Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

The “Ugly” Property Next Door is Ruining My Property Value

September 14, 2017 — Kevin J. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Traditional bases for private nuisance claims include circumstances where noise, light, vibration, or odor emanating from a neighboring property harm the value of your property. Such bases can be objectively verified and quantified. Courts in various states depart, however, on the issue of whether pure unsightliness of a neighboring property, which diminishes the value of your property, supports a cognizable damages claim against the neighboring property owner under the law of nuisance. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com

Coverage Denied Where Occurrence Takes Place Outside Coverage Territory

December 11, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court held there was no coverage for construction defect claims that occurred outside the coverage territory. Foremost Signature Ins. Co. v. Silverboys, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154524 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2018). Solo Design, LLC, a Miami-based design company, entered into a contract with Silverboys, LLC (Owner) to provide interior design services in conjunction with the renovation of the Owner's vacation home in the Bahamas. Solo retained Whittingham, a Bahamian architect, as a subcontractor to serve as project manager. Owner sued Solo, Whittingham and others in Florida for breach of contract, fraud, conversion and negligence when the project did not go as planned. The underlying complaint alleged intentional misconduct, lying about qualifications and the progress of the project, submitting false invoices, requesting money for services that were not performed, etc. Owner alleged that the damages included: (a) the cost to repair substandard work; (b) loss of use of the home due to delay; and (c) overcharges for furnishings, contract fees, and expenses. The underlying complaint set forth only a few instances of physical injury to the home, including mold on the ceiling in the master shower, faulty millwork on the children's playroom bookshelf, and a defective front door and resysta facade. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Denver Airport Terminates P3 Contract For Main Terminal Renovation

November 12, 2019 — Mark Shaw - Engineering News-Record
In a move that stunned transportation planners around the country, Denver International Airport terminated the contractor team working on a $650-million terminal renovation. The move also ended the airport’s $1.8-billion public-private partnership with Great Hall Partners, a consortium led by Ferrovial Airports, with partners Saunders/JLC Infrastructure. Mark Shaw, Engineering News-Record Mr. Shaw may be contacted at shawm@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law

November 13, 2023 — Yaron Shaham - Kahana Feld
In order for a plaintiff to prove a defendant is negligent, the plaintiff must prove the defendant (1) owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) breached that duty, (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the resulting monetary damage. However, for both plaintiffs and defendants it is not an all or nothing game in California. This is because California is a pure Comparative Negligence state. California’s Comparative Negligence law provides that even if a plaintiff is deemed 99% at fault, the plaintiff can still recover 1% in damages from a defendant. Thus, even if a plaintiff is deemed to be more than 50% (or even 99%) at fault for the incident, the plaintiff could still recover some monetary amount, or the defendant will still have to pay plaintiff, depending on how you see it. In most instances, a jury decides what percentage of fault to assign to each party. Just as a plaintiff must prove he/she/its negligence case against a defendant, if the defendant claims plaintiff was partially responsible for the incident, the defendant must prove plaintiff was also negligent and said negligence contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. The total amount of monetary responsibility distributed among all defendants and plaintiffs must equal 100%. As crazy as it may sound, a plaintiff found to be 99.9% at fault, is still entitled to recover 0.01% from a defendant in California. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Yaron Shaham, Kahana Feld
Mr. Shaham may be contacted at yshaham@kahanafeld.com

When Can a General Contractor’s Knowledge be Imputed to a Developer?

August 06, 2014 — Zach McLeroy – Colorado Construction Litigation
The Colorado Court of Appeals recently handed down an opinion clarifying when the knowledge of a general contractor can be imputed to a developer. In the case of Jehly v. Brown, 327 P.3d (Colo. App. 2013), the Court of Appeals held that a developer cannot be held liable for fraudulent concealment when the developer has no actual knowledge of the fact or facts allegedly being concealed even if the general contractor had knowledge. In this case, Brown, the developer, owned real property in Teller County and hired a general contractor to build a single-family house. Sometime before or during the construction, the general contractor became aware that part of the home site was located in a designated floodplain. Although the general contractor was aware that part of the home site was located in a floodplain, he continued to build the home without informing Brown of the floodplain designation. Once the home was complete, Brown sold the property to the Jehlys. Brown completed a Seller’s Property Disclosure Form regarding the condition of the house and property, but failed to identify that the home site was located in a governmentally designated floodplain. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zack McLeroy, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLeroy may be contacted at McLeroy@hhmrlaw.com

More Fun with Indemnity and Construction Contracts!

June 04, 2024 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Well, I’m back. It’s been quite a while since my last post due to some busy family times and running my law practice. Hopefully, you will hear from me more often in the future. Now. . . on with the post: I have often discussed indemnity provisions here at Construction Law Musings. I’ve posted on a range of things relating to indemnity from when those sticky clauses are unenforceable to what to look out for in such a clause when reviewing your construction contract. A recent case out of Fairfax examines another wrinkle in these indemnity clauses. In Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, LLC v. Paramount Constr. Servs., LLC, the Court examined the language of a fairly typical indemnity clause in a construction contract. The general facts of the case are as follows. The Plaintiff alleged that it owns the property at 6129 Leesburg Pike, that it entered into a contract with Paramount Construction Services LLC to install clothes washers and dryers in individual units at the property, and that, in the process, Paramount (or one of its subcontractors) negligently severed a water pipe, which caused significant damage to the property. The plaintiff’s property insurance carrier agreed to pay the plaintiff $2,598,918.41. But the actual damages exceeded that payment by $952,020.90. The plaintiff sued Paramount for $952,020, pursuant to an indemnity provision in the contract. Paramount demurred to the Complaint arguing that the indemnity clause did not apply to create liability for Paramount. 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

Edison Utility Accused of Igniting LA Fire in Lawsuits

January 21, 2025 — Jef Feeley, Mark Chediak & Malathi Nayak - Bloomberg
Edison International Inc.’s southern California utility faces lawsuits blaming the energy provider’s equipment for igniting one of the wildfires still raging in the second-largest US metropolis. The first of several suits filed Monday was brought on behalf of a group of homeowners, renters, business owners and others with properties destroyed by the deadly Eaton Fire in the Pasadena area. The complaints allege that Southern California Edison power lines were the cause of the blaze that leveled the community of Altadena. The initial suits are expected to be followed by thousands more legal claims. Reprinted courtesy of Jef Feeley, Bloomberg, Mark Chediak, Bloomberg and Malathi Nayak, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Power Point Presentation on Nautilus v. Lexington Case

July 23, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Here is our power point from today's presentation to the Hawaii State Bar Association's Litigation and Insurance Coverage Litigation sections. We discussed "other insurance" clauses as addressed by the Hawaii Supreme Court in Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 132 Haw. 283, 321 P.3d 634 (2014). Read the full story and view the Power Point presentation... 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