FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

New Jersey Law Firm Announces $4 Million Settlement from Construction Site Accident

November 11, 2024 — Greenberg Minasian, LLC
WEST ORANGE, N.J., Nov. 07, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Greenberg Minasian, LLC, a personal injury law firm located in Essex County, New Jersey, has announced a $4 million settlement stemming from a roofer who suffered serious injuries after a construction site fall. Veteran trial attorney Mitchell Goldstein represented the injured client, who suffered multiple fractures and injuries, permanently affecting his ability to work. In 2018, Robert Smith, who was 61 at the time, fell backward through or over a temporary guard rail at the American Dream Mall in East Rutherford, NJ. The 30-foot fall caused him to suffer serious injuries to his pubis, sacrum, clavicle, and humerus, leading to multiple surgeries and a hip replacement. On behalf of his client, Mr. Goldstein brought suit against the mall developer and construction company, successfully arguing that the temporary guardrails were improperly constructed and insufficiently elevated according to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines. The case was settled just two days before trial, marking a significant victory for the plaintiff and his family. Despite the defense's attempt to argue that Mr. Smith was responsible for his fall, Goldstein was able to refute their claims, asserting that the temporary guardrail's improper construction directly led to the accident. About Greenberg Minasian LLC Based in West Orange, Greenberg Minasian represents clients who have been seriously injured as the result of negligence by others. The firm handles cases anywhere in New Jersey including West Orange, Jersey City, Newark, Essex County and all surrounding areas. The firm continues to achieve the highest awards for its clients and families. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Make Sure to Properly Perfect and Preserve Construction Lien Rights

December 07, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you recording a construction lien (referred to as a claim of lien) and looking to perfect your construction lien foreclosure rights, it is imperative that you work with counsel to ensure your rights are properly preserved. This is good practice! A claim of lien must be served on an owner within 15 days after recording. Florida Statute s. 713.08(4)(c) says: “The claim of lien shall be served on the owner. Failure to serve any claim of lien in the manner provided in s. 713.18 before recording or within 15 days after recording shall render the claim of lien voidable to the extent that the failure or delay is shown to have been prejudicial to any person entitled to rely on the service.” Florida Statute s. 713.18, hyperlinked for your review, includes the statutory ways to serve “notices, claims of lien, affidavits, assignments, and other instruments permitted or required under [Florida Statutes Chapter 713].” 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

---

Asserting Non-Disclosure Claim Involving Residential Real Property and Whether Facts Are “Readily Observable”

September 29, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Under Florida law, there is a claim dealing with the purchase and sale of residential real property known as a Johnson v. Davis or a non-disclosure claim: “[W]here the seller of a home knows of facts materially affecting the value of the property which are not readily observable and are not known to the buyer, the seller is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer.” Lorber v. Passick, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D1952a (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). A seller’s duty to disclose extends to a seller’s real estate agent/broker. Id. A non-disclosure claim is asserted by the buyer of residential real property when the buyer discovers defects or damages with the real property that he believes materially affects the value of the property. While there may be the sentiment these are easy claims to prove, they are not. Remember, a non-disclosure claim deals with facts that materially affect the value of residential real property and are NOT readily observable. The use of the language “readily observable” has been found to mean:

“[I]nformation [that] is within the diligent attention of any buyer. To exercise diligent attention…a buyer would be required to investigate any information furnished by the seller that a reasonable person in the buyer’s position would investigate and take reasonable steps to ascertain the material facts relating to the property and to discovery them—if, of course, they are reasonably ascertainable.”

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

---

In a Win for Design Professionals, California Court of Appeals Holds That Relation-Back Doctrine Does Not Apply to Certificate of Merit Law

December 20, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The year was 1995. The old guard was still in power in Sacramento. “Button-Down” Pete Wilson was Governor. Willie Brown, the self-nicknamed “Ayatollah of the Assembly,” was Speaker of the Assembly. And Bill “Huggy” Lockyer was Senate Pro Tem. Names that, for many reasons as of late, seem . . . well . . . let’s just say, “quaint.” Their time, however, was coming to an end. Three years earlier, California voters approved Proposition 140, which instituted term limits for the first time in California. And by 1996, the first slate of legislators would be “termed out.” The immediate impact: It was the time for making deals because you didn’t know who would be keeping house next. 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

---

Safety Data: Noon Presents the Hour of Greatest Danger

April 20, 2017 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
Unlike previous research into construction fatalities, a new review of three years of Labor Dept. data found that most occur between 10 am and 3 pm, with a peak at noon. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, ENR
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

---

Contractor Wins in Arbitration Only to Lose Before the Superior Court on Section 7031 Claim

June 19, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
If you’re a regularly reader of the California Construction Law Blog you’re aware of Business and Professions Code section 7031 which courts have variously described as “harsh[ ],” “draconian” and “unjust,” but, importantly, nevertheless valid. We haven’t seen many cases applying Section 7031 in an arbitration setting, however, until now. In Vascos Excavation Group LLC v. Gold, 87 Cal.App.5th 842 (2022), a contractor who prevailed on a payment claim in arbitration, had its victory snatched from its fingertips by the Superior Court which found that the arbitrator had exceeded her authority because the contractor was subject to Section 7031. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Environmental Justice: A Legislative and Regulatory Update

November 01, 2021 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Environmental Justice, as an urgent policy priority of the Federal Government, dates back to 1994, and President Clinton’s issuance of Executive Order 12898. This order directed federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, “the disproportionately high and adverse human health and environment effects of its many programs, policies, and procedures on minority populations and low-income populations.” Executive Order 12898 supplements Executive Order 12550 (1980), whose primary legal basis was Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in particular, Sections 601 and 602, which prohibit discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal financial aid and assistance. Over the years, the Supreme Court has reviewed the scope and importance of Title VI. For example, in Alexander v. Sandoval, decided in 2001, the Court concluded that while private parties could sue to enforce Section 601 or its implementing regulations, Section 601 only prohibits intentional discrimination; which is very difficult to prove. In addition, the Court ruled in Sandoval, that private parties cannot sue to enforce regulations implementing Section 602. Perhaps as an acknowledgement of these shortcomings, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has for many years operated an administrative system to process environmental justice complaints (see 40 CFR Part 7). The process is complex and the results—usually whether a state agency has failed to uphold Title VI—have generally been unsatisfactory. To be successful, many proponents of environmental justice believe that a statutory foundation must be established, and significant efforts have been made to do so. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Insurer Must Indemnify Additional Insured After Settlement

October 21, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined that Target was an additional insured under its supplier's policy and the insurer had a duty to indemnify Target after it settled the underlying suit. Selective Ins. Co. v. Target Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123230 (E.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2015). Angela Brown sued Target when she was allegedly injured by a door to a fitting room that came unhinged and fell on her head. Harbor Industries, Inc. supplied Target with its fitting rooms. Pursuant to the "Supplier Qualification Agreement" (SQA), Harbor named Target as an additional insured under its policy with Selective Insurance Company. The SQA became effective and was to remain in effect until terminated by either party. A second agreement, the "Program Agreement," set forth the terms under which Harbor sold the fitting rooms to Target. The Program Agreement went into effect on April 23, 2009, and expired on July 1, 2010. Brown's injury occurred on December 17, 2011, while the SQA and the policy were in effect, but after the Program Agreement expired. After Brown's injury, Target tendered to Selective, who denied coverage, contending Target was not an additional insured. The policy's endorsement expanded insureds to any additional insured whom Harbor agreed in a written contract to add as an additional insured. Selective filed suit and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---