FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Ten-Year Statute Of Repose To Sue For Latent Construction Defects

November 12, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you are dealing with latent construction defects, it is imperative that you consult with counsel to understand your rights. This not only includes claims for property damage stemming from latent construction defects, but also personal injury stemming from such defects. There is a ten-year statute of repose to sue for latent construction defects. See Fla.Stat. s. 95.11(3)(c). After the expiration of this statute of repose you are out of luck, meaning you can no longer sue. Now, I probably will not be the first to tell you that the statute of repose is not written so clear that you know the precise date it ends (or the last date you can sue for a latent defect). For this reason, you really want to operate conservatively, meaning it is always better to sue early if you think you could be running on the end of the statute of repose period. It is always advisable to avoid any legitimate argument that you filed your construction defect lawsuit too late. In Harrell v. The Ryland Group, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2054b (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), a subsequent owner of a house sued the original homebuilder in negligence for a construction defect causing a personal injury. The subsequent owner claimed the homebuilder defectively installed an attic ladder (that provided access to the attic for the original construction) which collapsed as he was using it. The homebuilder filed a motion for summary judgment that the statute of repose expired so the owner’s claim was time-barred. The First District agreed. 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

---

Proposition 65: OEHHA to Consider Adding and Delisting Certain Chemicals of Concern

September 03, 2015 — Lee Marshall & Jeffrey A. Vinnick – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), which is responsible for determining the chemicals that are included on its list of chemicals known to be carcinogenic or to cause reproductive harm, thereby requiring businesses to comply with the rules accorded under California’s Proposition 65, has announced the beginning of a 45-day public comment period on five chemicals:

• Nickel
• Pentachlorophenol
• Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
• Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)
• Tetrachloroethylene
Reprinted courtesy of Lee Marshall, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jeffrey A. Vinnick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Marshall may be contacted at lmarshall@hbblaw.com Mr. Vinnick may be contacted at jvinnick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of


---

Allen, TX Board of Trustees Expected to Approve Stadium Repair Plans

July 30, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Construction plans to fix the $60 million high school football stadium in Allen, Texas, which has been closed due to cracks discovered in the structure, is expected to be approved by the Allen School Board of Trustees, reported KHOU. The construction company and architectural firm both stated “they will cover the costs to fix everything -- which could run between $600,000 and $1 million.” The school board plans on using “$2 million in bonds for the construction, renovation, acquisition and equipment of school facilities,” and will then seek to recover the amount of repairs “from the parties responsible for defects and/or construction problems and failures.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of


---

Coverage for Construction Defects Barred By Exclusion j (5)

April 15, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Texas Court Appeal reversed a trial court judgment which found coverage in favor of the contractor based upon exclusion j(5). Dallas Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Calitex Corp., 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2002 (Tex. Ct. App. March 3, 2015). Turnkey Residential Group, Inc., was the contractor to construct a twelve-unit townhome complex in Dallas. The owner of the project was Calitex Corporation. Construction began on November 2006. The project was to be completed by Turnkey by October 27, 2007. Calitex filed suit against Turnkey and some of its subcontractors in February 2008. Calitex alleged problems with Turnkey's work included: (1) the stone exterior was not properly treated and leaked, and some areas were left uncovered with stone; and (2) windows leaked. It was further alleged that the quality of materials, labor and craftsmanship did not meet the standards of the contract and resulted in damages. Turnkey submitted a notice of claim to its insurer, Dallas National Insurance Company (DNIC). Coverage was denied. 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

---

Expert Medical Science Causation Testimony Improperly Excluded under Daubert; ID of Sole Cause of Medical Condition Not Required

April 15, 2014 — R. Bryan Martin & Whitney L. Stefko - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On April 4, 2014, in Messick v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Defendant Pharmaceutical Corporation because the district court improperly excluded expert testimony. The three-judge panel held that the district court erred by excluding causation testimony offered by Plaintiff's expert it found to be irrelevant and unreliable. Plaintiff was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000. In response to her development of osteoporosis after chemotherapy, Plaintiff treated with the drug Zometa for several months in 2002. Zometa is a bisphosphonate, a class of drug commonly used to treat multiple myeloma. Such drugs are generally used to reduce or eliminate the possibility of skeletal-related degeneration and injuries to which cancer patients are particularly susceptible. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation produces Zometa, which was approved by the FDA in 2001 and 2002. In 2005 after encountering issues with her jaw, it was discovered that Plaintiff had osteonecrosis near three of her teeth. The oral specialists treating Plaintiff did so under the assumption that she was suffering from bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw ("BRONJ"), a condition recognized by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons ("AAOMS"). Plaintiff's BRONJ healed in 2008 - three years after beginning treatment. Thereafter, Plaintiff brought suit against Novartis for strict products liability, negligent manufacture, negligent failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranty, and loss of consortium. In support of her claims, Plaintiff offered her expert's testimony on ONJ and BRONJ, and on the causal link between plaintiff's bisphosphonate treatment and later development of BRONJ. Novartis filed a Daubert motion to exclude the specific causation testimony of Plaintiff's experts and a motion seeking summary judgment. The district court granted both motions on the basis that Plaintiff's expert testimony was irrelevant and unreliable. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of


---

Court Addresses When Duty to Defend Ends

August 24, 2020 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Margo E. Meta - White and Williams
There are certain generally held principles regarding an insurer’s duty to defend. One of these principles is that an insurer has a duty to defend its insured if the complaint states a claim that potentially falls within the policy’s coverage. However, there is a lack of consistency regarding the point at which the insurers’ duty to defend ends. When the only potentially covered claim has been dismissed, must the insurer continue to defend? Certain jurisdictions, such as Hawaii and Minnesota, have held that an insurer’s duty to defend continues through an appeals process, or until a final judgment has been entered, disposing of the entire case. Commerce & Industry Insurance Company v. Bank of Hawaii, 832 P.2d 733 (Haw. 1992); Meadowbrook, Inc. v. Tower Insurance Company, 559 N.W. 2d 411 (Minn. 1997). Earlier this week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania took a different approach to this question in Westminster American Insurance Company v. Spruce 1530, No. 19-539, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106534 (E.D. Pa. June 17, 2020) – holding that the trial court’s dismissal of the only potentially covered claim was sufficient to terminate Westminster’s duty to defend. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and Margo E. Meta, White and Williams Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Meta may be contacted at metam@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of


---

Amazon’s Fatal Warehouse Collapse Is Being Investigated by OSHA

December 13, 2021 — Josh Eidelson & Spencer Soper - Bloomberg
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has opened an investigation into the collapse of an Amazon.com Inc. warehouse, according to a Labor Department spokesperson. A tornado struck the Amazon delivery station in Edwardsville, Illinois, on Friday, killing six workers and destroying much of the facility at the peak of the holiday shopping season. “OSHA has had compliance officers at the complex since Saturday, Dec. 11, to provide assistance,” the spokesperson said. “OSHA has six months to complete its investigation, issue citations and propose monetary penalties if violations of workplace safety and or health regulations are found.” Reprinted courtesy of Josh Eidelson, Bloomberg and Spencer Soper, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of


---

Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

April 25, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii


After the insurer denied coverage in a homeowner’s policy for construction defects under various exclusions, the court found the ensuing loss provision was ambiguous.Kesling v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38857 (D. Colo. March 22, 2012).



After purchasing a home from the sellers, the insureds noticed problems with the deck of the home. Massive cracking appeared, causing lifting and leaking on the deck and water running through the exterior foundation wall into the home. There was also damage to the roof and crawlspace.



The insureds had a homeowner’s policy with American Family, which covered accidental direct physical loss to property described in the policy unless the loss was excluded. They requested coverage for "conditions, defects and damages." American Family denied coverage because wear and tear, as well as damage to foundations, floors and roofs were excluded. The policy did provide coverage, however, for "any resulting loss to property described . . . above, not excluded or excepted in this policy.



When coverage was denied, the insureds sued American Family.



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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


---