Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Singer Ordered to Deposition in Construction Defect Case

December 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The pop singer Rihanna has sued the former owners of her Los Angeles home and the firm that inspected it before her purchase alleging water intrusion problems that were supposed to be fixed before close of escrow. The lawsuit was filed under the singer’s legal name, Robyn Fenty. According to Gregory Pyfrom, the attorney for LaRocca Inspection Associates, he has tried to depose her over the last two years, without success. He is seeking $7,500 in compensation to his clients for the singer’s failure to schedule a deposition. Rihanna’s attorney, Miles Cooley, described this as “a smear campaign,” and claims that the parties had agreed not to depose her “until after the matter was mediated.” Mr. Cooley says that mediation has been delayed by Mr. Pyfrom’s vacation plans. LaRocca Inspection Associates has countersued Rihanna, claiming that if she had alerted them earlier to problems they would have performed an additional inspection. The judge in the case has now ordered that the parties agree to a date on which to depose Ms. Fenty. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Merger to Create Massive Los Angeles Construction Firm

July 16, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
AECOM Technology Corp., a Los Angeles engineering and construction firm, has agreed to pay $4 billion to acquire URS Corp., their San Francisco competitor. According to the Sacramento Bee, “The combined company will employ about 95,000 people in 150 countries.” AECOM is currently building the World Trade Center in New York, and previous projects include the Los Angeles Police Department headquarters, and renovations to the Port of Los Angeles and the Bradley international terminal at the Los Angeles International Airport, the Sacramento Bee reported. Furthermore, “URS has worked on the Garden Grove (22) Freeway reconstruction, the UCLA Ronald Reagan Medical Center, the Port of Long Beach, the Gold Line Eastside Extension in Los Angeles and the Disneyland resort expansion.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Bill Proposes First-Ever Federal Workforce Housing Tax Credit for Middle-Class Housing

March 04, 2024 — Emily K. Bias & Brittany Griffith - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Legislation was recently introduced to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives proposing the creation of the first-ever Workforce Housing Tax Credit (WHTC) for middle-income housing developments. Similar to the existing Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), the WHTC would provide additional federal income tax credits to housing development projects for tenants making between 60% and 100% of Area Median Income (AMI). The allocation of WHTC would be based on a competitive bid process and awarded to developments over a 15-year credit period (as opposed to a 10-year credit period for LIHTC). Developments receiving allocations of WHTC will be subject to affordability requirements during the 15-year credit period and subsequent extended use period of at least 15 years. Reprinted courtesy of Emily K. Bias, Pillsbury and Brittany Griffith, Pillsbury Ms. Bias may be contacted at emily.bias@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Griffith may be contacted at brittany.griffith@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Washington State Enacts Law Restricting Non-Compete Agreements

September 23, 2019 — Ellie Perka - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Washington State has enacted a new law that means big changes for employers. The new law, in effect on January 1, 2020, will dramatically limit the enforcement of non-compete agreements in our state and imposes tough penalties on employers found to be in violation. While the new law does not take effect for many months, businesses should nonetheless act quickly and before year’s end to evaluate practices and, if necessary, revise existing and future non-compete agreements to ensure compliance. Under the new law, if an employee successfully proves a company’s non-compete agreement is unenforceable, then the employer will be required to pay the greater of $5,000 or an employee’s actual damages, plus the employee’s attorneys’ fees (and its own, in defending the non-compete), expenses and costs incurred in challenging the agreement. Brief Summary of Changes Washington Courts have typically disfavored restrictive covenants but usually enforced a non-competition agreement that protected an employer’s legitimate business interests and was reasonable in scope, geographic reach, and duration. The Legislature halted this trend through passage of Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1450. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ellie Perka, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Perka may be contacted at ellie.perka@acslawyers.com

Illinois Court Assesses Factual Nature of Term “Reside” in Determining Duty to Defend

October 30, 2023 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Guevara, 2023 IL App (1st) 221425-U, P2, the Illinois First District Court of Appeals addressed an insurance carrier’s duty to defend under a homeowners insurance policy. The underlying suit stemmed from an alleged injury suffered at a residence located in Berwyn, Illinois and owned by named insured Luz Melina Guevara, a defendant in the suit. After Guevara tendered the suit, State Farm filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Guevara because Guevara did not “reside” at the insured premises. The policy defined the "insured location" as the "residence premises," and residence premises was defined as "the one, two, three or four-family dwelling, other structures, and grounds or that part of any other building; where you reside and which is shown in the Declarations." In response to the underlying lawsuit, Guevara had filed an answer and affirmative defenses in which Guevara denied the allegation that "At all relevant times, [Guevara] resided in Berwyn, Cook County, Illinois." Guevara admitted that she owned the Berwyn property but denied that she "resided in, maintained and controlled the property". The declaratory judgment complaint alleged (among other things) that, based on admissions by Guevara in her answer, the Berwyn residence was not an "insured location" under the State Farm policy. State Farm moved for summary judgment at the trial court level on this ground and summary judgment was granted in State Farm’s favor. An appeal ensued wherein the parties disagreed as to whether there is a genuine issue of material fact that, under the language of the policy, State Farm had no duty to defend because the Berwyn property was not an "insured location" because she did not "reside" there. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity Rule Gets “Trumped” by Indemnity Provision

October 27, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Sorry, I couldn’t help myself with the title. The next case, Aluma Systems Concrete Construction of California v. Nibbi Bros., Inc., California Court of Appeals for the First District, Case No. A145734 (August 16, 2016), discusses the interplay between indemnity provisions and the worker’s compensation exclusivity rule. The worker’s compensation exclusivity rule generally provides that worker’s compensation insurance is the exclusive remedy of employees for injuries or death arising out of the course and scope of their employment. In the Aluma case, the California Court of Appeals, addressed what happens when a subcontractor’s employees are injured on a project, sue the general contractor, and the general contractor, pursuant to an indemnity provision in its subcontract, tenders the claim to the subcontractor whose worker’s compensation insurance has already paid the employees. 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

Contractual “Pay if Paid” and “Pay when Paid” Clauses? What is a California Construction Subcontractor to Do?

November 29, 2021 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
The Situation California Construction Subcontractors Face in Obtaining Payment: California construction subcontractors find themselves faced with a significant payment issue every time they are asked to sign a subcontract on a major project. Invariably, the subcontract the prime contractor presents to the subcontractor for signature will contain a clause by which the prime contractor imposes a condition on payment from the prime contractor to the subcontractor. The condition will be either one or the other of two general types. Either the prime contractor will specify that it never has to pay the subcontractor if the prime contractor itself is not paid by the owner (a “pay-if-paid” clause), or the prime contractor will pay the subcontractor only after the prime contractor has first exhausted all its efforts to obtain payment from the owner through litigation, arbitration or otherwise, possibly delaying payment to subcontractors by months or even years (a “pay-when-paid” clause). Goal of the Article: The goal of this article is to draw a distinction between the pay-if-paid and pay-when-paid clauses, discuss the legality of these clauses in California, the problems these clauses create for subcontractors, advise the reader of helpful recent legal developments in this area of law, address the possibility of a further legislative remedy to address the issue, and discuss what the subcontractor might do to protect itself while awaiting a legislative remedy that may or may not ever arrive. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

Oregon Construction Firm Sued for Construction Defects

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Home Forward, the housing authority in Multnomah County, Oregon, is suing Tom Walsh & Company over allegations of construction defects in low-income housing projects the firm built for the county. Walsh’s firm was hired about ten years ago to construct apartments in Portland and adjacent Gresham. But the housing authority claims that the buildings are suffering water damage. The authority requested that Tom Walsh & Company repair the problems. Walsh claimed that the problems were not due to construction defects, but to the agency’s failure to maintain the properties. Home Forward has gone forward with lawsuits of a combined $3.8 million. If the case goes to trial, according to Walsh, it will be only the second time for him in 50 years of business. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES