Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Want to Use Drones in Your Construction Project? FAA Has Just Made It Easier.

March 01, 2017 — Masaki J. Yamada – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
The new Part 107 FAA Rules took effect on Monday, August 29, 2016. Unlike the previous requirements for flying a drone commercially, the new rules are much more simplistic and permissive of a broad amount of commercial drone usage. The following is the basic knowledge you need to legally use a drone on your future projects. To fly a drone commercially, there are now four major requirements:

You must be at least sixteen years old;
You must register your drone online;
You must pass an aviation knowledge test administered at an FAA-approved testing center; and
You must pass review by the Transportation Security Administration.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Masaki J. Yamada, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Yamada may be contacted at myamada@ac-lawyers.com

Florida extends the Distressed Condominium Relief Act

June 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Distressed Condominium Relief Act had been poised to expire on July 1st, but has now been extended by two additional years by the Florida legislature, the National Review reported. The act was Part VII of the Condominium Act in 2010, and has been previously extended twice. According to the National Review, “This Legislation attempted to allay the fears of potential investors about incurring developer liability in connection with the purchase of bulk units. The Act created a shield in favor of bulk purchasers from such potential liability, especially construction defects liability.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Nationwide Immigrant Strike May Trigger Excusable Delay and Other Contract Provisions

February 23, 2017 — Adam P. Handfinger & Meredith N. Reynolds – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Yesterday, February 16, 2017, media outlets reported a nationwide strike by immigrants and businesses referred to as “A Day Without Immigrants”. The protest, organized largely through social media, was a response by some to the Trump Administration’s immigration and foreign trade policies. Participating businesses shut down and immigrants refused to work or spend money in an eff ort to demonstrate the role of foreign-born workers in the U.S. economy. While the number of businesses and individuals that participated is not yet known, several contractors reported labor shortages and construction project delays or temporary shut downs as a result of the protest. Reprinted courtesy of Adam P. Handfinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Meredith N. Reynolds, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Handfinger may be contacted at ahandfinger@pecklaw.com Ms. Reynolds may be contacted at mreynolds@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

White and Williams Announces the Election of Five Lawyers to the Partnership and the Promotion of Five Associates to Counsel

February 16, 2016 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams is proud to announce that Meredith Bieber, Eric Hermanson, Timothy Martin, Brian Tetro and Debra Weinrich have been elected to the partnership. The firm has also promoted Alan Charkey, Michael DiFebbo, William Doerler, Justin Fortescue and Stephen Milewski from associate to counsel. The newly elected partners and promoted counsel represent the wide array of practices that White and Williams offers its clients, including construction, finance, healthcare, insurance coverage, product liability, real estate, reinsurance, and subrogation. These accomplished lawyers have earned this elevation based on their contributions to the firm and their practices. “We are delighted to elect these five lawyers to the partnership and promote five exceptional associates to counsel. Those included in these promotions represent the breadth of services and the deep bench that we have to offer at White and Williams,” said Patti Santelle, Managing Partner of the firm. “The election of our new partners and promotion of our new counsel is a reflection of their success and dedication as well as the continued health of the firm.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

Georgia Supreme Court Addresses Anti-Indemnity Statute

October 21, 2019 — David R. Cook - AHC Construction and Procurement Blog
In prior blog posts, we addressed Georgia’s anti-indemnity statute. One of the posts addressed the statute in the context of an electric utility easement near an airport. That case made its way to the Supreme Court Georgia, which provided some additional clarity to the statute. Milliken & Co. v. Georgia Power Co., — Ga. –, 829 S.E.2d 111 (2019). When a plane crashed and several passengers and crew died or were injured, their representatives sued several defendants, including a nearby plant owner, Milliken & Company (“Milliken”), based on claims that transmission lines on Milliken’s property were too close to the runways, were too high, and encroached on the airport easements. Milliken cross claimed against Georgia Power Company (“GPC”). Milliken’s claim was based on an easement it granted to GPC, which required GPC to indemnify it for any claims arising out of GPC’s construction or maintenance of the transmission lines. On appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether the clause was unenforceable under O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2(b). In general, “a party may contract away liability to the other party for the consequences of his own negligence without contravening public policy, except when such agreement it prohibited by statute.” Id. at 113 citing Lanier at McEver v. Planners & Eng’rs Collaborative, 284 Ga. 204, 205 (2008). As one such statute, O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2(b) applies when an indemnification provision (i) “relates in some way to a contract for construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of certain property” and (ii) “promises to indemnify a party for damages arising from that own party’s sole negligence.” Id. at 114 (internal punctuation omitted). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

The Legal Landscape

June 17, 2024 — David McMillin - Construction Executive
The construction industry continues to change as new technologies reshape jobsites and new generations of leaders rethink the way companies should operate. But one piece of the puzzle remains very much the same: Everyone needs a good lawyer. According to the most recent edition of the Arcadis Construction Disputes Report, the average value of a dispute in the industry has soared to $42.8 million—a 42% year-over-year increase between 2021 and 2022. And based on how busy the attorneys at Construction Executive’s 2024 Top 50 Construction Law Firmshave been this year, there is no sign of legal issues becoming less important to builders and contractors. Every construction leader wants to spend more time and energy doing what they do best—building projects safely, efficiently and profitably—and less time thinking about the things that might land them in court. How can you best avoid big disputes bound for mediation, arbitration or litigation? What emerging rules and regulations should be on your radar as you develop strategies for success? While legal issues will never disappear, listening to what some of the best construction lawyers in the country—all members of 2024 Top 50 Construction Law Firms—are thinking about offers a helpful perspective on future-proofing your business against risk, liability and worse. Reprinted courtesy of David McMillin, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Double-Breasted Dilemma

July 18, 2022 — Lauren E. Rankins & Saloni Shah - ConsensusDocs
What Is A Double-Breasted Operation? A double-breasted operation is when a firm has two entities, and one entity performs work under collective bargaining agreements and the other does not. While this type of operation is not outright prohibited, it is often subject to a variety of challenges and scrutiny. To legally run a double-breasted operation, the two companies must remain separate and distinct. If the companies are not sufficiently separate and distinct from one another, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) or a court may find that the two companies are operating as a single entity or that the non-union company, or also known as the open shop, is merely an alter ego of the union company and, therefore, bound by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. In order to determine whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct, the two entities must pass either the single employer test or the alter ego test depending on the nature of the double-breasted operation. Typically, the single employer test is used when the two entities run parallel operations, and the alter ego test is used when the open shop replaces the union company. Under the single employer test, the NLRB or courts will generally consider four factors: (1) the interrelation of operations; (2) common management; (3) common control of labor relations; and (4) common ownership. The alter ego test does not require a finding that the companies are a single bargaining unit, but analyzes to what extent the two entities have substantially identical management, business operation and purpose, business equipment, customers, and ownership. While common ownership is a factor considered under both the single employer and alter ego tests, common ownership alone is not dispositive of whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct. In other words, the NLRB and courts do not simply look for common ownership to determine whether the double-breasted operation is lawful. It is merely one of many factors to consider. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lauren E. Rankins, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Rankins may be contacted at lrankins@watttieder.com

Fifth Circuit: Primary Insurer Relieved of Duty to Defend Without Release of Liability of Insured

March 02, 2020 — Bethany L. Barrese & Ashley McWilliams - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In Aggreko, LLC v. Chartis Specialty Ins. Co.,1 the Fifth Circuit affirmed a decision by the Texas District Court and held that a Covenant Not to Execute constituted a “settlement” sufficient to exhaust policy limits and terminate a primary insurer’s duty to defend. This case arose out of a wrongful death suit filed by the parents of James Brenek II (“Brenek”). In 2014, Brenek was fatally electrocuted by an electrically energized generator housing cabinet while performing work on a rig in Texas for Guichard Operating Company, LLC (“Guichard”), a Louisiana-based drilling subcontractor. Guichard had leased the generator from Aggreko, LLC (“Aggreko”). A rental agreement between Guichard and Aggreko required Guichard to maintain commercial general liability insurance during the lease period and list Aggreko and the rig owner, Rutherford Oil Corporation (“Rutherford”), as additional insureds under the policy. Guichard’s primary insurance carrier, The Gray Insurance Company (“Gray”), agreed to defend and indemnify Aggreko and Rutherford in the wrongful death suit. The Gray policy had a limit of $1,000,000, subject to a $50,000 self-insured retention. Reprinted courtesy of Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Ashley McWilliams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com Ms. McWilliams may be contacted at amw@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES