FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Best Lawyers Honors Hundreds of Lewis Brisbois Attorneys, Names Four Partners ‘Lawyers of the Year’

September 16, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
(August 15, 2024) - Best Lawyers has selected 171 Lewis Brisbois attorneys across 47 offices for its 31st edition of The Best Lawyers in America. It has also recognized four Lewis Brisbois partners on its "Lawyers of the Year" list: San Diego Partner Gary K. Brucker Jr. (Litigation - Real Estate); Weirton Managing Partner Michelle L. Gorman (Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions - Defendants); Roanoke Partner Paul C. Kuhnel (Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants); and Los Angeles Co-Administrative Partner Steven R. Lewis (Product Liability Litigation - Defendants). Please join us in congratulating the following attorneys on their Best Lawyers recognition! You can see the full list of attorneys named to Best Lawyers' Ones to Watch in America here. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies

November 12, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
On August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public policy” of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in Pitzer had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law – which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York – that provision can be overridden by California’s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in Pitzer also held that the notice-prejudice rule “generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,” but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context. The Pitzer case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer “denied coverage based on Pitzer’s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer’s] consent before commencing the remediation process.” The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until “three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment “claiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy’s notice and consent provisions.” Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Poor Pleading Leads to Loss of Claim for Trespass Due to Relation-Back Doctrine, Statute of Limitations

April 13, 2017 — Brett G. Moore & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co. (No. C070770, Filed 4/6/2017), the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District held that the relation-back doctrine could not save a property owner’s trespass claim against an adjacent neighbor where the property owner’s original complaint was factually devoid and was later amended to include the trespass claim after the statute of limitations had run. The relation-back doctrine is a well-settled legal principle which allows a plaintiff to amend a complaint to add a cause of action which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. As long as the factual allegations “relate back” to the those alleged in the original complaint, an additional cause of action will not be subject to the applicable statute of limitations. The policy behind statutes of limitation is to put a defendant on notice of the need to defend against a claim in time to prepare an adequate defense. On May 21, 2007, a fire broke out at defendant Lambirth Trucking Company’s (“Lambirth”) soil enhancement facility adjacent to plaintiff Vincent Scholes’ (“Scholes”) property. Scholes had previously notified Lambirth that wood chips and rice hulls were accumulating on his property as a result of Lambirth’s operations. Local authorities also warned Lambirth of the hazards presented by storage of those materials. Reprinted courtesy of Brett G. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moore may be contacted at bmoore@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects

June 15, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Sunland Group, the developer, is objecting to claims that it is responsible for corrosion damage in a residential building in Gold Coast, Australia, as reported in the Courier & Mail. Residents of Q1, the world’s tallest residential tower, are suing the developer, claiming that defects and corrosion “compromise the long-term durability and appearance of” the six-year-old building.



The developer has not only denied that there are defects in the building, but has also stated that the construction contract “did not warrant that the construction would be defects-free.” Sunland claimed that corrosion was due to the homeowners association having “failed to carry out the maintenance requirements.”



Repair of the building is expected to cost millions of dollars. Sunland denies that it should pay any of that.



Read the full story…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Class Actions Under California’s Right to Repair Act. Nope. Well . . . Nope.

January 15, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s the holidays. A time when family and friends, and even neighbors, gather together. And nothing brings neighbors closer together than class action residential construction defect litigation. In Kohler Co. v. Superior Court, Case No. B288935 (November 14, 2018), the Second District Court of Appeal addressed whether neighbors can bring class action lawsuits under the Right to Repair Act. For those who are regular readers of the California Construction Law Blog you’re familiar with the Right to Repair Act codified at Civil Code sections 895 et seq. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Certificates Of Merit For NC Lawsuits Against Engineers And Architects? (Still No)(Law Note)

April 22, 2019 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
Certificates of Merit are documents intended to show that a true issue exists with a professional’s work, prior to that person being sued. While North Carolina does require that a person suing a medical provider first have the matter reviewed by a professional (and attest to that in the Complaint), there is no requirement for any review prior to a lawsuit against an architect, engineer, or surveyor. Thus, anyone can file a lawsuit against an engineer/architect/surveyor without first having their case eyeballed reviewed by another professional. Over the years, there have been attempts at adding a Certificate of Merit requirement to design professional lawsuits. See, for example, examples here: from 2005; from 2007; from 2011; and from 2013. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

---

As of July 1, 2024, California Will Require Most Employers to Have a Written Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP) and Training. Is Your Company Compliant?

June 17, 2024 — Jason L. Morris & Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer - Newmeyer Dillion
The California legislature passed Senate Bill 553 (SB 553) in 2023. This bill requires most California employers to implement a written Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP) and to train employees on the WVPP. At Newmeyer Dillion, we are dedicated to helping you navigate these requirements and maintain a safe, compliant work environment. Act Now: Two Weeks to Comply With SB 553's July 1st compliance deadline, employers have just two weeks to develop and implement a compliant Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP). The clock is ticking, and it is imperative to act swiftly to ensure compliance and protect your employees. What is SB 553? SB 553 is a legislative measure aimed at enhancing workplace safety by mandating specific actions from employers to prevent workplace violence. This bill recognizes the growing concern around workplace violence incidents and the need for proactive measures to maintain a safe workplace. The key components of SB 553 include:

1. Establishment of a Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP): Employers are required to develop and implement a comprehensive written WVPP tailored to their specific workplace environment and risks.

Reprinted courtesy of Jason L. Morris, Newmeyer Dillion and Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Morris may be contacted at jason.morris@ndlf.com Mr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

General Contractors Can Be Sued by a Subcontractor’s Injured Employee

November 05, 2014 — Craig Martin - Construction Contractor Advisor
General contractors that exercise control over the worksite can be sued by a subcontractor’s injured employee. The Nebraska Supreme Court’s recent opinion, Gaytan v. Wal-Mart, should serve as a reminder that general contractors may be responsible for the safety of all workers on a job site. In this case, a roofing subcontractor’s employee died after falling through the roof of the under-construction Wal-Mart. The deceased employee’s estate sued Wal-Mart and Gram Construction, the general contractor, alleging that they were negligent in maintaining a safe worksite. The court initially acknowledged that an owner, the employer of an independent contractor, does not typically owe a subcontractor’s employee a duty because the owner typically has no control over the manner in which the work is to be done by the contractor. This general rule, however, has exceptions, such as where the owner retains control over the contractor’s work. But, for the exception to apply, the owner must have (1) supervised the work that caused the injury, (2) actual or constructive knowledge of the danger that caused the injury, and (3) the opportunity to prevent the injury. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---