Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Henderson Land to Spend $839 Million on Hong Kong Retail Complex

September 03, 2014 — Michelle Yun – Bloomberg
Henderson Land Development Co. (12), controlled by billionaire Lee Shau-kee, will spend HK$6.5 billion ($839 million) on a shopping center in a prime retail area of Hong Kong after beating 17 rivals to win a land tender. The complex in the Tsim Sha Tsui district will be completed by 2019 and will house retail, services and dining, as well as a public 345-space parking garage, spokeswoman Bonnie Ngan said yesterday, citing Vice Chairman Martin Lee. Henderson won the site for HK$4.69 billion as the highest bidder, the government said in a statement yesterday. Henderson beat other developers, including Cheung Kong Holdings Ltd. (1), Sino Land Co. (83), and Sun Hung Kai Properties Ltd., to win the site in the district host to global luxury brands and hotels such as the Peninsula. The price was more than the HK$3.4 billion median estimate of three surveyors compiled by Bloomberg News. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Yun, Bloomberg
Ms. Yun may be contacted at myun11@bloomberg.net

The Legal 500 U.S. 2024 Guide Names Peckar & Abramson a Top Tier Firm in Construction Law and Recognizes Nine Attorneys

July 15, 2024 — Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (P&A) is pleased to announce The Legal 500 United States has once again ranked P&A as a Tier One firm in construction law. The publication also recognized nine P&A construction lawyers in its directory for their contributions in the United States:

Levi W. Barrett – Recommended Lawyers
Michael A. Branca – Leading Lawyers
Steven M. Charney – Recommended Lawyers
Gregory H. Chertoff – Recommended Lawyers
Adam P. Handfinger – Next Generation Partners
Timothy D. Matheny – Key Lawyers
Paul Monte – Leading Lawyers
Gerard J. Onorata – Key Lawyers
Robert S. Peckar – Hall of Fame

P&A is proud to be recognized each year by several legal ratings services, including our Tier 1 ratings by Chambers both nationally and in a number of jurisdictions around the country. Steven M. Charney commented, “Receiving this prestigious recognition by Legal 500 signifies the exceptional caliber of our team, their unwavering commitment to delivering unparalleled legal solutions, and their ability to navigate complex challenges. We are dedicated to providing our clients with the highest level of service and are proud to be recognized as leaders in the field of construction law.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C.

Georgia Supreme Court Determines Damage to "Other Property" Not Necessary for Finding Occurrence

July 31, 2013 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
The Georgia Supreme Court has determined that an "occurrence" may arise under a CGL policy even if "other property" is not damaged. Taylor Morrison Servs. v. HDI-Gerling Am. Ins. Co., 2013 Ga. LEXIS 618 (Ga. July 12, 2013). Taylor Morrison, the insured, was a homebuilder. It was sued in a class action by more than 400 homeowners in California alleging that the concrete foundations of their homes were improperly constructed. This led to water intrusion, cracks in the floors and driveways, and warped and buckled flooring. At first, HDI-Gerling defended under a reservation of rights. Subsequently, however, HDI-Gerling sued Taylor Morrison in federal district court in Georgia, seeking a declaratory judgment that there was no coverage. The district court granted summary judgment to HDI-Gerling after determining that there was no "occurrence" when the only "property damage" alleged was damage to work of the insured. Georgia law was applied to the dispute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Insurance Coverage for COVID-19? Two N.J. Courts Allow Litigation to Proceed

March 06, 2022 — Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Courts across the nation have struggled to determine whether insurance policies that provide coverage for “direct physical loss or damage” insure losses stemming from COVID-19. Many courts have been applying an overly stringent pleading standard, inappropriately granting insurers’ motions to dismiss as a result of the insureds’ purported failure to allege that COVID-19 caused damages covered by their policies or because certain exclusions supposedly barred coverage. However, two New Jersey state courts recently decided these issues in favor of the insureds in well-reasoned opinions that give proper deference to procedural pleading standards and substantive insurance coverage law. A. COVID-19 causes “direct physical loss or damage” In AC Ocean Walk, LLC v. American Guarantee and Liability Ins. Co., the New Jersey Superior Court held that physical alteration to an insured’s property is not a prerequisite to coverage for losses due to COVID-19. The insured, Ocean Casino, sued multiple insurers for COVID-19 losses, alleging that the virus caused Ocean Casino to shut down and suffer a loss of use of its property. Looking at the language of the policies, the court explained that each policy’s insuring agreement substantially read the same:

“This policy insures against direct physical loss of, or damage caused by, a covered cause of loss to covered property, at an insured location [the casino] … subject to the terms, conditions, and exclusions stated in this policy.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Barrese may be contacted at BBarrese@sdvlaw.com

NYC Luxury-Condo Buyers Await New Towers as Sales Slow

September 24, 2014 — Oshrat Carmiel – Bloomberg
Sales at One57, the ultra-luxury Manhattan condominium tower that set off a high-end residential construction boom, have slowed to a trickle amid competition from newer properties reaching the market. Only two units at Extell Development Co.’s Midtown property went under contract this year through June 30, according to filings on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, where the company sells debt to investors. There were no sales in the final three months of 2013 at the building, which had earlier found buyers for two penthouses at more than $90 million each. About 25 of the 94 units on the market were unsold as of June 30, the filings show. “This is not a normal pace,” Jonathan Miller, president of New York-based appraiser Miller Samuel Inc., said in an interview. “This building had many price increases when it was the only building out there, so maybe they overdid it. In other words, the sky is not the limit.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg
Ms. Carmiel may be contacted at ocarmiel1@bloomberg.net

Idaho District Court Affirms Its Role as the Gatekeeper of Expert Testimony

March 15, 2021 — Melissa Kenney - The Subrogation Specialist
Many subrogation claims involving fire losses rely heavily on expert testimony. Expert testimony is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 if it is both relevant and reliable. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), whose standard has been incorporated into Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the Supreme Court instructed federal trial courts to act as a “gatekeeper” of expert testimony, giving them the power to exclude expert testimony that is not supported by sufficient evidence. In Maria Fernanda Elosu and Robert Luis Brace v. Middlefork Ranch Incorporated, Civil Case No. 1:19-cv-00267-DCN, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14449 (D. Idaho Jan. 22, 2021) (Brace), the United States District Court for the District of Idaho exercised its gatekeeper role when it granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to exclude expert testimony pursuant to Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Brace, involved a fire at a vacation cabin in McCall, Idaho. The cabin, owned by Maria Elosu (Elosu) and Robert Brace (Brace and collectively with Elosu, Plaintiffs) was part of a homeowner’s association called Middlefork Ranch, Incorporated (MFR). The cabin had a “wrap around” deck with a propane-fired refrigerator on the north side. On the day before the fire, Brace stained the deck using an oil-based stain. That night, Elosu smoked cigarettes on the deck. The next morning, Plaintiffs used rags to clean up excess oil from the deck and an MFR employee changed the propane on the refrigerator and relit the pilot light. At 4:00 p.m., a fire started in or around the cabin while no one was home. The fire was discovered by a group of contractors who testified that the fire was isolated to the east side of the cabin when they first arrived. Importantly, one witness testified that there was no fire and no flames around the propane-fired refrigerator. The fire destroyed the cabin and the contents within. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Kenney, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Kenney may be contacted at kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com

Reconciling Prompt Payments and Withholding of Retention Payments

March 30, 2016 — Eric J. Rollins, Esq. – Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
It is common in California for the owners of a project to make monthly payments to a contractor for work as it is completed, but withhold a certain percentage as a guarantee of future satisfactory performance. Contractors almost always pass these withholdings on to their subcontractors. Unsurprisingly, disputes can arise regarding when the withheld retentions must be paid. Civil Code section 8814, subdivision (a), states that a direct contractor must pay each subcontractor its share of a retention payment within ten days after receiving all or part of a retention payment. However, an exception exists -- a direct contractor may withhold from the retention paid to a subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount, whenever a “good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and a subcontractor.” (See Cal. Civ. Code, § 8814, subd. (c).) The problem with the statute is that it offers no help in defining a “good faith dispute,” and the California courts have historically not provided much guidance either. Can a “good faith dispute” be any dispute between the contracting parties, e.g., a dispute regarding change orders, mismanagement, etc.? Or must the dispute relate specifically to the retention? Unfortunately for California litigants, the answer may depend on the appellate district in which the parties find themselves. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric J. Rollins, Esq., Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
Mr. Rollins may be contacted at eric.rollins@ndlf.com

Five "Boilerplate" Terms to Negotiate in Your Next Subcontract

November 08, 2017 — James R. Lynch - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Whether you negotiate your own subcontracts or rely on your lawyer to do the heavy lifting at contract time, a savvy subcontractor should understand the basic purpose of common subcontract provisions, and be prepared to negotiate for fair and commercially reasonable terms. While most sophisticated subcontractors are skilled at negotiating the core terms of a subcontract—scope of work, price, and time—a few simple but less obvious tweaks to common subcontract terms and conditions can go a long way to protect a subcontractor from unfair results when a dispute arises. From the desk of an experienced construction lawyer, below are the first three of the top five “boilerplate” provisions that subcontractors too often overlook during contract negotiations, along with tips on language to include and to avoid. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James R. Lynch, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Lynch may be contacted at jlynch@ac-lawyers.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES