Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Supreme Court of Washington State Upholds SFAA Position on Spearin Doctrine

September 13, 2021 — Peter Roth – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America
September 9, 2021 (WASHINGTON, DC) – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) commends the decision of The Supreme Court of The State of Washington to reverse the lower court ruling in the case of Lake Hills Investments, LLC vs. Rushforth Construction Co. As argued by SFAA, the Supreme Court found the contractor should not be responsible for damage caused by the defective design provided by the owner even where the contractor was responsible for certain defective work. In addition, the contractor is not completely barred from asserting this defense if the defects were caused by a combination of deficient performance by the contractor and deficient design, and proportional liability should be determined. The SFAA, along with the National Electrical Contractors Association Puget Sound Chapter (NECA), Mechanical Contractors Association of Western Washington (MCAWW) and SMACNA-Western Washington (SMACNA), issued an Amici Curiae in support of Petitioner AP Rushforth Construction Co., Inc. d/b/a AP Rushforth, and Adolfson & Peterson, Inc.’s (collectively “AP”) Petition for Discretionary Review. In the brief they argued the Court should grant the Petition because the decision by the lower court is contrary to precedent of limiting a contractor’s liability when the owner’s defective plans and specifications caused the defective work, and upsets settled expectations of allocation of risk and liability between contractors, owners and architects (among others) on construction projects. This allocation of risk and the principle of limiting the contractor’s liability for defective work based on defective plans and specifications is long settled doctrine in Washington State and throughout the country, a doctrine based on the US Supreme Court’s landmark decision in U.S. vs. Spearin more than 100 years ago. The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) is a trade association of more than 425 insurance companies that write 98 percent of surety and fidelity bonds in the U.S. SFAA is licensed as a rating or advisory organization in all states and it has been designated by state insurance departments as a statistical agent for the reporting of fidelity and surety experience. www.surety.org Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Peter Roth, SFAA
Mr. Roth may be contacted at proth@surety.org

When Employer’s Liability Coverage May Be Limited in New York

June 28, 2021 — Robert S. Nobel & Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
New York recognizes that coverage under Workers’ Compensation (“WC”) and Employer’s Liability (“EL”) policies is generally unlimited. See Tully Const. Co. v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., 131 A.D.3d 598 (2d Dept. 2015); Oneida Ltd. v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 263 A.D.2d 825, 694 N.Y.S.2d 221 (3d Dept. 1999). However, there is case holding that EL coverage may be limited in certain instances, such as when the primary EL carrier is listed as scheduled underlying insurance on an excess policy. In Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of State of Pennsylvania, 43 A.D.3d 666, 841 N.Y.S.2d 288 (1st Dept. 2007), an employee of General Industrial Service Corporation (“General”), a subcontractor on a construction project, sought to recover under New York’s Labor Law against the project’s owner and construction manager. Those defendants, in turn, brought a third-party action for indemnification against General. The employee’s personal injury claim was ultimately settled for $2.5 million. After the settlement, the excess insurer, Liberty, filed suit against the primary employer’s liability insurers, The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and American International Group of Companies (collectively, “AIG”), which had refused to participate in the defense or settlement of the underlying personal injury litigation. Although the issue of whether the plaintiff in the underling action had sustained a “grave injury” (necessary to support the common law indemnity claim against General and trigger coverage under the Employer’s Lability policy) had not yet been determined, the court held that “[i]n the event the existence of a grave injury is proven, AIG’s liability will be limited to $1 million.” Reprinted courtesy of Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman and Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman Mr. Nobel may be contacted at rnobel@tlsslaw.com Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contractor’s Assignment of Construction Contract to Newly Formed Company Before Company Was Licensed, Not Subject to B&P 7031

October 04, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Add one more to the Business and Profession Code section 7031 archives. In Manela v. Stone, Case No. B302660 (July 1, 2021), the 2nd District Court of appeal held that Section 7031 did not apply to a contractor licensed as a sole proprietor who assigned his contract to his newly formed company although at the time of the assignment the contractor’s individual contractor’s license had not yet been reissued to the incorporated company. The Manela Case On January 4, 2015, John Stone doing business as Stone Construction Company entered into a home remodeling contract with Yosef and Nomi Manela. At the time, Stone had held a contractor’s license since 1982. On February 11, 2015, after work on the project had begun, Stone formed JDSS Construction Company, Inc., and filed a fictitious business name using the same name Stone Construction Company. Stone applied to the Contractors State License Board to have his contractor’s license issued from himself personally to his new corporation. On March 15, 2015, while waiting for the CSLB to reissue his contractor’s license, Stone entered into an assignment agreement between himself and his new company assigning the Manela construction contract. The assignment agreement was signed by Stone in his personal capacity and as President of JDSS Construction. The assignment agreement was not signed by the Manelas. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Congratulations to our 2019 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

July 30, 2019 — John Arbucci, Frances Brower, Lisa Hsiao, Kristian Moriarty & Michael Parme - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Congratulations to attorneys John Arbucci, Frances Brower, Lisa Hsiao, Kristian Moriarty and Michael Parme who were selected to the 2019 Southern California Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys T. Giovanni “John” Arbucci, Frances Brower, Lisa Hsiao, Kristian Moriarty and Michael Parme Mr. Arbucci may be contacted at jarbucci@hbblaw.com Ms. Brower may be contacted at fma@hbblaw.com Ms. Lisa may be contacted at lhsiao@hbblaw.com Mr. Kristian may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Big Builder’s Analysis of the Top Ten Richest Counties

June 26, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Big Builder took Forbes’ 2014 top ten richest U.S. counties list (based on household median income) and researched who the top builders were in those regions, buyer requirements, among other categories. The top three richest counties according to Forbes and Big Builder are Falls Church, Virginia; Loudoun County, Virginia; and Los Alamos County, New Mexico. Information listed for each county include the median-closing price, price per square foot, living square feet, top builders, and an examination of what makes each region unique. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

One World Trade Center Tallest Building in US

November 13, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
It’s official! The tallest building in the United States is in New York. For forty years, the tallest building in the United States has been the Willis Tower in Chicago (better known by its former name, the Sears Tower). Now, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat has decreed that One World Trade Center edges it out with its 1,776 feet of height, surpassing the Willis by 325 feet. There is a caveat. The antennas on the top of the Willis building aren’t counted in. The mast on the top of One World Trade Center is, and it adds 441 feet to the height of the building. If the mast weren’t counted, One World Trade Center would be 116 feet shorter than the building in Chicago. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

“Time Is Money!” In Construction and This Is Why There Is a Liquidated Damages Provision

February 01, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In construction, the adage “Time is Money!” rings true for all parties involved on a project. This includes an owner of a project that wants a project completed on time, i.e., by a substantial completion date. While substantial completion is often defined as when an owner can use a project for its intended purpose, this intended purpose typically equates to beneficial occupancy (in new construction) and other factors as identified in the contract. The best mechanism for an owner to reinforce time and the substantial completion date is through a liquidated damages provision (also known as an LD provision) that includes a daily monetary rate for each day of delay to the substantial completion date. A liquidated damages provision is not designed, and should NEVER be designed, to serve as a penalty because then it would be unenforceable. Instead, it should be designed to reasonably compensate an owner for delay to the substantial completion date that cannot be ascertained with any reasonable degree of certainty at the time the contract is being negotiated and executed. (Liquidated damages are MUCH easier to prove than actual damages an owner may incur down the road.) As an owner, you don’t really want to assess liquidated damages because that means the project is not substantially completed on time. And, in reality, a timely completed and performing project should always be better and more profitable than a late and underperforming project. However, without the liquidated damages provision, there isn’t a great way to hold a contractor’s feet to the fire with respect to the substantial completion date. 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

Florida Supreme Court Decision Limits Special Damages Presented to Juries

July 18, 2022 — John A. Rine & Shannon Murphy - Lewis Brisbois
Tampa, Fla. (June 16, 2022) - Verdicts in personal injury cases are greatly impacted by the amount of medical expenses a plaintiff can present to juries. In Florida, collateral sources of compensation, such as insurance payments, are generally not disclosed to juries. However, caselaw also typically does not allow plaintiffs to recover the gross amount of medical bills, but instead the amount after insurance adjustments. For decades, Florida courts have considered whether the bills are reduced by the adjustments before or after verdict. The recent Florida Supreme Court decision in Dial v. Calusa Palms Master Association, Inc., No. SC21-43 (Fla. Apr. 28, 2022), has standardized the way past medical expenses are presented to juries where the plaintiff was treated under Medicare. As is commonly understood, the original amount billed by medical providers is far different than the amount actually paid. Most treatment is subject to some private or government insurance and those insurers typically have negotiated rates for treatment. Thus, the bills are reduced subject to insurance contractual adjustments and the resulting net bills are far lower. For decades, defense attorneys have argued that juries should hear only the lower net amount. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Rine, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Rine may be contacted at John.Rine@lewisbrisbois.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES