Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

New Jersey Appellate Court Reinstates Asbestos Action

March 05, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the New Jersey Law Journal, an asbestos case involving “a long-time ship worker who died of mesothelioma was reinstated by a New Jersey appellate court on March 3.” A lower court judge had “dismissed the claims against them based on his view that the evidence presented by the plaintiff was insufficient to show that the ships on which he worked contained asbestos and that he was exposed to it.” However, the appeals judges disagreed. “Although the summary judgment motion was decided on a very narrow ground, we conclude that the record as a whole establishes a triable issue as to whether plaintiff was exposed to asbestos or asbestos-containing products on defendant’s dredges,” judges Susan Maven and Henry Carroll stated, according to the New Jersey Law Journal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Environmental and Regulatory Law Update: New Federal and State Rulings

April 19, 2022 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The first quarter of 2022 has yielded a number of decisions, reversals and agency adjustments worth note. FEDERAL CIRCUIT U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – Food & Water Watch v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission On March 11, 2022, the court decided the FERC case. On December 19, 2019, the Commission issued a Certificate to Tennessee Gas Pipeline and determined that a “modest expansion” and upgrade of the existing 11,000-mile natural gas pipeline would have no significant environmental impact. However, one of the Commissioners filed a partial dissent, arguing that the Commission’s treatment of the climate change impacts was inadequate. A petition for review was filed, and now the court has decided that the Commission erred in not accounting for the indirect effects of the expansion, namely the downstream emissions of greenhouse gas generated by the pipeline’s delivery of the gas to its customers. Consequently, NEPA’s requirement that a rigorous environmental assessment be made before the authorization was granted was violated. However, the court decided against vacating the Commission’s orders, which would have had a “disruptive effect” on the project which is, or soon will be, operational. 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

Drone Operation in a Construction Zone

August 17, 2020 — Mark R. Berry & Freddy X. Muñoz - Peckar & Abramson
The potential uses of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the construction industry continue to expand as new technologies enter the market and construction companies realize UAS can perform unique tasks at tremendous cost savings. The full technological capabilities of UAS are, however, limited by law for public safety reasons. UAS share airspace with traditional passenger, military and cargo aircraft, and are potential hazards for humans below. The risk of potential catastrophic collisions has led to a careful approach to the adoption of this technology. All U.S. airspace is exclusively regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and therefore, most drone regulation originates from this agency. Many states and localities have also enacted additional limits on UAS operations, and many of these nonfederal regulations are presently on unsure footing after a federal court ruling in Singer v. Newton invalidated a local regulation that conflicted with FAA regulations. What is clear is that all commercial UAS operations must comply with FAA regulations. Any drone operation conducted by any private company, even through use of an employee’s personal drone, would constitute commercial operation subject to regulation. Reprinted courtesy of Mark R. Berry, Peckar & Abramson and Freddy X. Muñoz, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Berry may be contacted at mberry@pecklaw.com Mr. Muñoz may be contacted at fmunoz@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Fire Damages Unfinished Hospital Tower at NYU Langone Medical Center

December 15, 2016 — Jeff Rubenstone – Engineering News-Record
A fire broke out Dec. 14 at a hospital tower under construction at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City. The blaze sent a column of thick black smoke up through the Manhattan skyline. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com

Construction Law Advisory: Mechanical Contractor Scores Victory in Prevailing Wage Dispute

September 03, 2014 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & Jessica M. Lassere Ryland - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On August 27, 2014, the First District Court of Appeal weighed in on whether prevailing wages are required for public contracts in situations where work is performed in furtherance of the project but at a permanent offsite manufacturing facility that is not exclusively dedicated to the project. In Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 401 v. John C. Duncan and Russ Will Mechanical, the project at issue was for a community college district where Russ Will was the HVAC subcontractor. The contract documents required contractors to pay prevailing wages but they did not limit where or how Russ Will would fabricate sheet metal required for the job. Russ Will used its existing fabrication facility to form the sheet metal. An employee of Russ Will filed a complaint with the DIR alleging he should have been paid prevailing wages for work related to the project. The worker fabricated sheet metal for the project but at Russ Will’s Hayward facility, not at the site. The DIR issued a coverage determination in which it concluded that Russ Will was required to pay prevailing wages for the offsite fabrication work associated with the project. The DIR's determination turned on whether Russ Will was exempt from the prevailing wage law as a material supplier. To qualify for the material supplier exemption, the employer must sell supplies to the general public and its fabrication or manufacturing facility must not be established for the particular public works contract or be located at the site of the public work. Following the DIR determination, Rush Will filed an administrative appeal. The department reversed its initial coverage determination, concluding that the offsite fabrication performed by Russ Will was not subject to the prevailing wage law. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jessica M. Lassere Ryland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Ryland may be contacted at jlassere@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Read Her Lips: “No New Buildings”

November 18, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Martha Johnson, the head of the General Services Administration, has said that her agency will not be building any new buildings in the near future. Among other duties, the GSA is responsible for the building, renovating, and leasing of federal office space. The White House had proposed $840 million in new construction, the Senate only $56 million. The House did not appropriate any money for the agency to use for new construction.

In addition to cutbacks on new buildings, Congress is suggesting only $280 million in repairs of existing government buildings. In order to cut back, the GSA has dropped plans to renovate their own offices in favor of renovations at the Department of Homeland Security and the Food and Drug Administration.

Read the full story…

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

Narrow Promissory Estoppel Exception to Create Insurance Coverage

August 07, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There is an affirmative claim known as promissory estoppel. (Whereas equitable estoppel is used an affirmative defense, promissory estoppel is used as an affirmative claim.) To prove promissory estoppel, a plaintiff must plead and prove the following three elements: “(1) a representation as to a material fact that is contrary to a later-asserted position; (2) a reasonable reliance on that representation; and (3) a change in position detrimental to the party claiming estoppel caused by the representation and reliance thereon.” Romo v. Amedex Ins. Co., 930 So.2d 643, 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (citation and quotation omitted). Stated differently: “A party will be estopped from denying liability under the principle of promissory estoppel when the party makes ‘[a] promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forbearance…[and] injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.’” Criterion Leasing Group v. Gulf Coast Plastering & Drywall, 582 So.2d 799, 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). 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

Colorado Court of Appeals Finds Damages to Non-Defective Property Arising From Defective Construction Covered Under Commercial General Liability Policy

December 20, 2012 — HEIDI GASSMAN, HIGGINS, HOPKINS, MCLAIN & ROSWELL
The recently decided case of Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company (Colo. Ct. App. 10CA2638, October 25, 2012), confirms that absent specific exclusions in the policy, a commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy covers damages to non-defective property arising from a builder’s own defective workmanship. Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. (“Colorado Pool”) was hired as a subcontractor to install a swimming pool at Founders Village Pool and Community Center (“Founders Village”) in Castle Rock, Colorado. After the concrete shell of the pool was placed, some of the rebar frame was found to be too close to the surface. Founders Village demanded that Colorado Pool remove and replace the pool, and Colorado Pool contacted its insurance carrier, Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”), with which Colorado Pool held a CGL policy. After inspecting the pool, Scottsdale’s claims adjuster stated that the insurance policy would cover losses associated with removing and replacing the pool. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heidi Gassman, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
Ms. Gassman can be contacted at gassman@hhmrlaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES