Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Haight’s Sacramento Office Has Moved

April 17, 2019 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP has moved its Sacramento office to a new location. Effective March 18, 2019, Haight’s new Sacramento office address is: 500 Capitol Mall Suite 2150 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.702.3200 F: 916.570.1947 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

Coping With The New Cap And Trade Law

January 04, 2023 — John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
On May 17, 2021, Governor Jay Inslee signed a new carbon pricing bill making Washington only the second in the nation to have such an extensive climate-change reduction policy (Senate Bill 5126). The Stated Purpose of the New Law: SB5126 creates a system to cap carbon pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and individual businesses are provided specific limits on emissions (“Cap”). Those businesses then have to purchase credits for allowed emissions. The businesses which emit fewer greenhouse gases than the credits allotted them can sell their credits to businesses that are not reducing emissions as quickly (“Trade”). The overall pool of carbon credits are to be gradually reduced by 2050 to hit a goal of net-zero emissions. This bill is colloquially known as the “Cap and Trade Law.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

Construction Contract Clauses Only a Grinch Would Love – Part 4

November 30, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Scope, time and cost provisions may be the most important clauses in your construction contract but they’re not the only ones which can impact your bottom line. The fourth and final part in a multi-part series, here are some other important construction contract clauses that can put a damper on your holidays.

Provision: Warranty Provisions

Typical Provision: “Subcontractor warrants to Contractor that all materials and equipment furnished shall be new unless otherwise specified and that all Work performed shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner, of good quality and free from defects, and in conformance with industry standards, manufacturer’s recommendations and the Contract Documents. All work not conforming to these requirements, including substitutions not properly approved, shall be considered defective. Subcontractor agrees to promptly make good any and all defects due to faulty workmanship, materials and/or equipment which may appear within the Contract Documents, and if no such period is stipulated in the Contract, then for a period of one year from the date of acceptance by the Owner. Nothing herein shall shorten or limit any applicable periods of limitations including, but not limited to, those set forth in Civil Code, Part 2, Title 2, Chapter 3.”
What it Means: Warranty periods are subject to the agreement of the parties. However, warranties are different than limitations periods, such as California’s 4 year statute of repose for patent defects and 10 year statute of repose for latent defects (note: a statute of repose is different than a statute of limitation. A statute of repose sets a deadline based on an event. So, for example, under the 10 year statute of repose for latent defects a claimant must bring a latent defect claim within 10 years following substantial completion even if the latent defect wasn’t discovered until 10 years and 1 month following substantial completion. A statute of limitation, in contrast, sets a deadline based on the occurrence of an injury or damage. So, for example, California has a 2 year statute of limitation for personal injuries, which sets a deadline of 2 years from the date of injury to bring a personal injury claim). Warranty periods are also different from limitations periods because most warranties require work to be corrected at no cost, and because many contracts include attorney’s fee provisions, breach of a warranty can give rise to claim for attorney’s fees as well.
What You Can Do: Lower-tiered parties should examine warranty provisions to see if they are reasonable, and if not reasonable, should seek to either eliminate or limit those provisions, such as by reducing the warranty period or providing different warranty periods for different components of work, etc.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Coverage Denied Where Occurrence Takes Place Outside Coverage Territory

December 11, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court held there was no coverage for construction defect claims that occurred outside the coverage territory. Foremost Signature Ins. Co. v. Silverboys, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154524 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2018). Solo Design, LLC, a Miami-based design company, entered into a contract with Silverboys, LLC (Owner) to provide interior design services in conjunction with the renovation of the Owner's vacation home in the Bahamas. Solo retained Whittingham, a Bahamian architect, as a subcontractor to serve as project manager. Owner sued Solo, Whittingham and others in Florida for breach of contract, fraud, conversion and negligence when the project did not go as planned. The underlying complaint alleged intentional misconduct, lying about qualifications and the progress of the project, submitting false invoices, requesting money for services that were not performed, etc. Owner alleged that the damages included: (a) the cost to repair substandard work; (b) loss of use of the home due to delay; and (c) overcharges for furnishings, contract fees, and expenses. The underlying complaint set forth only a few instances of physical injury to the home, including mold on the ceiling in the master shower, faulty millwork on the children's playroom bookshelf, and a defective front door and resysta facade. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Claim for Punitive Damages Based on Insurers' Alleged Bad Faith Business Practices Fails

September 05, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss the bad faith claim based upon allegations of a general business practice of acting recklessly toward an insured's rights under the policy. Sandpiper Isle Condo. Ass'n v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114279 (M.D. Fla. June 28, 2022). Sandpiper suffered property damage from Hurricane Irma. Empire accepted the claim but there was disagreement on the value of the damage. An appraisal issued an award in favor of Sandpiper but Empire failed to pay the benefits for two years. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Rancosky Adopts Terletsky: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Sets Standard for Statutory Bad Faith Claims

September 28, 2017 — John Anooshian & Sean Mahoney - White & Williams LLP
Earlier today, in a case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted the Terletsky two-part test for proving a statutory “bad faith” claim under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, which requires that a plaintiff present “clear and convincing evidence (1) that the insurer did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and (2) that the insurer knew of or recklessly disregarded its lack of a reasonable basis.” Rancosky v. Washington National Insurance Company, No. 28 WAP 2016 (Pa. Sept. 28, 2017). The court further ruled that proof of an insurer’s “subjective motive of self-interest or ill-will,” while potentially probative of the second prong of the test, is not a requirement to prevail under § 8371. Evidence of an insurer’s “knowledge or reckless disregard for its lack of a reasonable basis” for denying a claim alone, according to the court, is sufficient even in cases seeking punitive damages. Reprinted courtesy of John Anooshian, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Sean Mahoney, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Anooshian may be contacted at anooshianj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at majoneys@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Tension Over Municipal Gas Bans Creates Uncertainty for Real Estate Developers

February 07, 2022 — Sidney L. Fowler, Robert G. Howard & Emily Huang - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On November 15, 2021, the New York City Council approved a bill banning gas hookups in new buildings, making the biggest city in the U.S. the latest in a string of municipalities to prohibit natural gas infrastructure in new homes and buildings. In the two-and-a-half years since Berkeley, California, passed its then-novel municipal ban on new natural gas infrastructure, numerous cities have found themselves at odds with state governments and industry groups on the issue of full electrification in residential and commercial real estate. The resulting disputes, litigation and regulatory uncertainty have created headaches for the real estate industry. Although not all view the restrictions as negative, and many developers have embraced the push for more climate-neutral buildings, these bans introduce complexity to the real estate market, raising additional legal and commercial challenges. Background According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the use of natural gas in homes and businesses accounts for 13 percent of annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. For that reason, advocacy groups have pushed cities to prohibit natural gas infrastructure in new construction and encourage full electrification of newly constructed buildings. In addition to New York and Berkeley, cities that have either passed or considered such ordinances include San Francisco, Sacramento, Seattle and Denver, as well as numerous smaller cities. New York City’s newly passed gas ban, in particular, prohibits natural gas hookups in new buildings under seven stories by 2024, and in taller buildings by 2027, but exempts hookups in commercial kitchens. Reprinted courtesy of Sidney L. Fowler, Pillsbury, Robert G. Howard, Pillsbury and Emily Huang, Pillsbury Mr. Fowler may be contacted at sidney.fowler@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Howard may be contacted at robert.howard@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Huang may be contacted at emily.huang@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Jersey City, New Jersey, to Get 95-Story Condo Tower

January 21, 2015 — David M. Levitt and Terrence Dopp – Bloomberg
A Chinese developer is planning a 95-story condominium tower for the Jersey City, New Jersey, waterfront that would be the tallest building in the state. China Overseas America Inc. plans to construct the 950-foot (290-meter) building at 99 Hudson St., according to a statement on Tuesday from Mayor Steven Fulop. The skyscraper, with 760 for-sale dwellings, would surpass the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. tower two blocks to the south, which is 781 feet tall, according to the statement. Mr. Levitt may be contacted at dlevitt@bloomberg.net; Mr. Dopp may be contacted at tdopp@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Levitt and Terrence Dopp, Bloomberg

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES