Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Norfolk Southern Agrees to $310M Settlement With Feds Over 2023 Ohio Derailment

June 21, 2024 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
Norfolk Southern Corp. has agreed to pay more than $310 million and implement safety improvements as part of a settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Dept. of Justice over the disastrous February 2023 train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, officials and the company announced May 23. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Public Contract Code 9204 – A New Mandatory Claims Process for Contractors and Subcontractors – and a Possible Trap for the Unwary

March 22, 2017 — Alex R. Baghdassarian & Joseph S. Sestay – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
New California legislation affecting public works contractors was adopted pursuant to Assembly Bill 626, sponsored by the Union Trade Contractors Association of California and endorsed by various trade and contractor associations including the AGC. AB 626, which was intended to assist contractors in presenting claims against public agencies, affords new opportunities, and some potential pitfalls, to contractors and subcontractors submitting claims to public owners. The legislation, codified at California Public Contract Code (PCC) section 9204, is effective for public works contracts entered into after January 1, 2017. All public entities (including the CSUS and the UC system), other than certain Departments of the State (CalTrans, High-Speed Rail Authority, Water Resources, Parks and Recreation, Corrections and Rehabilitation, General Services and the Military) are bound by the provisions of PCC Section 9204. PCC 9204 establishes a mandatory pre-litigation process for all claims by contractors on a public works project. It is an attempt to address the reluctance of public owners to promptly and fairly negotiate change orders on projects, putting some teeth to the mandate of existing law under PCC Section 7104, which precludes public owners from shifting to the contractor the risk of addressing differing subsurface and/or concealed hazardous site conditions. Reprinted courtesy of Alex R. Baghdassarian, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Joseph S. Sestay, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Baghdassarian may be contacted at abaghdassarian@pecklaw.com Mr. Sestay may be contacted at jsestay@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insuring Lease/Leaseback Projects

August 19, 2024 — David G. Jordan & Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Overview Several states utilize a unique statutory mechanism to allow school districts to finance the construction of public-school facilities. This arrangement (known as a “lease-leaseback agreement”) allows a school district to lease property to a contractor/developer, who then constructs or renovates a school facility on the property. Once the work is completed, the contractor/developer leases the school building back to the school district. The school district then makes lease payments over time, often many years, which can be structured in various ways to spread out the cost of construction. The arrangement typically requires a site lease for the land leased to the contractor/developer, a facilities lease for the lease-back of the school building to the school district and a traditional construction agreement. In some ways, the arrangement resembles a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) whereby a public entity collaborates with a private entity for the purpose of financing and delivering a project traditionally provided solely by the public sector. Reprinted courtesy of David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Hovnanian Reports “A Year of Solid Profitability”

December 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Hovnanian Enterprises has released its results for its fourth quarter and the twelve months ending in October 2013, which are described by Ara K. Havnanian, the company’s Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer as “a year of solid profitability,” which he attributes to “revenue growth, gross margin improvement and operating efficiencies,” as reported by The Wall Street Journal. The company’s total revenues for 2013 were $1.85 billion, a 24.2% increase over the 2012 totals. Home sales totaled 5,930, a 10.7% increase over the prior year. Mr. Hovnanian expects “increased demand for new homes,” and he believes that “our industry is still in the early stages of a housing recovery.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Venue for Suing Public Payment Bond

June 15, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Public payment bonds (excluding FDOT payment bonds) are governed under Florida statute s. 255.05. As it pertains to venue—the location to sue a public payment bond–the statute provides in relevant portion: (5) In addition to the provisions of chapter 47, any action authorized under this section may be brought in the county in which the public building or public work is being construction or repaired. *** (1)(e) Any provision in a payment bond…which restricts venue of any proceeding relating to such bond…is unenforceable. Now, what happens if a subcontractor sues only a payment bond but its subcontract with the general contractor contains a mandatory venue provision? For example, what if the general contractor is located in Lee County and the subcontract contains a venue provision for Lee County, the project is located in Collier County, the subcontractor is located in Miami-Dade County, and the surety issues bonds in Miami-Dade County? Does venue have to be in Lee County per the mandatory venue provision? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

Court Confirms No Duty to Reimburse for Prophylactic Repairs Prior to Actual Collapse

October 28, 2015 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Grebow v. Mercury Insurance Company (No. B261172, filed 10/21/15), a California appeals court held that coverage for collapse in a homeowners policy does not extend to prophylactic repairs undertaken to mitigate damage before actual collapse of the structure. In Grebow, the insureds had a general contractor inspect the rear deck of their house because of recurring watermarks. The contractor discovered severe decay in the steel beams and poles supporting the second floor of the house. He opined that they could not support the upper portion of the house, and that a large portion of the house would fall. A structural engineer agreed, blaming decay and corrosion. The insureds were advised not to enter the top part of the house, and they contracted for repairs. They also made a claim to Mercury, which denied coverage. The insureds ultimately spent $91,000 out of pocket having the home remediated. 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

Nevada Senate Bill 435 is Now in Effect

February 24, 2020 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
ATTENTION: Nevada liability departments and auto insurance carriers! Nevada Senate Bill No. 435 was recently signed into law and there are two key points to be aware of: Disclosure of Policy Limits Demand and Voiding Releases. These both deal with pre-litigation situations. 1) Nevada law now requires a motor vehicle insurer to disclose the limits of the policy if the claimant provides a HIPAA authorization which allows the carrier to “receive all medical reports, records and bills related to the claim from the providers of health care.” This is a change from the previous Nevada statute which required the disclosure of policy limits only after litigation was commenced. However, it appears from the language of the statute that there are limits to this new mandate. Section 4 of the new law is written in such a way to allow the argument that the new law applies only to accidents that occurred after 10/1/19, and that the insurance company has to request the HIPAA waiver from the claimant in order for the disclosure requirement to apply. The plaintiff’s bar is already attempting to address this language in the legislature. As written, subsection (4) is governed by subsection (1) which states that the insurance company “may require the claimant … to provide … a written authorization.” The following subparts all appear to be triggered only by the act of the insurance company requesting a HIPAA waiver. The plaintiff’s bar is pushing for clarifying language that would make it clear that once the claimant sent a HIPAA waiver, irrespective of whether the document was requested by the insurance company or not, the insurance company is required to disclose policy limits. This is not how the law reads on its face, and the change would make a significant difference from a practical perspective. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Appraisal Appropriate Despite Pending Coverage Issues

August 16, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court granted the insured's motion for partial summary judgment, allowing an appraisal to go forward even with outstanding coverage issues in dispute. DC Plastic Products Corp. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2021 U,.S. Dist. LEXIS 95908 (D. N.J. May 19, 2021). DC Plastic's property was damaged by Superstorm Sandy in October 2012. Claims submitted to Westchester resulted in a payment of $951,102.89 to DC Plastic. The parties disagreed on whether further payments were due. In 2017, DC Plastic sued Westchester for additional payments. DC Plastic moved to compel an appraisal for its claims, requesting that the court appoint an umpire for the appraisal process. Westchester cross-moved to dismiss the case in its entirety. DC Plastic's complaint asked that the court appoint an umpire. The policy stated if the parties could not agree on the amount of loss, each party would select an appraiser, who would then agree upon an umpire. If they could not agree, either party could request the court to appoint the umpire. Therefore, the court was authorised to select the umpire here. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES