FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Women Make Their Mark on Construction Leadership

April 22, 2019 — Annalisa Enrile & Oliver Ritchie - Construction Executive
In the era of the Lean In movement and the Women’s March, women are finding their voices and using them. In politics, in the classroom and even on the playing field, women’s participation and leadership are breaking records. However, this is not the case in the board room—especialy in the C-suite. The Russell 3000 Index, a market index that benchmarks the U.S. Stock Market, found that only 9 percent of top executive positions were filled by women. The construction industry reflects this low participation of female executives. Women in construction only number 9 percent across the board of the industry. Seven percent of all construction executives are women and only 3 percent of the Fortune 500 construction companies have a female construction manager. Most are in sales and office roles (about 45 percent). Russell 3000 also found that women who are in the C-suite usually fill more HR- or administrative-related positions with very few in COO or CEO positions. Women in leadership need to have real decision making power to progress further. On the upside, women in construction tend to have less of a pay gap than other industries—about 5 percent compared to 20 percent. Though she be but little, She is Fierce Despite their small numbers, women executives in construction are paving the way for others to access leadership. In 1984, 11 women created Women Construction Owners and Executives, an organization for support and professional development. Their purpose is to promote women into leadership, assist women in executive positions and encourage more women to join the industry. The National Association of Women in Construction and Women in Construction Operations are also resources and networks with thousands of members. Reprinted courtesy of Annalisa Enrile & Oliver Ritchie, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Supreme Court of California Rules That Trial Court Lacking Subject Matter Jurisdiction May Properly Grant Anti-SLAPP Motion on That Basis, and Award Attorney’s Fees

January 19, 2017 — David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Barry v. The State Bar of California (No. S214058 – 1/5/2017), the California Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of the State Bar of California’s (“State Bar”) underlying anti-SLAPP motion (Code of Civil Procedure §425.16) on the grounds that plaintiff Patricia Barry (“Barry”), an attorney, had failed to show a probability of prevailing because, among other reasons, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Barry’s claims. The Court confirmed that the absence of subject matter jurisdiction did not prevent a trial court from basing a decision to grant an anti-SLAPP motion on that ground, or to award the prevailing defendant its attorney’s fees. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Will Not Address Trigger for DEP Environmental Cleanup Action at This Time

August 14, 2018 — Gregory Capps - White and Williams LLP
On July 18, 2018, in Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company v. Johnson Matthey, Inc., et al., No. 24 MAP 2017 (Pa. July 18, 2018), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court quashed the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association’s (PMA) appeal seeking review of a ruling denying its motion for summary judgment for an order that coverage for the cleanup of a toxic waste site is limited to the policy in effect when property damage was first discovered. In short, the court found the lower court’s ruling only narrowed the dispute between the parties and is, therefore, interlocutory and not appealable at this time. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gregory Capps, White & Williams LLP
Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com

---

General Contractor Supporting a Subcontractor’s Change Order Only for Owner to Reject the Change

December 09, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The opinion in Westchester Fire Ins. Co, LLC v. Kesoki Painting, LLC, 260 So.3d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) leads to a worthy discussion because it involves a common scope of work occurrence on construction projects involving a general contractor and subcontractor. The contractor submits a subcontractor’s change order request to the owner and the owner rejects the change order. What happens next is a scope of work payment dispute between the general contractor and subcontractor. Yep, a common occurrence. In this case, a general contractor hired a subcontractor to perform waterproofing and painting. A scope of work issue arose because the specifications did not address how the window gaskets should be cut and then sealed. The owner wanted the window gaskets cut at a 45-degree angle and the subcontractor claimed this resulted in increased extra work. The general contractor agreed and submitted a change order to the owner to cover these costs. The owner rejected the change order claiming it was part of the general contractor’s scope of work even though the cutting of window gaskets at a 45-degree angle was not detailed in the specifications. After the subcontractor filed a suit against the general contractor’s payment bond surety, the project architect further rejected the change order because gasket cutting was part of the specification requirements. (Duh! What else was the architect going to say? It was not going to concede there was an omission that resulted in a change order to the owner, right?) 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

---

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Too Soon?”

July 02, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
Not at all, said the Louisiana Supreme Court, in a case dealing with the timing of filing of a claim for indemnity. In the case, a Louisiana intermediate appellate court had earlier ruled in very short order on a supervisory writ application (reversing the trial court) that a claim for indemnity (based upon an indemnity clause in a construction contract) was “premature” until a “determination that damages are actually owed and the indemnitee sustains a loss. … At this time, the lawsuit is still pending against [the putative indemnitee], and no determination of liability had been made; thus, there is no obligation for indemnity and defense costs. … Stated differently, indemnity (or reimbursement) is not available at this time because [the indemnitee] has not discharged a liability which [the indemnitor] should have assumed or otherwise suffered any loss or damages. … Accordingly, [the] cause of action for indemnity and defense is not ripe for adjudication.” Bennett v. Demco Energy Servs., LLC, 2023-0581 (La. App. 1 Cir. 09/11/23); 2023 La. App. LEXIS 1449. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

---

Let the 90-Day Countdown Begin

February 11, 2019 — Amy L. Pierce & Robert A. James - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Most contractors are diligent about making sure that they pay their licensing fees, renew worker’s compensation insurance, and maintain the required bonds. What may be less obvious is how critically important it is to have current company personnel listed on the company’s licensing records with the Contractor’s State Licensing Board. Only personnel listed on the CSLB’s records are authorized to act on behalf of the licensee with respect to CSLB-related matters. Although this may sound simple enough, all such personnel will be required to comply with fingerprinting (and background check) requirements before their applications to be added to the company’s licensing records can be approved. No new personnel will be associated with the licensee until their application is determined to be acceptable and all other requirements are met. Unforeseeable processing delays could result in this new personnel being unable to timely act on behalf of the licensee. Reprinted courtesy of Amy L. Pierce, Pillsbury and Robert A. James, Pillsbury Ms. Pierce may be contacted at amy.pierce@pillsburylaw.com Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Fannie-Freddie Propose Liquidity Rules for Mortgage Insurers

July 16, 2014 — Clea Benson and Zachary Tracer – Bloomberg
Ms. Benson may be contacted at cbenson20@bloomberg.net; Mr. Tracer may be contacted at ztracer1@bloomberg.net Private mortgage insurers looking to do business with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have to hold minimum amounts of liquid assets under standards proposed by the companies and their regulator. To back loans packaged into securities by the U.S.-owned mortgage-finance giants, insurers would have to hold liquid assets worth at least 5.6 percent of their risk exposure, and possibly more depending on the quality of the loans they cover, according to the proposal released today by the companies and the Federal Housing Finance Agency. “Mortgage insurance counterparties must be able to fulfill their intended role of providing private capital, even in adverse market conditions,” FHFA Director Melvin L. Watt said in an e-mailed statement. Ms. Benson may be contacted at cbenson20@bloomberg.net; Mr. Tracer may be contacted at ztracer1@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Clea Benson and Zachary Tracer, Bloomberg

---

Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Sub-Contracted Electrical Company

February 14, 2023 — Colleen E. Hastie - Traub Lieberman
In a case brought before the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County, Plaintiff alleged injury while performing work at a commercial premises in Brooklyn when he rolled his ankle on a jackhammered/chopped cellar floor slab while carrying a metal pipe from the main floor to the cellar on the subject premises. The property was owned by New York City entities, who were listed as Defendants in the underlying suit. A Construction Company was hired as the general contractor and construction manager for the work, who hired the Electrical Contractor to perform the main electrical fit out for the subject premises. The Electrical Contractor then hired Traub Lieberman’s client, the Electrical Subcontractor, to work on cellar-level conduit, cabling, backboxes, and lighting control systems. The Electrical Contractor, as Second Third-Party Plaintiff, brought suit against the Electrical Subcontractor, as Second Third-Party Defendant, for damages related to the underlying suit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Colleen E. Hastie, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Hastie may be contacted at chastie@tlsslaw.com

---