Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Florida Decides Against Adopting Daubert

January 28, 2019 — Rahul Gogineni - The Subrogation Strategist
In Delisle v. Crane Co., 2018 Fla. LEXIS 1883, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S 459, the Supreme Court of Florida reaffirmed that the appropriate test for admissibility of an expert opinion about new or novel scientific evidence is the “Frye” test, not the “Daubert” test. As result of developing mesothelioma, Richard Delisle sued sixteen defendants, including Crane Company (Crane) and R.J. Reynolds, claiming that each exposed him to asbestos, which is a leading cause of mesothelioma. At trial, Crane and R.J. Reynolds sought to preclude the expert opinions of Mr. Delisle’s causation experts. The trial denied the motions and the jury awarded Mr. Delisle $8 million. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams
Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

Stair Collapse Points to Need for Structural Inspections

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The exterior stairways at the Nutmeg Woods apartments in New London, Connecticut have lead to injuries three times in the last three years, with the most recent failure causing fatal injuries. Despite the annual injuries, the city has not been inspecting the stairways on an annual basis. Calvin Darrow, New London’s fire marshal, told The Day, a New London newspaper, that these inspections are supposed to occur annually, but tend to come about once every five years. Mr. Darrow ascribed the matter to staffing issues. The stairways have now received a preliminary inspection by a structural engineer, and building and fire officials. Kirk Kripas told the paper that the Building Department was still attempting to determine when the stairs were built. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Beware of Personal-Liability Clauses – Even When Signing in Your Representative Capacity

January 31, 2018 — David R. Cook Jr. – Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
When a contract is drafted by a party, the other party expects some level of one-sidedness in favor of the drafter. But there are times when a contract goes too far. There are certain provisions that most persons in the construction industry would find unacceptable, unfair, and beyond the pale – even for a one-sided contract. Such a provision was arguably found in an electrical subcontract at issue in a 2014 opinion by a three-judge panel of the Georgia Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, due to long-standing Georgia law, the panel was forced to apply the provision as written. In the case, a contractor hired a subcontractor to perform the electrical scope of work. When the subcontractor failed to pay a sub-subcontractor, the sub-subcontractor filed suit against the subcontractor, contractor, and the payment-bond surety. The contractor asserted a claim of indemnity against the subcontractor based on the sub-subcontractor’s claim. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Mediation v. Arbitration, Both Private Dispute Resolution but Very Different Sorts

January 24, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I often get calls from clients, potential construction clients, and other construction and business professionals with questions about arbitration or mediation clauses in the contracts that they are reviewing or drafting. When I get these calls, it often becomes clear that, understandably, there is some confusion as to what each of these alternate dispute resolution processes entails. I thought I’d put together a quick primer on what each is and their differences. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

DC Circuit Approves, with Some Misgivings, FERC’s Approval of the Atlantic Sunrise Natural Gas Pipeline Extension

December 02, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit decided the case of Allegheny Defense Project, et al. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on August 2, 2019. In a Per Curiam opinion, the court denied petitions challenging the Commission’s orders permitting the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company’s expansion of an existing natural gas pipeline which extends from northern Pennsylvania across the Carolinas into Alabama. The expansion is called the “Atlantic Sunrise Project.” In February 2017, FERC approved the expansion, and denied various petitions, filed by environmental organizations and affected landowners, who then challenged the decision in the DC Circuit. However, the court concluded, on the basis of the administrative record, that these challenges “cannot surmount the deferential standards of agency review and binding DC Circuit precedent.” Under the law, the Commission must consider whether the projected pipeline project meets a market need, and whether the public benefits outweigh the harms. If both criteria are satisfied, FERC will, as in this instance, issue a certificate authorizing the pipeline’s construction, and that certificate also empowers the certificate holder to exercise eminent domain authority under to the Natural Gas Act when necessary. It was the latter consequence of the FERC’s determinations that caused several Pennsylvania landowners to file their objections with the Commission and seek to stay construction. 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

North Miami Beach Rejects as Incomplete 2nd Engineering Inspection Report From Evacuated Condo

July 25, 2021 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
North Miami Beach has rejected a new engineering inspection report provided by the Crestview Towers condominium association, keeping about 300 evacuated residents from returning to their apartments and raising new questions about engineering inspection reports in the aftermath of the Champlain Towers South collapse. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Builders Can’t Rely on SB800

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In coming to their ruling on SB800, the California Court of Appeals looked to the legislative intent behind the law. Valentine Hoy, Timothy Hutter, and Erin Sedloff of Allen Matkins, in an article on the ruling, note that SB800 was written in response to Aas v. Superior Court, in which the court found that there was no remedy for construction defects that had not resulted in property damage. In the latest ruling, Liberty Mutual v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC, the court concluded that SB800 was passed to give homeowners a way to address defects that had not lead to damage. However, the court also concluded that the legislature did not intend for SB800 to be the only remedy. In Liberty Mutual, the insurance company sought reimbursement for claims it had paid on a homeowner’s claim after a fire sprinkler pipe burst. Liberty Mutual had insured the homeowner and sought repayment from the builder. Escrow had closed on the home in 2004, the pipe burst in 2008, and Liberty Mutual filed their claim in 2011, seven years after the close of escrow. But for plumbing issues, SB800 has a four-year statute of limitations. The writers describe California as “a hotbed for construction defect litigation.” Due to the Liberty Mutual ruling, developers now “cannot rely on the statutes of limitation set forth in SB800.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Understanding Indiana’s New Home Construction Warranty Act

April 30, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Marisa L. Saber on the Subrogation & Recovery Law Blog, discussed Indiana’s New Home Construction Warranty Act, and how it can benefit both builders and plaintiffs in construction defect cases. Saber stated that the “Indiana New Home Construction Warranty Act (the “Act”) (see Indiana Code §32-27-2-1 et. seq.) allows a builder to provide specific warranties and disclaim all implied warranties if the text of the statute is followed.” Furthermore, the warranties must be backed by an insurance policy. Saber answers the question as to why a builder would choose to provide express warranties: “The likely answer is that it allows the builder to have control over its liability if a construction defect occurs.” For instance, “[i]f a builder provides express warranties via the Act, it is assured that any warranty liability will be covered by insurance.” This benefits a plaintiff working in a subrogation case, “as there will be guaranteed insurance for the construction defect if the builder complies with the Act.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES