Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

New Member Added to Seattle Law Firm Williams Kastner

May 21, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Attorney Todd W. Blischke has become a member of Seattle, Washington’s Williams Kastner law firm, according to Herald Online. Blishcke, who “has experience representing contractors, sureties, real estate developers, public agencies and private owners” will “chair the firm’s Construction Litigation and Surety Practices Team.” “Todd is an excellent addition to the firm’s Seattle office, and we are thrilled to have him on board,” said Jessie Harris, Managing Director of Williams Kastner, as quoted by Herald Online. “His years of experience in construction and surety matters will be an asset to Williams Kastner’s established construction litigation practice.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review Regarding Necessary Parties in Lien Foreclosure Actions

August 17, 2017 — Lindsay K. Taft - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
For several years, the requirements for which parties must be named in a lien foreclosure action when a release of lien bond is in place have been cloudy. RCW 60.04 et seq., the “mechanics’ lien” or “construction lien” statute, provides protection for a party or person who provides labor, materials, or equipment to a construction project. That person or party, if not paid, can file a lien against the construction project property to secure recovery. As the lien impacts the property by “clouding title” and could potentially result in foreclosure of the property, the statute sets forth strict requirements with respect to timing, notice, and parties. For example, the lien must be recorded within 90 days of the person or party’s last day of work or materials or equipment supplied, and the lien claimant must then give a copy of the claim of lien to the owner or reputed owner within 14 days of the lien recording. RCW 60.04.081. The statute also allows a property owner or other party to “free” the property from the lien prior to the claim being resolved by issuing a release of lien bond. While the claim is still in dispute, the lien then attaches to the bond and not the property. The same rules about foreclosure, however, still apply but not without some confusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay K. Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Ms. Taft may be contacted at ltaft@ac-lawyers.com

Illinois Federal Court Applies Insurer-Friendly “Mutual Exclusive Theories” Test To Independent Counsel Analysis

November 09, 2020 — Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
Insureds often request independent counsel when insurers agree to provide a defense subject to a reservation of rights, pursuant to which an insurer takes the position that certain damages may not be indemnifiable. Requests for independent counsel are often rooted in fear that a defense attorney who has a relationship with the insurer may be incentivized to defend the insured in a way that maximizes the potential for the insurer to succeed on its coverage defenses. As explained by the Illinois Supreme Court in Maryland Cas. Co. v. Peppers, 355 N.E.2d 24 (Ill. 1976), when a conflict of interest arises between an insurer and its insured, the attorney appointed by the insurer is faced with serious ethical questions and the insured is entitled to its own attorney. Illinois courts generally follow the rule that an insured is entitled to independent counsel upon a showing of an actual conflict. In Builders Concrete Servs., LLC v. Westfield Nat’l Ins. Co., No. 19 C 7792, 2020 WL 5518474 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 14, 2020), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently addressed a dispute between an insurer and its insured about independent counsel. Westfield insured Builders Concrete Services (BCS). Focus Construction hired BCS as a subcontractor to perform concrete work on a new apartment building. BCS’ work included pouring concrete for structural columns, one of which buckled and failed. BCS sued Focus Construction for withholding payment, and Focus Construction counter-sued for breach of contract and negligence relating to BCS’ alleged faulty work that caused the column to fall. Focus Construction’s counterclaim alleged that the column failure damaged other parts of the building on which Builders did not perform work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

Federal Court Holds that Demolition Exclusion Does Not Apply and Carrier Has Duty to Defend Additional Insureds

September 02, 2024 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
In the recent case of Travelers Indem. Co. v. Trisura Specialty Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101953 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2024), the court had occasion to consider the classic additional insured fact pattern of a construction accident. Travelers insured the general contractor and provided a defense to the general contractor as well as its wholly owned subsidiary. Trisura insured the subcontractor, who employed the injured worker. Travelers brought suit, alleging that Trisura is obligated to defend and indemnify the general contractor, its subsidiary, the owner of the building (The City of New York), and the tenant. Trisura denied any obligation to provide coverage due to the application of the “Demolition Exclusion” to the Trisura policy, which provides, in part, that there is no coverage for injury or damage arising out of the demolition of any building or structure which has original ground height in excess of three stories. The accident occurred during the interior demolition of the fifth floor of the building. The court held that the Demolition Exclusion applies only when there is a complete tearing down, razing, or destruction of an entire building. As the accident occurred during interior demolition, the exclusion did not apply. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

EEOC Focuses on Eliminating Harassment, Recruitment and Hiring Barriers in the Construction Industry

September 09, 2024 — Aaron C. Schlesinger & Stephen E. Irving - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), whose mission is to enforce the nation’s anti-discrimination laws, released new guidelines on June 18, 2024, entitled Promising Practices for Preventing Harassment in the Construction Industry. The guidelines are in support of its Strategic Enforcement Plan for the fiscal years 2024-2028 for combatting systemic harassment and eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring in the construction industry. With these guidelines, the EEOC has identified harassment as an ongoing issue in the construction industry, and that immediate attention and resolution is required. The EEOC specifically recommends that the following five core principles that it has found effective in preventing and addressing harassment be implemented by construction industry employers:

Committed and engaged leadership;
Consistent and demonstrated accountability;
Strong and comprehensive harassment policies;
Trusted and accessible complaint procedures; and
Regular, interactive training tailored to the audience and the organization.

Reprinted courtesy of Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Stephen E. Irving, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Mr. Irving may be contacted at sirving@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurers' Communications Through Brokers Not Privileged

April 20, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court granted the insured's motion to compel documents withheld for privilege by the insurers. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Amtrack, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27041(E.D. N.Y. Feb. 19, 2016). Plaintiffs were insurers who did business in the London Insurance Market and who issued one or more liability policies issued to Amtrak. Amtrak demanded coverage under the policies for alleged environmental contamination and/or asbestos exposure. Coverage was denied and the insurers filed for a declaratory judgment. 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

Brazil Congress Chiefs Deny Wrongdoing in Petrobras Scandal

March 12, 2015 — Raymond Colitt, Anna Edgerton and Sabrina Valle – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- Brazil’s congressional heads denied involvement in the country’s largest corruption scandal after being named among dozens of politicians for investigation. Renan Calheiros and Eduardo Cunha, the heads of the Senate and lower house respectively, and Rio de Janeiro Senator Lindbergh Farias all rejected allegations of graft in the kickback scheme dubbed Carwash. Farias told the Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper in an interview published Sunday that while he may have acted improperly, his actions weren’t illegal. The senator said he took a 2 million real-donation ($650,000) from Andrade Gutierrez SA, a Rio-based construction company. Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg reporters Raymond Colitt, Anna Edgerton and Sabrina Valle Mr. Colitt may be contacted at rcolitt@bloomberg.net Ms. Edgerton may be contacted at aedgerton@bloomberg.net Ms. Valle may be contacted at svalle@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Traub Lieberman Partners Ryan Jones and Scot Samis Obtain Affirmation of Final Summary Judgment

February 28, 2022 — C. Ryan Jones & Scot E. Samis - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partners Ryan Jones and Scot Samis recently obtained affirmation of final summary judgment in favor of a windstorm and general insurance provider (“Insurer”) in the Florida First District Court of Appeal. The Appellant, a restoration service provider (“Restoration Service”), provided emergency mitigation services in the wake of hurricane damage to a residential home that was covered by an insurance policy issued by the Insurer. The Restoration Service invoiced the Insurer and, following an investigation, the Insurer paid a portion of the invoiced amount and invoked the policy’s appraisal clause to resolve the dispute over the difference. The Restoration Service brought suit against the Insurer, arguing that the appraisal process did not apply to mitigation services. The Insurer countered that it was entitled to resolve the claim by appraisal and, following arguments, the Court determined that the appraisal provision applied to mitigation services. Reprinted courtesy of C. Ryan Jones, Traub Lieberman and Scot E. Samis, Traub Lieberman Mr. Jones may be contacted at rjones@tlsslaw.com Mr. Samis may be contacted at ssamis@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES