrete drainage ditch and climb over a two-foo-high chain length fence to reach the hillside. Mona was found lying in a concrete ditch with severe head injuries, which ultimately led to her death. Her husband and estate sued for her wrongful death. Claims were asserted for negligence in failing to build a fence higher than two feet, which would have prevented Mona from having access to the garden. Defendants included the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands; Kamehameha Investment Corporation ("KIC"), the developer; Design Partners, Inc., the architect; Coastal Construction Company, the general contractor; and Sato and Associates, the civil engineer. The second amended complaint sought punitive damages against KIC. 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

---

Hundreds of Snakes Discovered in Santa Ana Home

February 04, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
404 Snakes—more than half dead—were discovered after a “nearly daylong search” in a home in Santa Ana, California, reported the Los Angeles Times. “Over the past few months, neighbors called authorities about the foul odor,” claimed the Orange County Register. “They thought it was trash. Then Jehovah’s Witnesses knocked on the door.” Concerned that someone might have died, they called the police. William Buchman, the homeowner, “identified as a snake breeder, was arrested on suspicion of animal cruelty, a felony,” according to the Los Angeles Times. Police wore gas masks and “clutched Tasers” as they entered the home. “Rats scampered over furniture and scores of clear plastic boxes holding the snakes lined the walls.” The Orange County Register claimed that up until recently Bachman was a “regular joe.” A neighbor said, “Let me tell you, Bill was a nice guy, outspoken, knowledgeable. He talked to my grandkids about school.” According to the Los Angeles Times, Buchman’s mother died in 2011, which appeared to “have affected him profoundly.” Read the full story at The Los Angeles Times... Read the full story at The Orange County Register... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Steven Cvitanovic to Present at NASBP Virtual Seminar

January 13, 2017 — Steven M. Cvitanovic - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Partner Steven Cvitanovic will speak at the National Association of Surety Bond Producers (NASBP) Virtual Seminar on Tuesday, January 31 at 11:00 A.M. PST. The presentation will provide a brief overview of risks covered by traditional insurance products, and will then expand on significant exposures arising from a contractors operations/contracts that are not covered by traditional insurance. The session will provide examples of these non-traditional risks and strategies to mitigate them. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com

---