Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Revised Federal Rule Regarding Class-Wide Settlements

May 13, 2019 — Edward M. Koch & Michael Jervis - White and Williams LLP
The United States Supreme Court recently approved and adopted amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 concerning class action practice as proposed by the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. The amended rule went into effect on December 1, 2018. The amendments do not affect the core of the rule – the criteria for obtaining class certification. Instead, the changes are more subtle adjustments that update and modernize procedures and processes for notification to class members and obtaining approval of class settlements. Nonetheless, although the amendments are not breathtaking, there are important changes. The first set of amendments apply to Rule 23(e), governing the process of settlement of a class action. First, the amendment makes explicit that the subsection applies not just to already certified classes, but also “a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement.” The changes also add some discretion of the court concerning when notice of a proposed settlement and settlement class should be provided. As part of the settlement approval process, the parties now are expressly required to give the court “information sufficient to enable it to determine whether to give notice of the proposal to the class.” The giving of notice is justified only if that information is sufficient to allow the court to determine it is likely to approve the proposed settlement and certify the class. Once notice is approved, the new rule recognizes modern developments by allowing that notice may be by “United States mail, electronic means, or other appropriate means.” The rule thus recognizes that in many cases traditional mail notice may still be best; in others e-mail notification might be the best way to reach class members. Reprinted courtesy of Edward M. Koch, White and Williams LLP and Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Concludes That COVID-19 Losses Can Qualify as “Direct Physical Loss”

September 28, 2020 — Lorelie S. Masters & Jorge R. Aviles - Hunton Andrews Kurth
In a victory for policyholders, a federal district court found that COVID-19 can cause physical loss under business-interruption policies. In Studio 417, Inc., et al. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Co., No. 20-cv-03127-SRB (W.D. Mo. Aug. 12, 2020), the court rejected the argument often advanced by insurers that “all-risks” property insurance policies require a physical, structural alteration to trigger coverage. This decision shows that, with correct application of policy-interpretation principles and strategic use of pleading and evidence, policyholders can defeat the insurance industry’s “party line” arguments that business-interruption insurance somehow cannot apply to pay for the unprecedented losses businesses are experiencing from COVID-19, public-safety orders, loss of use of business assets, and other governmental edicts. The policyholders in Studio 417 operate hair salons and restaurants asserting claims for business interruption. In suing to enforce their coverage, the policyholders allege that, over the last several months, it is likely that customers, employees, and/or other visitors to the insured properties were infected with COVID-19 and thereby infected the insured properties with the virus. Their complaint asserts that the presence of COVID-19 “renders physical property in their vicinity unsafe and unusable.” Unlike some other complaints seeking to enforce such coverage, it also alleges that the presence of COVID-19 and government “Closure Orders” “caused a direct physical loss or direct physical damage” to their premises “by denying use of and damaging the covered property, and by causing a necessary suspension of operations during a period of restoration.” Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Jorge R. Aviles, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Aviles may be contacted at javiles@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Nevada Update: Nevada Commissioner of Insurance Updates Burning Limits Statute with Emergency Regulation

September 06, 2023 — William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Following significant backlash in reaction to its enactment of legislation prohibiting enforcement of any provisions in liability insurance policies dictating that defense costs are included within the limits of insurance, the Nevada Division of Insurance issued an emergency regulation further clarifying the law.1 The regulation modifies two key aspects of the original law:

The term “policy of liability insurance,” as used in the statute, shall only mean those casualty insurance policies offered by insurers authorized under NRS 680A.060 and NRS 694C.230 to issue third-party liability insurance. In other words, the statute’s restrictions on eroding limits will no longer apply to “non-admitted” insurers.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

Housing Agency Claims It Is Not a Party in Construction Defect Case

February 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) is seeking to be removed from a construction defect suit filed by Aspen homeowners. APCHA claims that it should not be a party to the suit, since it had nothing to do with the development of the Burlingame Ranch community. Responsibility should instead, according to the agency, rest with the City of Aspen. APCHA’s role was to sell the homes to individuals whom it had verified were eligible to purchase affordable housing. Tom McCabe, the director of APCHA said that “APCHA has no part in the building of housing anymore, and we haven’t for a long time.” Chris Rhody, who represents the Burlingame homeowners, feels that APCHA should be involved. The homeowners are alleging that construction defects, including cracked exterior siding, are the result of faulty materials and improper installation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Litigation Roundup: “The New Empty Chair.”

June 04, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
In a unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court ruled that cases in litigation in federal court but which are determined to be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act should be stayed pending arbitration, not dismissed. Traditionally, some federal circuits treated the text of 9 U.S.C. §3 – which speaks in terms of a stay of a matter filed in court but referred to arbitration (“…shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement…”) – as discretionary, dismissing suits when all of the claims brought in the court were referred to arbitration. In the case, the plaintiffs sued in Arizona state court on labor law violations, and the case was removed to federal court. When the defendant moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss, the plaintiffs “conceded that all of their claims were arbitrable.” Nonetheless, the plaintiffs requested a stay of the case, which the district court refused, dismissing the case without prejudice. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Colorado House Bill 1279 Stalls over 120-day Unit Owner Election Period

April 20, 2017 — Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
With the session more than halfway through, the Colorado Legislature’s 2017 attempts at meaningful construction defect reform may fail again. This year, the Legislature did not attempt a single-bill construction defect overhaul like those that have failed over the last half-decade. Rather, it has sought to enact reforms on a piecemeal basis, with several smaller bills addressing specific issues that have been affecting condominium construction along Colorado’s booming Front Range. This new approach appears to be headed towards much the same outcome as the failed efforts of the past. House Bill 1169 would have given developers a statutory right to repair before being sued by homeowners, and Senate Bill 156 would mandate arbitration or mediation. Both have been assigned to the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee (often viewed as the “bill-kill committee”), and have little chance of being resuscitated this session. This was also the fate of House Bill 1279, but bipartisan support had many believing that it still had a chance of passing—at least until last week. House Bill 1279 would require an executive board of a homeowners association to satisfy several prerequisites before suing a developer or builder, namely to (1) notify all unit owners and the developer or builder against whom the lawsuit is being considered; (2) call an association meeting where the builder or developer could present relevant facts and arguments; and (3) get approval from the majority of the unit owners after providing detailed disclosures about the lawsuit, including the potential costs and benefits thereof. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

Architects Should Not Make Initial Decisions on Construction Disputes

July 05, 2023 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
A common provision often deleted from the standard form AIA documents is the provision in the AIA A201 General Conditions requiring an Initial Decision Maker (IDM) for claims between the contractor and owner. In the A201, the contracting parties have the option of naming their own IDM for the project. If an IDM is not selected (which is typically the case) the architect serves this role by default. While it is in all parties’ best interests to resolve disputes quickly and efficiently, using the architect as the IDM is not the best way to achieve such a resolution. Several reasons work against using the architect as the IDM. Contractors typically don’t trust architects to be impartial in resolving disputes because the architect is paid by the owner. Most architects don’t have the temperament or any training to facilitate dispute resolution. An architect’s “initial decision” could even drive the parties further apart and lead to further issues later in the project. The architect may also be perceived to be part of the problem that led to the dispute in the first place. Also, many architects simply prefer to avoid serving the thankless role of an IDM altogether. Lastly, inserting the architect into the dispute resolution process as a required IDM adds an additional unnecessary step to dispute resolution, which can delay the overall procedure. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

New Member Added to Seattle Law Firm Williams Kastner

May 21, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Attorney Todd W. Blischke has become a member of Seattle, Washington’s Williams Kastner law firm, according to Herald Online. Blishcke, who “has experience representing contractors, sureties, real estate developers, public agencies and private owners” will “chair the firm’s Construction Litigation and Surety Practices Team.” “Todd is an excellent addition to the firm’s Seattle office, and we are thrilled to have him on board,” said Jessie Harris, Managing Director of Williams Kastner, as quoted by Herald Online. “His years of experience in construction and surety matters will be an asset to Williams Kastner’s established construction litigation practice.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES