Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Workers Compensation Insurance: Dangers of the Audit Process

April 12, 2021 — Jason M. Gropper - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
If your business obtains workers compensation insurance, it is important you take steps to protect the business and yourself from excessive premiums to the insurance company as a result of misclassification of workers. After applying for and being accepted by an insurance company for workers compensation insurance, your business will receive a Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance Policy. It is important that you or an advisor reviews this document. Generally, this document will explain what the insurance company can do, steps it can take to determine the premium, and the responsibilities of your business. The document will also provide the estimated premium. A premium is the amount you will pay for the coverage provided by the insurance company. The premium is determined by many factors, including the classification of each employee. It is important that when your company applies for insurance, the correct classifications are provided. If those are not provided, or provided in error, the insurance company will assign classifications and the associated rates, based on its assumptions and conclusions. The insurance company will assess the payroll and multiply it by an established rate based on the revised classification. The rates are different for the distinct work being done by each employee, with higher-risk jobs receiving a higher rate. For instance, a roofer or framer will have a higher rate than clerical staff. The rate is generally higher for those with riskier jobs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason M. Gropper, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Gropper may be contacted at Gropper@ahclaw.com

Five-Year Statute of Limitations on Performance-Type Surety Bonds

December 01, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The statute of limitations on a claim against a performance-type bond is 5 years from the breach of the bond, i.e., the bond-principal’s default (based on the same statute of limitations that governs written contracts / obligations). See Fla. Stat. s. 95.11(2)(b). This 5-year statute of limitations is NOT extended and does NOT commence when the surety denies the claim. It commences upon the default of the bond-principal, which would be the act constituting the breach of the bond. This does not mean that the statute of limitations starts when a latent defect is discovered. This is not the case. In dealing with a completed project, the five-year statute of limitations would run when the obligee (beneficiary of the bond) accepted the work. See Federal Insurance Co. v. Southwest Florida Retirement Center, Inc., 707 So.2d 1119, 1121-22 (Fla. 1998). This 5-year statute of limitations on performance-type surety bonds has recently been explained by the Second District in Lexicon Ins. Co. v. City of Cape Coral, Florida, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2521a (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), a case where a developer planned on developing a single-family subdivision. 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

Homeowner Loses Suit against Architect and Contractor of Resold Home

June 14, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals in the case of Kizor v. Architects ruled that Mr. Kizor could not make construction defect claims against the architect and contractor of his home, as the defects had caused significant damage to the former owners, and it was they, not Kizor, who could have asserted those claims.

The background of the case was that John and Miranda Redig hired BRU Architects to design a home. During construction in 2000, they wrote to the roofing supplier complaining about leaks. The leaks were caulked, but the roof continued leaking during rains. The Redigs sold their house to Kizor in 2002, with an addendum to the sale contract protecting themselves from liability for further problems with the roof. “Seller has no responsibility for the condition of the roof and stucco and buyer absolves seller of any liability in connection therewith.”

In 2006, Kizor sued the architects, contractor, and subcontractor. The defendants moved for summary judgment which was granted. Kizor appealed, and in this current court case, appeal was denied.

Read the court’s decision

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

CSLB Joint Venture Licenses – Providing Contractors With The Means To Expand Their Businesses

April 28, 2016 — David A. Harris – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
California’s Business and Professions Code requires contractors to be licensed by the Contractors State License Board (“CSLB”). The CSLB issues licenses in 44 different classifications which are separated into three categories: “A” licenses are for general engineering contractors, “B” licenses are for general building contractors, and “C” licenses are specialty licenses that cover everything from installing boilers to installing ornamental metal. Performing construction work without a license or without the requisite license is a misdemeanor and can lead to the imposition of fines and in certain instances, jail time. (California’s Business and Professions Code Section 7028(a).) While potential imprisonment is unlikely, contractors are frequently fined, or prohibited from filing suit to collect money for their work. Perhaps most onerous, a contractor who is unlicensed, or working with a suspended license or the wrong license, can be forced to return all of the money it was paid for its work. (See our alert:Performing Work with a Suspended CSLB License Costs Big: Subcontractor Faces $18,000,000 Disgorgement.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com

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

California Insurance Commissioner Lacks Authority to Regulate Formula for Estimating Replacement Cost Value

April 15, 2015 — Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Assn. of Cal. Insurance Companies v. Jones ( No. B248622, filed 4/8/15), a California appeals court held that California’s Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones lacked the authority to promulgate California Code of Regulations, title 10, section 2695.183, which set out specific requirements for estimating replacement cost as part of any application or renewal for homeowners insurance. The regulation was promulgated in 2010 in response to complaints from homeowners who lost their homes in the wildfires in Southern California in 2003, 2007, and 2008, and who discovered that they did not have enough insurance to cover the full cost of repairing or rebuilding their homes because the insurers’ estimates of replacement value were too low when they purchased the insurance. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

68 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Recognized in 5th Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

September 23, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
(August 15, 2024) – 68 Lewis Brisbois attorneys across 26 offices have been named to the 5th edition of “Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America.” Congratulations to the following attorneys on this recognition! You can see the list of Lewis Brisbois attorneys named to Best Lawyers' 30th edition of The Best Lawyers in America here. Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Hoboken Mayor Admits Defeat as Voters Reject $241 Million School

February 21, 2022 — Nic Querolo - Bloomberg
Hoboken Mayor Ravi Bhalla said late Tuesday that the city’s $241 million bond referendum to build a new high school won’t pass. “While the will of the voters has made it clear that the Board of Education’s current proposal for the new high school will not move forward, I sincerely believe that the effort to improve our public schools will continue,” Bhalla said in a statement. While the board of education put forth the proposal, the mayor was a big proponent. The vote in a special election Tuesday was one of the costliest school construction referendums in New Jersey history. The bond was failing 66% to 34%, with 35 out of 42 precincts reporting, according to unofficial results posted by Hudson County as of Wednesday morning. About 7,500 ballots had been cast, translating to a roughly 17% turnout, which is strong for a school bond vote. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nic Querolo, Bloomberg

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES