Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Arkansas: Avoiding the "Made Whole" Doctrine Through Dépeçage

April 09, 2014 — Robert M. Caplan – White and Williams LLP
In Arkansas, a workers’ compensation carrier’s subrogated recovery is subject to a determination of whether the injured worker—or, as the case may be, the worker’s surviving beneficiaries—has been “made whole” by the worker’s recovery against the third party tortfeasor. See, e.g., Yancey v. B & B Supply, 213 S.W.3d 657, 659 (Ark. App. 2005) (“An insured’s right to be made whole takes precedence over an insurer’s right to subrogation, and an insured must be fully compensated before the insurer's right to subrogation arises.”) [1] More often than not, a “made whole” determination will completely eradicate the carrier’s lien. But under the right circumstances, a workers’ compensation carrier may be able to avoid the harsh outcome of “made whole” by intervening in a pending third party action and subsequently filing a motion for dépeçage—i.e., the conflict of laws principle requiring the court to conduct a separate choice of law analysis for discrete issues in a given case. A motion for dépeçage, in this sense, would demand that the court conduct a choice of law analysis to determine what state’s workers’ compensation subrogation law will apply on reimbursing a carrier’s lien. We recently exploited this often underutilized tactic—to avoid Arkansas’ made whole doctrine—in a case involving a fatal plane crash in Louisiana. In that case, the deceased worker and his beneficiaries were residents of Louisiana; the accident took place in Louisiana; the worker was officially employed in Louisiana; and the workers’ compensation insurance policy was governed by, and benefits were paid under, Louisiana law. The only “contact” with Arkansas [2], meanwhile, was that Arkansas was the defendant’s domicile. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert M. Caplan, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com

New World Cup Stadiums Failed at their First Trial

March 12, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Problems abounded at the inaugural match at one of the new World Cup stadiums in Manaus, Brazil, reported The News Tribune. Problems also were reported at the Arena da Amazonia. Bathrooms weren’t completed, roofs leaked, and some fans were sold tickets for seats that didn’t exist. Furthermore “construction material could be seen in some places and many wheelchair fans had difficulties accessing their seats.” "This is a critical point that needs to be reevaluated, it can't happen again," said Miguel Capobiango, one of the officials in charge of World Cup preparations in Manaus, as quoted by The News Tribune. "But this is why we have these test events." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Appeals Court Rules that CGL Policy Doesn’t Cover Subcontractors’ Faulty Work

August 06, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Business Insurance, in J-McDaniel Construction Co. Inc. v. Mid-Continental Casualty Co. et al., an appeals court upheld a lower court ruling that a “construction company's commercial general liability insurance policy does not provide coverage for faulty workmanship or subcontractor negligence.” “We are not at liberty to disregard the binding law of the state, nor may we substitute our judgment for that of the Arkansas Supreme Court,” said the panel, in affirming the lower court ruling, as quoted in Business Insurance. Judy Greenwald of Business Insurance pointed out that “[l]ast year, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati held that a subcontractor's allegedly faulty preparation of a building pad, which resulted in subsequent settling and structural damage to the building constructed on top of it, was not an occurrence within the standard coverage language of a CGL policy.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Update: New VOSH Maximum Penalties as of July 1

July 26, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As those who read Construction Law Musings know, as a construction attorney, I want to assure that not only are my clients successful in their litigation/dispute resolution endeavors, but that they stay out of trouble. I take my problem solving and advising roles quite seriously. As part of this role as advisor, I want to let those that read Musings know that as of July 1, 2017 the Virginia Occupational Safety and Health Administration increased their maximum penalties for safety violations. 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

Burlingame Construction Defect Case Heading to Trial

December 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A condominium association in the Aspen, Colorado area will likely go to trial over its claims of construction defects, reports Aspen Daily News Online. According to the suit, siding and trim were improperly manufactured and installed. The homeowners engaged experts to determine the appropriate remedy, and then sought bids from contractors. Shaw Construction, which built the condos, responded with a counteroffer. Chris Rhody, the lawyer for the homeowners, said there was “a big difference” between the association’s request and the builder’s counteroffer. According to Mr. Rhody, settlement is still possible, but seems unlikely. A date for the trial is yet to be set. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself

May 12, 2016 — Jesse M. Sullivan & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Sanford v. Rasnick, (Ct. of Appeal, 1st App. Dist., No. A145704) the First Appellate District addressed whether a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise requiring plaintiff to execute a release and enter into a separate settlement agreement was valid. Because the settlement agreement could potentially contain additional terms not stated in the CCP 998 Offer, the Court of Appeal held that it was not. Plaintiff alleged he was injured when the 17-year-old Defendant ran a stop sign and struck his motorcycle. Plaintiff sued the 17-year-old and his father (the owner of the vehicle) for vehicular negligence and general negligence. Just after discovery closed, defendants jointly served a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise to plaintiff in the amount of $130,000. The offer contained a condition requiring that in order to accept, plaintiff must provide a “notarized execution and transmittal of a written settlement agreement and general release. Each party will bear its own fees, costs and expenses.” Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Reprinted courtesy of Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense

November 14, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The “failure to cooperate” defense is a defense an insurer may raise when its insured fails to cooperate with it in the defense of the claim against the insured. If an insurer takes this position, it will typically be denying both defense and indemnification obligations, meaning the insured could be forfeiting coverage that otherwise exists through his/her/its failure to cooperate with the insurer. This defense by the insurer is not absolute as recently explained by the Fourth District in Barthelemy v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D2379a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) discussing the elements of this failure to cooperate defense. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

While Construction Permits Slowly Rise, Construction Starts and Completions in California Are Stagnant

December 05, 2022 — John Kazanovicz & Jason Feld - Kahana Feld
There is an interesting phenomenon happening in the California construction market since the Summer of 2022. There is a steady but slow rise in the construction building permits being issued throughout California. According to the U.S. Census and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s joint announcement (https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf) of new residential construction statistics for September 2022, privately‐owned housing units authorized by building permits in September were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,564,000. This is 1.4 percent above the revised August rate of 1,542,000. While this is slightly lower than a year ago (3.2 percent below the September 2021 rate of 1,615,000), the trend for obtaining new home permits was reportedly ahead of the projected rates given the market conditions and inflation throughout the country. Interestingly, single‐family authorizations in September were at a rate of 872,000 which was also 3.1 percent below the revised August 2022 figure of 900,000. Authorizations of units in buildings with five units or more were at a rate of 644,000 in September. Overall, while slowly recovering from the record lows during the height of the pandemic, the economic forecast for new home construction in California is positive, but cautious. The flip side of this coin is the construction starts in California, which continue to remain stagnant despite additional building permits being issued. Privately‐owned housing starts in September were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,439,000. This is 8.1 percent (±14.9 percent) below the revised August estimate of 1,566,000 and is 7.7 percent (±11.5 percent) below the September 2021 rate of 1,559,000. Single‐family housing starts in September were at a rate of 892,000; this is 4.7 percent (±10.7 percent) below the revised August figure of 936,000. The September rate for units in buildings with five units or more was 530,000. Reprinted courtesy of John Kazanovicz, Kahana Feld and Jason Feld, Kahana Feld Mr. Kazanovicz may be contacted at jkazanovicz@kahanafeld.com Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES