FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Insurer Has Duty to Defend Additional Insured in Construction Defect Case

January 07, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly- Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment, holding that the insurer had a duty to defend the additional insured against claims for construction defects. Centex Homes v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164472 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2014). Centex contracted with Gateway Concrete, Inc. to install concrete foundations for a housing development. Gateway was required to purchase insurance with an endorsement naming Centex as an additional insured. Gateway obtained the policy from Lexington. 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

---

Appeals Court Upholds Decision by Referee in Trial Court for Antagan v Shea Homes

May 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

In the case Antangan v. Shea Homes Ltd. Partnership (Cal. App., 2012), Plaintiffs appealed “an order vacating a judgment and entering a modified judgment in their construction defect action against defendants Shea Homes, Inc. and Shea Homes Limited Partnership,” while the Defendant, Shea Homes Limited Partnership (Shea Homes) appealed “an order of the judicial referee denying its motion to strike and tax costs.”



On the Antagon issue, the appeals court concluded that “the trial court did not err by vacating and modifying its judgment so that the cost of referee’s fees would be equally divided by the parties and consistent with a prior stipulation they filed in court.”



On the Shea Homes issue, the appeals court concluded: “1) the judicial referee did not err by ruling that plaintiffs’ offers to compromise (§ 998) were validly served on Shea Homes’ counsel, 2) the offers substantially complied with statutory requirements, 3) the offers were not required to be apportioned, and 4) the referee’s award of $5,000 as costs for a person assisting plaintiffs’ counsel was not an abuse of discretion.” The appeals court affirmed the judgment.



Here is a brief history of the trial case: “Plaintiffs Chito Antangan, Jimmy Alcova and other homeowners brought an action against defendants Shea Homes, Inc. and Shea Homes Limited Partnership for damages alleging that the properties they purchased from these ‘developer defendants’ were defective. Plaintiffs claimed numerous construction defects required them ‘to incur expenses’ for ‘restoration and repairs’ and the value of their homes had been diminished.”



In response, Shea Homes filed a motion for an order to appoint a judicial referee. The motion was granted and it was ruled that “a referee would ‘try all issues’ and ‘report a statement of decision to this court.’”



On May 10, 2010 the judicial referee (Thompson) “awarded plaintiffs damages and various costs, and ruled that ‘Shea Homes shall bear all of the Referee’s fees.’” The latter ruling would become a matter for contention later on.



In July of 2010, the plaintiffs “sought, among other things, $54,409.90 for expert fees, and $14,812.50 for the services of Melissa Fox for ‘exhibit preparation & trial presentation.’ Shea Homes filed a motion to strike and/or tax costs claiming: 1) Fox was a paralegal, 2) plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney’s fees, and 3) the fees for Fox’s services were an indirect and improper method to obtain attorney’s fees. The referee disagreed and awarded $5,000 for Fox’s services. The referee also ruled that plaintiffs had properly served valid offers to compromise (§ 998) on Shea Homes’ counsel in 2009. He said those offers to defendants in the case at that time did not have to be apportioned.”



“Antangan contends the trial court erred when it vacated and modified its original judgment, which ordered Shea Homes to pay all the referee’s fees. We disagree.”



Antagon contended that the trial court erred when it vacated and modified its original judgment regarding Shea Homes paying the referee’s fees. The appeals court disagreed: “A trial court has inherent authority to vacate or correct a judgment that is void on its face, incorrect, or entered by mistake. (§ 473; Rochin v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co. (1998),67 Cal.App.4th 1228; Olivera



Read the court’s decision…

 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Building with Recycled Plastics – Interview with Jeff Mintz of Envirolastech

January 19, 2017 — Aarni Heiskanen – AEC Business
Plastic waste is a huge global problem and we need viable solutions. In this interview with Jeff Mintz, CEO of Envirolastech, we discuss how plastic can be recycled and used as a building material in a unique way. Envirolastech, Inc, is a developer of thermoplastic technology that offers a cost-competitive alternative to wood and concrete in a variety of products and applications. The company’s products are made from 100% non-organic recycled materials and they are 100% recyclable (see product features). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aarni@aepartners.fi

---

Court Finds That Limitation on Conditional Use Permit Results in Covered Property Damage Due to Loss of Use

November 06, 2018 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Thee Sombrero, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. (No. E067505, filed 10/25/18), a California appeals court held that a property owner’s loss of the ability to use his property as a nightclub, based on revocation of a city’s conditional use permit (“CUP”), constituted covered property damage. In Sombrero, lessees operated a nightclub under the property owner’s conditional use permit from the City of Colton. A company hired to provide security negligently allowed admission to an armed patron, who shot and killed another patron. The City revoked the owner’s permit, and the owner was only able to negotiate the reinstatement of a limited permit, for use as a banquet hall only. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

OSHA Issues New Rules on Injury Record Keeping

August 19, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
On July 28, 2015, OSHA issued proposed rules seeking to clarify an employer’s ongoing obligation to make and maintain accurate records of work-related injuries and illness. The new rules were drafted in response to the U.S. Court of Appeals decision in AKM LLC, d/b/a Volks Constructors v. Secretary of Labor, in which a contractor successfully argued that OSHA’s citation was issued well beyond the six month limitation period. OSHA’s Injury Record Keeping Obligations The Occupational Safety and Health Act requires each employer to make, keep and preserve records of workplace injuries and illnesses. 29 U.S.C. § 658(c). OSHA has promulgated a set of regulations which require employers to record information about work-related injuries and illnesses in three ways. Employers must prepare an incident report and a separate injury log “within seven (7) calendar days of receiving information that a recordable injury or illness has occurred,” 29 C.F.R. § 1904.29(b)(3), and must also prepare a year-end summary report of all recordable injuries during the calendar year, id. § 1904.32(a)(2). An employer “must save” all of these documents for five years from the end of the calendar year those records cover. 29 C.F.R. § 1904.33(a). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---

Eleven WSHB Attorneys Honored on List of 2016 Rising Stars

September 01, 2016 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP (WSHB) announced that eleven of their lawyers were recognized on the list of 2016 Rising Stars®:

• Raymond Babaian: Partner, Rancho Cucamonga
• Emil Macasinag: Senior Counsel, Los Angeles
• Amy Pennington: Partner, Los Angeles
• Christopher Perez: Senior Counsel, Rancho Cucamonga
• Keith Smith: Partner, Riverside
• Kevin Gillispie: Partner, Concord
• Alicia Kennon: Senior Counsel, Concord
• Eugene Zinovyev: Senior Associate, Concord
• Timothy Repass: Partner, Seattle and Portland
• Jodi Mullis: Senior Associate, Phoenix
• Vincent Beilman: Partner, Tampa and Miami
“We are pleased to have 11 of our best selected for this year’s lists,” Dan Berman, Firm Chairman and Founding Partner stated. “We value our selections to Rising Stars because the choices come from our peers. It is truly an honor and a validation of all of the great work we do at WSHB.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of


---

Cybersecurity "Flash" Warning for Construction and Manufacturing Businesses

April 26, 2021 — Jeffrey M. Dennis - Newmeyer Dillion
The FBI recently released its 2020 Internet Crime Report (Report), which details and analyzes complaints received through the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). In 2020, IC3 received a record number of complaints – nearly 800,000, with reported losses in excess of $4.1 billion. Companies must acknowledge that cybercrime is a real, dangerous threat to their business, and understand how, and why, these threats continue to escalate. At a minimum, businesses should take several proactive steps to protect themselves. What is IC3? IC3 is an online platform hosted by the FBI, which exists to provide the public with a trusted place to report cybercrime to the FBI. Since its inception in 2000, the IC3 has received 5.6 million complaints, and has averaged approximately 440,000 complaints over each of the last five years. The complaint figure for 2020 is nearly double that average. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey M. Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Dennis may be contacted at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com

---

New York Revises Retainage Requirements for Private Construction Contracts: Overview of the “5% Retainage Law”

January 22, 2024 — Levi W. Barrett, Patrick T. Murray, Skyler L. Santomartino & Mark A. Snyder - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
On November 17, 2023, the State of New York enacted the “5% Retainage Law.” This legislation effectively limits the amount of retainage that can be held from general contractors and subcontractors to no more than 5%. It applies to many but not all construction contracts. In addition, the new law revises late stage billing requirements, enabling contractors to invoice for retainage at substantial completion. Previously, the parties to a construction contract were free to negotiate any retainage amount, limited only by an unspecified “reasonable amount” that would be released as the parties contractually set forth. Summary The new law amends Sections 756-a and 756-c of the General Business Law (part of Article 35E of the GBL, known as the “Prompt Pay Act”), and applies to private construction contracts “where the aggregate cost of the construction project, including all labor, services, materials and equipment to be furnished, equals or exceeds one hundred fifty thousand dollars.” Reprinted courtesy of Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Patrick T. Murray, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Skyler L. Santomartino, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com Mr. Murray may be contacted at pmurray@pecklaw.com Mr. Santomartino may be contacted at ssantomartino@pecklaw.com Mr. Snyder may be contacted at msnyder@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of


---