Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

The Regulations on the Trump Administration's Chopping Block

August 02, 2017 — Pam Radtke Russell - Engineering News-Record
The Trump administration's next big step toward repealing the controversial Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule is official, with a proposal to rescind the Obama-era regulation appearing in the Federal Register on July 27, setting off a relatively short comment period that will end Aug. 28. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pam Radtke Russell, ENR
Mr. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com

Accident/Occurrence Requirement Does not Preclude Coverage for Vicarious Liability or Negligent Supervision

June 06, 2018 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Inc. (No. S236765, filed 6/4/18) (L&M), the California Supreme Court ruled that the liability insurance requirement that injury be caused by an “occurrence,” defined as an “accident,” does not preclude coverage of an employer’s independent tort liability for injury deliberately caused by its employee. In L&M, Liberty insured a construction company that contracted to manage a construction project at a middle school in San Bernardino, California. A 13-year-old student subsequently sued the company in state court, alleging that she had been sexually molested by a company employee, Hecht. Among others, she alleged a cause of action for negligent hiring, retention and supervision of the employee. The construction company tendered to Liberty, which defended the employer under a reservation of rights while seeking declaratory relief in federal court. The district court granted summary judgment for Liberty, ruling that the injury was not caused by an “occurrence.” On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals certified the question to the California Supreme Court as a matter of state law. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

What Types of “Damages Claims” Survive a Trustee’s Sale?

February 28, 2018 — Ben Reeves – Real Estate Litigation blog / Snell & Wilmer
Introduction Arizona’s trustee’s sale statutory scheme provides for the waiver of all defenses and objections to a trustee’s sale that: (i) are not raised prior to the sale, and (ii) do not result in an injunction against the sale going forward. See A.R.S. § 33-811(C). In other words, if you have an objection to a trustee’s sale, you must seek and obtain an injunction prior to the sale or your objection will be waived. Arizona’s Court of Appeals previously held that notwithstanding this statutory waiver, “common law” defenses to repayment of the debt survive a non-judicial foreclosure even in the absence of an injunction prior to the sale. See Morgan AZ Financial, L.L.C. v. Gotses, 235 Ariz. 21, 326 P.3d 288 (Ct. App. 2014). Our analysis of the Morgan decision can be found here. In Zubia v. Shapiro, 243 Ariz. 412, 408 P.3d 1248 (2018), the Arizona Supreme Court revisited the issue of what claims survive a trustee’s sale, and clarified that if a person fails to enjoin a trustee’s sale prior to its occurrence, then that person waives any and all damages claims dependent upon a trustee’s sale. That person does not, however, waive damages claims that are independent of the sale. Thus, determining what types of claims are “dependent” versus “independent” of a trustee’s sale is of critical importance to lenders and borrowers alike. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

Three lawyers from Haight were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 Edition

September 30, 2019 — William G. Baumgaertner, Michael Leahy, & Denis Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Congratulations to Haight’s attorneys who were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 Edition Los Angeles, California William G. Baumgaertner for personal injury and product liability litigation for plaintiffs and defendants Michael Leahy for insurance law Denis Moriarty for insurance law Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys William G. Baumgaertner, Michael Leahy and Denis J. Moriarty Mr. Baumgaertner may be contacted at wbaum@hbblaw.com Mr. Leahy may be contacted at mleahy@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at dmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Competitive Bidding Statute: When it Applies and When it Does Not

April 15, 2024 — Mason Fletcher - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The University of Washington (UW), a public university, aimed to secure a real estate developer for a new building on its campus. The proposal involved an 80-year ground lease (the “Lease”), and developers submitted bids. The selected developer would demolish an existing building, construct a new one, own it during the Lease at its own cost, and UW would lease back a portion, with ownership reverting to UW at the Lease’s end. Alexandria Real Equities, Inc. (ARE) was a finalist but ultimately was not selected, and the Lease was awarded to Wexford Science and Technology, LLC (Wexford). As a result, ARE filed suit against UW asserting three claims: 1) UW lacked authority to execute the Lease, 2) UW didn’t follow required competitive bidding procedures, and 3) UW’s developer selection process was arbitrary and capricious. None of these claims were successful and ARE appealed. Division II of the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed in Alexandria Real Estate Equities Inc. v. Univ. of Wash., __ Wn. App. __, 539 P.3d 54 (2023), a published decision. The Court concluded, based on the facts in that case, that because construction was not publicly funded, UW did not have to follow competitive bidding requirements that were laid out in a statute relevant to state universities. Still, the Court applied the “bright-line cutoff point” that prohibits disappointed bidders from challenging an award once a contract has been executed. See Dick Enterprises, Inc. v. Metro. King County, 83 Wn. App. 566, 572, 922 P.2d 184 (1996). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mason Fletcher, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Fletcher may be contacted at mason.fletcher@acslawyers.com

Exploring the Future of Robotic Construction with Dr. Thomas Bock

November 06, 2023 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
In this episode of the AEC Business podcast, host Aarni Heiskanen interviews Dr. Thomas Bock, a renowned expert in construction robotics. With 45 years of experience in the field and multiple books on the topic, Thomas shares his insights and expertise. Tune in to learn more about his professional journey and the advancements in construction robotics. An unconventional professional journey Thomas’s journey in construction robotics began when he built his own house as a student. The labor-intensive process led him to explore the potential of robotics in construction. He studied civil engineering and architecture simultaneously, gaining a multidisciplinary understanding of the field. His interest in robotics grew when he saw the first welding robot at a Daimler-Benz factory in Stuttgart. This encounter sparked his curiosity and led him to question why robots couldn’t be used for assembling walls and buildings. The Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) in Chicago was one of Thomas’s destinations during his journey. There he studied under professors who had worked on iconic architectural projects. He also learned about Japanese companies like Toyota and Sekisui, which were producing houses using innovative methods. Intrigued by these advancements, Thomas secured a scholarship to study in Japan, where he discovered that the country was ahead of what he had known in the United States. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

The Need to Be Specific and Precise in Drafting Settling Agreements

December 30, 2013 — W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
The case of Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Corp., 2013 WL 452374 (D. Colo. February 6, 2013) is instructive as an example of both the confusion and resulting escalation of litigation that can result from a lack of clarity in settlement negotiations. This is particularly true where parties settle outside of their insurance coverage, and/or without notifying their insurer(s), which have denied coverage. The case involved coverage litigation following settlement of a multi-party construction defect case involving the Rivergate multi-family residential development in Durango, Colorado. The condominium owners association sued, among others, the developer (Rivergate Lofts Partners, hereafter “RLP”) and the general contractor (Genex Construction, LLC, hereafter “Genex”). This follow-on case involved the insurers for RLP (“Hartford”) and Genex (“Bituminous”). The coverage dispute was complicated by the Bituminous allegations that Hartford insured Genex in its alleged role as a manager for RLP, as part of Hartford’s insurance of RLP more generally. The underlying facts were that Hartford denied insurance coverage and defense to Genex/Bituminous. The underlying construction defect case went to mediation, with the COA, RLP, and Genex all in attendance with their respective insurer representatives, and coverage counsel. While the evolving facts of that mediation were later disputed as to their motives, intentions, and the contemporaneous knowledge of the parties, the facts reflected in documents were fairly clear. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. can be contacted at mann@hhmrlaw.com

Indemnitor Owes Indemnity Even Where Indemnitee is Actively Negligent, California Court Holds

June 15, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Indemnity provisions are one of the most fought over provisions in design and construction contracts. But while parties generally understand the intent behind indemnity provisions — that one party (the “indemnitor”) agrees to indemnify (and often defend as well) another party (the “indemnitee”) from and against claims that may arise on a project — few understand how they are actually applied. In a recent Court of Appeals decision, Oltmans Construction Company v. Bayside Interiors, Inc. (March 30, 2017), Case No. A147313, the California Court of Appeals for the First District examined an indemnity provision and its “except to the extent of” provision whereby a subcontractor agreed to indemnify (and defend) a general contractor from claims arising on a project “except to the extent of” the general contractor’s active negligence or willful misconduct and whether such language either: (1) bars a general contractor from seeking indemnity where the general contractor was actively negligent; or (2) simply bars a general contractor from seeking indemnity where the general contractor was actively and solely negligent, thereby, requiring a subcontractor to indemnify the general contractor where the negligence of another party may have also contributed to the injury or damage. 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