Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

OSHA/VOSH Roundup

August 19, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
In an unusual flurry of occupational safety related activity, the Virginia courts decided two cases in the last week relating to either the review of occupational safety regulations themselves or their enforcement. In Nat’l College of Business & Technology Inc. v. Davenport (.pdf), the Virginia Court of Appeals considered what constitutes a “serious” violation of the exposure to asbestos Virginia Occupational Safety & Health (VOSH) regulations. The facts found by the Salem, Virginia Circuit Court were that employees of the petitioner college were exposed to asbestos insulation when they were required to enter a boiler room to retrieve paper files. However, no evidence was presented regarding the length of time or level of exposure at the Circuit Court level. Despite the lack of evidence regarding the level or extent of exposure, the Circuit Court upheld the VOSH citation for exposure and the level of violation at a “serious” level with the attendant penalty. The Virginia Court of Appeals disagreed with the second finding. The appellate court determined that the lack of evidence regarding the level of exposure (whether length or extent) made the serious level violation an error. The Court stated that merely presenting evidence that asbestos is a carcinogen is not enough given the number of carcinogenic materials in existence and then remanded the case back to Circuit Court to reconsider the penalty level. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Construction Picks Up Post-COVID and So Do Claims (and A Construction Lawyer Can Help)

September 12, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I’m a construction attorney and proud to be one. Over the past couple of years, my expertise (and that of my fellow members of the Virginia construction bar) has been challenged by everything from COVID-related shutdowns to supply chain issues to unanticipated price increases. With each of these obstacles placed in front of my clients and friends in the Virginia construction industry, I have gotten calls and questions as to how to best handle the various issues facing the construction world. Needless to say, changes in price or material availability occurring between the date of a contract’s signing and the (likely delayed) start or completion of the contractual scope of work have caused some consternation and claims. Many of these claims did not come forward or reach my, or others, desk until after the world reopened post-COVID and construction began to speed up and money started to be owed. While one “easy” answer, particularly for those “upstream” in the payment chain, is “tough luck, you gave me a fixed price, signed a contract, and we expect you to honor it,” this may not be the best and most practical way to get the job done. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Real Estate Developer Convicted in $1.3 Billion Tax Case After Juror Removed

October 17, 2023 — David Voreacos - Bloomberg
A real estate developer was convicted for promoting $1.3 billion in fraudulent tax deductions after a judge removed a deliberating juror who told the judge she was “standing up for White people.” Jack Fisher was found guilty Friday in Atlanta federal court of selling tax deductions to wealthy individuals using so-called syndicated conservation easements, which offer tax breaks for the promise to avoid developing land. Prosecutors said Fisher relied on exaggerated appraisals and backdated documents in the scheme, which earned him tens of millions of dollars. Jurors also convicted a lawyer who worked with Fisher, James Sinnott. Attorneys for Fisher and Sinnott didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The nine-week trial nearly came undone by conflicts over race and class within the jury, which began deliberating on Sept. 14. Last week, jurors told US District Judge Timothy Batten they were “hopelessly hung.” Jurors also complained that Juror 26, a White woman, refused to deliberate. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Voreacos, Bloomberg

The Coronavirus, Zoom Meetings and Now a CCPA Class Action

April 13, 2020 — Jeffrey M. Dennis & Heather H. Whitehead - Newmeyer Dillion
With the ongoing COVID-19 (commonly referred to as the Coronavirus) pandemic and orders to “stay at home” in place across the United States, most organizations have been and continue to utilize remote arrangements. The software program known as “Zoom Meetings”, has become immensely popular as a means to facilitate meetings amongst employees, team members and other consultants rather than meeting in person. Despite such status, Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (Zoom) has been named as a defendant in one of the first, and certainly the most high-profile, class action lawsuits to be filed in California alleging violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA). The Class Action The complaint filed alleges that Zoom did not protect the personal information of its users as it collected personal information and then shared such information to third parties, including Facebook, without adequate disclosures to users. The allegations specifically refer to Zoom’s boasting about its maintenance of users’ privacy and that they can be trusted with user data. Further, it is noted that there is no disclosure provided in the Zoom Privacy Policy that disclosed that personal information was being shared with Facebook and other third parties. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey M. Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion and Heather H. Whitehead, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Dennis may be contacted at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com Ms. Whitehead may be contacted at heather.whitehead@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Defect Leads to Death, Jury Awards $39 Million

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A failure in the installation of a 13-ton concrete panel in Milwaukee County lead to the death of a 15-year-old boy in 201; two others were also injured. A lawsuit over this has concluded with the contractor, Advance Cast Stone, found culpable due to their concealing that the panel was not installed as prescribed. The incident happened at a parking garage operated by the county. Advanced Cast Stone made the claim that the method they used to secure the panel had been approved by other in the project. The jury awarded $6.3 million to the estate of Jared Kellner, $1.5 million each to the young man who was injured, Eric Wosniki, and his parents. The county was also awarded $6 million for lost revenue in the parking garage and for repairs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Federal Courts Reject Insurers’ Attempts to Recoup Defense Costs Expended Under Reservation of Rights

April 11, 2022 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Margo Meta - White and Williams
In situations where there is a dispute over a duty to defend, an insurer may provide a defense to its insured, subject to a reservation of rights, to not only deny coverage for a defense, but also to file a declaratory judgment action and recoup defense costs in the event it is determined there is no duty to defend. But are defense costs recoupable? Last week, federal trial courts in Georgia and Pennsylvania answered this question with a resounding “no”. In Chemical Equipment Labs, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Case No. 19-3441, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61298 (E.D.Pa. Mar. 31, 2022), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was called to determine whether Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers) was entitled to reimbursement of defense costs after it was determined that it had no duty to defend its insured in an arbitration for breach of a charter agreement. The Travelers’ policies did not contain an express reimbursement provision. The court found that Travelers was not entitled to reimbursement because under Pennsylvania law, “[r]eimbursement of defense costs requires an express provision in the written insurance contract.” Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and Margo Meta, White and Williams Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Meta may be contacted at metam@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Claimants’ Demand for Superfluous Wording In Release Does Not Excuse Insurer’s Failure to Accept Policy Limit Offer Within Time Specified

September 15, 2016 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Barickman v. Mercury Casualty Co. (No. B260833, filed 7/25/16, ord. pub. 8/15/16) a California appeals court affirmed a $3 million bad faith award against Mercury Casualty Co. based upon its failure to accept a policy limit demand within the time provided, finding that wording inserted by the claimants’ counsel into the release did not affect the insured’s rights such that the refusal to agree to the wording was unreasonable and in bad faith, exposing the insurer to liability for the insured’s stipulated judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

City Covered From Lawsuits Filed After Hurricane-Damaged Dwellings Demolished

January 15, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding that a duty to defend was owed St. Bernard Parish after it was sued for condemning and demolishing housing destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Lexington Ins. Co. v. St. Bernard Parish Gov't, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24292 (5th Cir. Dec. 6, 2013). St. Bernard's policies with Lexington provided coverage for "property damage" and "personal and advertising injury." The policies included a $10,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate limit, subject to a $250,000 retained limit. Lexington denied coverage and filed for a declaratory judgment that the policies' $250,000 retained limit applied separately to each alleged demolition or property damage asserted in the underlying actions. Under this theory, no defense would be owed because no property had a value exceeding $250,000. The District Court found that only one retained limit applied. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES