Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

End of an Era: Los Angeles County Superior Court Closes the Personal Injury Hub

October 24, 2022 — Elizabeth A. Evans & Angela S. Haskins - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On September 21, 2022, the Los Angeles County Superior Court announced that it would start a gradual shutdown of the Personal Injury Hub, currently located at the Spring Street Courthouse. This closure will see the return of personal injury cases being venued in the district where they occurred. The Personal Injury Hub was established in 2012 as a means of consolidating personal injury cases after several civil courtrooms around the County were closed due to significant budget cuts. It first began as two courtrooms in Stanley Mosk Superior Court, then moved to the Spring Street Courthouse and ballooned to six courtrooms, each handling a case load of reportedly over 9,000 cases at times. Case Management Conferences were abolished and the parties were largely left to their own devices to move cases along. At times, slow chaos ensued. With a new and increased budget, Los Angeles Superior Court has now decided that enough is enough. Effective October 10, 2022, new personal injury cases will be filed and handled from start to finish in independent calendar courtrooms in the districts where the events giving rise to the claims occurred. Any cases properly filed in the Central District will continue to be heard in the Personal Injury Hub for now. A new Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum that reflects this change will be available on the Los Angeles County Superior Court website for use as of October 10th. Reprinted courtesy of Elizabeth A. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Angela S. Haskins, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Evans may be contacted at eevans@hbblaw.com Ms. Haskins may be contacted at ahaskins@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Lien Attaches To Landlord’s Interest When Landlord Is Party To Tenant Improvement Construction Contract

January 03, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you are a landlord / lessor, then you want to maximize the protections afforded to you under Florida’s Lien Law in Florida Statute s. 713.10. These protections are designed to protect your property from liens for improvements performed by your tenant / lessee. The intent is that if you comply with s. 713.10, then a tenant improvement contractor’s recourse is against the leasehold interest, and NOT against the interest of the real property (or your interest as the landlord / lessor). Needless to say, it is imperative that a landlord / lessor make efforts to comply with this section when a tenant is performing tenant improvements, even when the landlord is contributing money to those improvements. Section 713.10 provides in material part:

(1) Except as provided in s. 713.12, a lien under this part shall extend to, and only to, the right, title, and interest of the person who contracts for the improvement as such right, title, and interest exists at the commencement of the improvement or is thereafter acquired in the real property. When an improvement is made by a lessee in accordance with an agreement between such lessee and her or his lessor, the lien shall extend also to the interest of such lessor.

(2)(a) When the lease expressly provides that the interest of the lessor shall not be subject to liens for improvements made by the lessee, the lessee shall notify the contractor making any such improvements of such provision or provisions in the lease, and the knowing or willful failure of the lessee to provide such notice to the contractor shall render the contract between the lessee and the contractor voidable at the option of the contractor.

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

Safe and Safer

May 01, 2023 — Grace Austin - Construction Executive
There’s always room for improvement” is a cliché that applies to nothing if not health and safety in the construction industry, where doing things differently—doing them better—means preventing injuries and saving lives. In that spirit, Construction Executive asked five industry safety advocates a simple question: What is one thing about construction safety you’d like to see change? Ranging from sweeping to granular, their answers all focus on the people underneath the hard hats. As Miller & Long’s Frank Trujillo notes: “‘Safety first’ has been a mantra in the industry for decades, but I think companies have forgotten what that means. It’s about people—who they are, what they care about, who they love and their wellness.” But each of our experts—all of them representing companies who participate in ABC’s STEP Safety Management System —has a different idea of how safety in the construction industry can and should evolve, and what needs to change. Their answers below have been condensed and edited for clarity. Reprinted courtesy of Grace Austin, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Fourth Circuit Issues New Ruling on Point Sources Under the CWA

October 02, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes citizen suits to enforce the provisions of the law which requires a permit to discharge a pollutant from a point source into navigable waters. Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, held that discharges into groundwater, not surface water, could also trigger the regulatory authority of the CWA if there was a hydrological connection between the groundwater and the navigable, surface, waters. In its a closely-watched case, Sierra Club v. Virginia Electric & Power Company (“VEPCO”), which also involved discharges into groundwater, the Fourth Circuit was bound by this this new and controversial precedent (a Supreme Court review is very likely), but the plaintiffs in the VEPCO case could not establish that the landfill and the settling ponds used by VEPCO were “point sources”—another important element that must be established. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

WSDOT Seeks Retraction of Waiver Excluding Non-Minority Woman-Owned Businesses from Participation Goals

September 28, 2017 — Lindsay K. Taft - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
If you are a regular reader of our blog, you will likely recognize that our firm has been actively involved and concerned with the results of Washington State Department of Transportation’s (“WSDOT”) Disparity Study, which impacts both Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (“DBE”) and general contractors who bid on federally-funded projects with DBE goals. On June 1, 2017, WSDOT implemented a “waiver”, which excluded Caucasian women-owned firms (“WBEs”) from qualifying for Condition of Award DBE Goals on federally-funded projects. This drastic action was the result of WSDOT’s highly criticized 2012 Disparity Study conducted by BBC Research & Consulting of Denver, Colorado, which concluded non-minority women-owned firms do not face “substantial disparities” in the federally-funded transportation contracting market. BBC’s study was criticized for a number of reasons, but most concerning was BBC’s flawed and unreliable statistical methodology that did not accurately represent true marketplace conditions. See Ahlers & Cressman letter of January 9, 2014 and Associated General Contractors of Washington article. For example, BBC’s results showed both decreasing WBE availability and availability vastly out of range with other states (e.g., the availability of women-owned construction firms in Washington was just 1.5% compared to 11.96% in Oregon). Nevertheless, based on this flawed BBC study and BBC’s assertion that women-owned firms did not face disparities, WSDOT sought and on June 1, 2017 was granted a waiver precluding general contractors from counting WBE firms towards their DBE goals on federally funded public works projects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Ms. Taft may be contacted at ltaft@ac-lawyers.com

Insurer’s Duty to Defend: When is it Triggered? When is it Not?

February 18, 2015 — Zach McLeroy – Colorado Construction Litigation
In Colorado it is well recognized that an insurer has a broad duty to defend its policyholder against pending claims. An insurer’s duty to defend is triggered when the underlying complaint against the insured alleges any set of facts that might fall within the coverage policy. Greystone Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance, Co., 661 F.3d 1272, 1284 (10th Cir. 2011). Even if the insurer’s duty to defend is not clear from the pleadings filed against the insured, the insurer’s duty to defend is triggered if the claim is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage. Id. If there is any doubt as to whether a theory of recovery falls within the policy coverage, such doubt is decided in favor of the insured and the insurer’s duty to defend is triggered. Id. In order to avoid this duty to defend, an insurer must show that an exemption to the policy applies and that no other basis exists for coverage under the policy. In Cornella Brothers, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 2014 WL 321335 (D. Colo. Jan. 29, 2015), the Court was to determine whether Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”) had a duty to defend a lawsuit filed against its insured, Cornella Brothers, Inc. (“Cornella”). The underlying lawsuit alleged construction defects at a recharging facility. Upon being named a party to the underlying litigation, Cornella provided notice to Liberty Mutual and demanded that Liberty Mutual defend Cornella. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zach McLeroy, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLeroy may be contacted at mcleroy@hhmrlaw.com

How A Contractor Saved The Day On A Troubled Florida Condo Project

November 18, 2019 — John Zander - Engineering News-Record
Enough isn’t said about general contractors on rocky, out-of-control projects who take the lead in solving problems they didn’t create. That’s what I found troubleshooting projects for a Chicago bank. A good example is a $200-million Florida apartment complex being built in 2007, when labor was as tight as it is now and in some places even tighter. Reprinted courtesy of John Zander, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Avoiding Project Planning Disasters: How to Spot Problem Projects

December 13, 2021 — James T. Dixon - Construction Executive
The burden of project planning falls first and foremost upon a project owner. Owners have varying levels of sophistication, and the smart ones fill weak spots on their staff by engaging project managers, construction managers and owner’s representatives. Typically, the owner then delegates the largest part of the project’s plan to the contractor in terms of creation and execution of a critical path method schedule during the construction phase. Before accepting that burden, a wise contractor will evaluate the project to determine if it is on a path to success or disaster. It is guaranteed that an owner’s problems will become the contractor’s problems in one way or another. There are legendary projects that were also legendary planning failures. The iconic Sydney Opera House is one. The design competition began in 1955. After selecting the architect, the owner implemented a team that involved that architect, a structural engineer and an executive committee of inexperienced politicians. The original plan included a budget of $7 million (Australian) and a completion schedule spread over four years. That executive committee forced the project to start before designs were complete, doubled the number of theaters and then put a strangle-hold on the payment process, eventually causing the architect to quit and return to Europe with the construction drawings. The Opera House opened for its first performance in 1973—14 years late and $98 million over budget. Reprinted courtesy of James T. Dixon, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES