Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

A Court-Side Seat: May Brings Federal Appellate Courts Rulings and Executive Orders

June 29, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Here are a few interesting new rulings from the federal appellate courts. COURT ORDERS Like a Good Neighbor …? — State of Maryland v. EPA On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit decided a Clean Air Act case involving the use of the “Good Neighbor Provision” of the Act, which is triggered when one state has a complaint about emissions generated in a neighboring upwind state that settle in the downwind state. Here, Maryland and Delaware filed petitions with EPA seeking relief from the impact of emissions from coal-fired power plants that allegedly affect their states’ air quality. EPA largely denied relief, and the court largely upheld the agency’s use and interpretation of the Good Neighbor Provision. The opinion is valuable because of its clear exposition of this complicated policy. A Volatile Underground Issue —Wayne Land and Mineral Group v. the Delaware River Basin Commission Also on May 19, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a ruling involving the Delaware River Basin Commission. Established in 1961, the Commission oversees and protects the water resources in the Basin. Not long ago, the Executive Director of the Commission, citing a rule of the Commission, imposed very strict limitations on fracking operations in the Basin. This decision has been very controversial with the Third Circuit opining that the Commission’s authority to regulate fracking operations—thought to be a province of state authority—was not clear-cut. In this case, three Pennsylvania state senators filed motions to intervene in the case, but the lower court rejected their request. The Third Circuit has directed the lower court to take another look at their standing to participate in this litigation. This is a volatile issue in Pennsylvania. 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

Differing Site Conditions Produce Differing Challenges

February 18, 2019 — Sarah E. Carson - Smith Currie
The saying “The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry” can too often apply in the construction industry. A contractor may receive a description of site conditions that is ultimately found flawed or misleading. The costs associated with addressing these surprise conditions often fall on the contractor to pay. The following article details proactive steps to avoid costly obstacles that may cause a project’s success to go awry. What are Differing Site Conditions? There are generally two recognized types of differing site conditions. The first, often referred to as a “Type I Changed Condition,” exists when a specification in the conditions indicated in the contract documents varies from what is represented. The second category, generally referred to as a “Type II Changed Condition,” is a variance so unusual in its nature that it materially differs from conditions ordinarily encountered in performing the type of work called for in the geographic area where the project is located. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sarah E. Carson, Smith Currie
Ms. Carson may be contacted at secarson@smithcurrie.com

One Sector Is Building Strength Amid Slow Growth

November 18, 2019 — Michael Msika - Bloomberg
If you had to guess which stocks are posting top gains given this year’s gloomy economic outlook, you might be surprised by the answer. Construction and material shares, despite most macro indicators pointing to slowing global growth, are now leading the pack in Europe. The sector’s up 32% already this year, knocking food-and-drinks stocks off the pedestal, and there appear few signs of the rally stopping anytime soon. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Msika, Bloomberg

CalOSHA Updates its FAQ on its COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Regulations

March 22, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
As we reported in early December, CalOSHA adopted emergency temporary regulations requiring, among other things, that employers implement a written COVID-19 prevention program, that notice be given by employers to employees in the event of potential COVID-19 exposure, and that employers continue to pay employees who have been exposed to COVID-19 even if the employee has no paid time off available. In conjunction with the emergency temporary regulations, CalOSHA posted a FAQ on the emergency regulations. On February 26, 2021, CalOSHA updated its FAQ. Among other things, the updated FAQ updates the following sections of the FAQ:

Scope of Coverage: Clarifies that the emergency regulations apply even to workplaces with only one employee but that it does not apply to employees working remotely.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Vexed by Low Demand for Mortgages

April 15, 2014 — Zachary Tracer – Bloomberg
Slack demand for home loans continued to drag on earnings at Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) as the two largest U.S. mortgage lenders grappled for pieces of a shrunken market. Even as interest rates hovered near historically low levels, new home loans tumbled 67 percent to $36 billion in the first quarter at San Francisco-based Wells Fargo, the biggest originator. JPMorgan posted a 68 percent drop to $17 billion, and the bank predicted it would lose money on mortgage production for the full year. Both lenders are paring staff to keep expenses in line with demand for loans, which has waned as investors and cash buyers dominate some sales. New York-based JPMorgan said jobs at its mortgage business declined 14,000, or 30 percent, since the start of last year. Wells Fargo set plans to cut 1,100 positions in the most recent three months, which ranked as its worst first quarter for mortgage revenue since 2008. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zachary Tracer, Bloomberg
Mr. Tracer may be contacted at ztracer1@bloomberg.net

Georgia Federal Court Holds That Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage Under Liability Policy for Claims Arising From Discharge of PFAS Into Waterways

December 18, 2022 — Paul Briganti - White and Williams
On December 5, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Georgia held that a total pollution exclusion (TPE) in a CGL policy relieved the insurer of any obligation to defend or indemnify a recycling company in a putative class action alleging PFAS contamination of Georgia waterways. See Grange Ins. Co. v. Cycle-Tex Inc., et al., Order, Civ. A. No. 4:21-cv-00147-AT (N.D. Ga. Dec. 5, 2022). The decision adds to a slowly-developing body of case law addressing coverage issues arising out of PFAS-related claims. In Grange, the insured, Cycle-Tex, Inc., was the operator of a thermoplastics recycling facility in Dalton, Georgia. Cycle-Tex and other defendants – which included chemical suppliers, carpet manufacturers, intermediaries, the City of Dalton and the Dalton-Whitfield Solid Waste Authority – were named in a putative class action complaint alleging that residents of Dalton had been injured as a result of the defendants’ discharge of PFAS into local waterways. The complaint sought damages for: (1) alleged harm to the residents’ health by virtue of ingesting contaminated water; (2) alleged property damage resulting from the contamination of the public water supply; and (3) the payment of surcharges and heightened water rates as a result of the alleged contamination. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul Briganti, White and Williams
Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com

Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us

December 02, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The proper venue for a Miller Act payment bond claim is “in the United States District Court for any district in which the contract was to be performed and executed, regardless of the amount in controversy.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(3)(B). Well, there are a number of federal construction projects that take place outside of the United States. For these projects, where is the correct venue to sue a Miller Act payment bond if there is no US District Court where the project is located? A recent opinion out of the Southern District of Florida answers this question. In U.S. ex. rel. Salt Energy, LLC v. Lexon Ins. Co., 2019 WL 3842290 (S.D.Fla. 2019), a prime contractor was hired by the government to design and construct a solar power system for the US Embassy’s parking garage in Burkina Faso. The prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform a portion of its scope of work. The subcontractor remained unpaid in excess of $500,000 and instituted a Miller Act payment bond claim against the payment bond surety in the Southern District of Florida, Miami division. The surety moved to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Virginia arguing that the Southern District of Florida was an improper venue. The court agreed and transferred venue. Why? 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

Nonparty Discovery in California Arbitration: How to Get What You Want

March 02, 2020 — Leilani E. Jones - Payne & Fears
This article was originally published for the Association of Business Trial Lawyers (ATBL) Report, Volume XX, No. 3, Winter 2018 by attorney Leilani L. Jones. Opting for arbitration requires attorneys to balance efficiency and procedural protections. The implications of arbitration are something clients certainly have to carefully consider both when drafting arbitration provisions, and after initiating a demand. While arbitration can in many respects streamline the civil discovery process, one of the largest roadblocks for cases in California arbitrations is “streamlining” discovery from nonparties. This article explores the challenges presented by third party discovery in arbitration, and proposes strategies for obtaining such discovery efficiently and expeditiously. Alternative dispute resolution tends to make sense to most businesses implementing preventive measures for future litigation. Clients, lawyers, and judges can generally agree that arbitration is the more “cost-effective” way to resolve disputes, especially in California. While arbitration is theoretically a lowcost option for dispute resolution, almost all parties (particularly the party defending) bristle at climbing expenditures during discovery. This is all despite the perception of more “streamlined” processes in arbitrations. On balance, arbitrators, employing less formal procedures for discovery disputes, can typically cut to the chase faster than a civil judge. Parties often resolve issues via letter brief and telephonic hearing, if necessary, instead of formal noticed motions with accompanying separate statements. The Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc.’s (“JAMS”) own “Arbitration Discovery Protocols” specifically “ensure that an arbitration will be resolved much less expensively and in much less time than if it had been litigated in court.” Accessed at https:// www.jamsadr.com/arbitration-discovery-protocols. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Leilani E. Jones, Payne & Fears
Ms. Jones may be contacted at llj@paynefears.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES