Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

ASCE Releases New Report on Benefits and Burdens of Infrastructure Investment in Disadvantaged Communities

February 05, 2024 — The American Society of Civil Engineers
Washington — The American Society of Civil Engineers today released a new paper, Measuring the Benefits and Burdens of Infrastructure in Disadvantaged Communities. The report looks at how several communities across the country consider equity when investing infrastructure funds, and the impact of those projects on lower-income communities. "Civil engineers are focused on improving quality of life by building systems that improve the public's health, safety, and well-being," said Marsia Geldert-Murphey, P.E., 2024 President, ASCE. "However, the decisions on how and where infrastructure is built can affect communities for decades after a project is complete. By looking at the benefits and burdens of past projects, infrastructure owners and developers can find better ways to consider the impact of infrastructure projects being designed now." Some of the recommendations in the paper include encouraging government and other infrastructure stakeholders to use community engagement and transparent metrics when making decisions about proposed infrastructure investments. It also encourages post-project assessments and the use of existing resources to evaluate the positive and unexpected consequences of past infrastructure projects. Measuring the Benefits and Burdens of Infrastructure in Disadvantaged Communities is available here. ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Privileged Communications With a Testifying Client/Expert

June 10, 2019 — Shannon M. Warren - The Subrogation Strategist
In In re City of Dickinson, 568 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. 2019), the Supreme Court of Texas recently assessed whether a client’s emails with its counsel were subject to disclosure after the client was designated as a testifying expert witness. In re City of Dickinson involved a coverage dispute between a policyholder and its insurer. The policyholder moved for summary judgment on the issue of causation, essentially alleging that its insurer did not pay all damages caused by Hurricane Ike. In responding to the motion, the insurer relied upon an affidavit by one of its employees, a claims examiner, that included both factual testimony and expert witness testimony. The policyholder subsequently filed a motion to compel, seeking the production of emails between the claims examiner and the insurer’s counsel that were generated while the affidavit was being drafted. The emails contained numerous revisions of the affidavit. The insurer objected, asserting that the emails were protected by the attorney-client privilege and were generated in the course of the rendition of legal services. The trial court granted the motion to compel, ordering production. Ultimately, after a series of appeals, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the documents in dispute were subject to discovery. In resolving this issue, the court examined the rules pertaining to expert disclosures. As noted by the court, the rules authorize the production of all documents provided to a testifying expert witness. Thus, the court was faced with determining if its rules required the disclosure of documents that are also subject to the attorney-client privilege. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams
Ms. Warren may be contacted at warrens@whiteandwilliams.com

China Bans Tallest Skyscrapers Following Safety Concerns

July 25, 2021 — Bloomberg News
China is prohibiting construction of the tallest skyscrapers to ensure safety following mounting concerns over the quality of some projects. The outright ban covers buildings that are taller than 500 meters (1,640 feet), the National Development and Reform Commission said in a notice Tuesday. Local authorities will also need to strictly limit building of towers that are more than 250 meters tall. The top economic planner cited quality problems and safety hazards in some developments stemming from loose oversight. A 72-story tower in Shenzhen was closed in May for checks following reports of unexplained wobbling, feeding concern about the stability of one of the technology hub’s tallest buildings. Construction of buildings exceeding 100 meters should strictly match the scale of the city where they will be located, along with its fire rescue capability, the commission said. “It’s primarily for safety,” said Qiao Shitong, an associate law professor at the University of Hong Kong who studies property and urban law. Extremely tall buildings “are more like signature projects for mayors and not necessarily efficient.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

New York Court Rejects Owner’s Bid for Additional Insured Coverage

September 06, 2021 — Eric D. Suben - Traub Lieberman
Tenders for additional insured coverage in construction accidents are frequently litigated in New York courts. Although the past few years have seen changes in the law regarding the causal nexus between the named insured’s work and coverage for the purported additional insured, courts often find there is at least a duty to defend the additional insured where there are allegations of the employer/subcontractor’s presence at the site. An exception is the recent decision in Gemini Insurance Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Index No. 652669/20 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (Lebovits, J.). In that case, Gemini insured the owner and general contractor of a construction project, and Lloyd’s insured the injured claimant’s employer under a policy endorsed to provide additional insured coverage to entities who “have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement” with the named insured that they must be “added as additional insured.” Although the court found that the contracts here satisfied this requirement for additional insured coverage, the court’s analysis did not end there. Noting that even where such contract exists, the Lloyd’s policy would not provide additional insured coverage “in all circumstances” (emphasis in original), the court next considered whether the underlying injury was “caused in whole or in part by: 1. [The named insured’s] acts or omissions, or 2. The acts or omissions of those acting on [the named insured’s] behalf,” as required under the endorsement’s wording. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com

Manhattan to Get Tall, Skinny Tower

October 21, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
At its narrowest, it’s going to be only sixty feet wide. And that will run 1,350 feet into the air. A new apartment tower is going up in New York, and one of its amenities will be that residents in the top floors will be able to look down on the Empire State Building. “It may be the skinniest building ever,” said Gregg Pasquarelli, the principal of SHoP Architects, the firm that designed the building. He estimates its ratio of height to width as “something like 25-to-1.” For all its height, the building will be divided into about 100 units. As part of the development deal, the tower will incorporate and preserve the landmark Steinway Hall. The chair of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, Robert Tierney, described it as “the best of both worlds of new construction and design and historic preservation.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Subcontractors Must be Careful Providing Bonds when General Contractor Does Not

April 05, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
After I wrote the title to this post, I thought, “Well, that says it all, doesn’t it?” I also considered the fact that for those that read this construction law blog on a regular basis, I am likely stating the obvious. I then thought about the fact that there can be confusion regarding the purpose of bonds versus insurance. Couple this with the fact that Murphy was an optimist, and I thought this would be a good reminder. Bonds and insurance have one fundamental difference between them. When your construction company buys insurance, that insurance is meant to protect your company. When your company provides a payment and/or performance bond, that bond is there not to protect your company but to protect everyone else on the job and the project itself. Where insurance will pay for your company’s qualifying errors so that that money does not come out of the bottom line, a bond contract will have an indemnification agreement whereby anything paid by the surety will then be reimbursed by you and your company dollar for dollar (as opposed to just the premium). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Traub Lieberman Partner Jonathan Harwood Obtains Summary Judgment Determining Insurer Has No Duty to Defend or Indemnify

February 27, 2023 — Jonathan R. Harwood - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Jonathan Harwood obtained summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff determining that it had no duty to defend or indemnify an insured in a personal injury action, in a case brought in the Eastern District of New York. The Plaintiff, an insurance provider (“the Insurer”), issued a General Commercial Policy (the “Policy”) to the Defendant, a commercial property owner (the “Property Owner”). In the underlying action, a former employee (the “Employee”) of a concrete vendor sued the Property Owner, and others, in New York Supreme Court, Queens County, for an injury that occurred on the street in front of the Property Owner’s premises during the course of repairs of sewer pipes that serviced the Property Owner’s premises. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan R. Harwood, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Harwood may be contacted at jharwood@tlsslaw.com

Punchlist: The News We Didn’t Quite Get To – May 2016

May 12, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
If you’re a solar contractor make sure you don’t get burned. The California Contractors State License Board (“CSLB”) is taking a closer look at solar contractors as the industry grows in the Golden State. Only contractors holding a Class “A” Engineering, Class “B” General Contractor, or Class C-46 Solar license can perform solar construction and installation. The CSLB has clarified that C-39 Roofing contractors can install installation as part of an overall roofing job. The CSLB considers such insulation work as “incidental and supplemental” under Section 831 of the California Code of Regulations and does not require a separate C-2 Insulation and Acoustical contractor license. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES