Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Penalty for Failure to Release Expired Liens

April 02, 2024 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
I was recently contacted by a commercial building owner in the process of trying to sell his building. Two years prior to this, a subcontractor had recorded a mechanics’ lien with the local County Recorder’s office in relation to the owner’s property. The subcontractor recorded the mechanics lien after the subcontractor was not paid by a prime contractor for work the subcontractor had performed on the property. Unfortunately, the subcontractor then failed to file a lawsuit to foreclose on the lien within the requisite ninety (90) day time period for filing a lawsuit to foreclose on the mechanics’ lien. Since the subcontractor missed this 90 day deadline to file the mechanics lien foreclosure lawsuit, the mechanics lien expired and became unenforceable. Subject to certain exceptions, under California Civil Code Section 8460, a lawsuit to foreclose on a mechanics lien must be filed within ninety (90) days after the mechanics lien is recorded or the mechanics lien expires. Although the mechanics lien had expired, the title company and intended purchaser of the building and property were perhaps understandably insistent that the mechanics lien constituted a cloud on title to the property and must be removed from the official records for the property. The prospective purchaser would not buy the property unless the mechanics’ lien was removed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

EPA Rejects Most of N.Y.’s $511 Million Tappan Zee Loan

September 17, 2014 — Freeman Klopott – Bloomberg
A $511 million loan approved by a New York environmental agency to help fund the construction of a new $4 billion Tappan Zee Bridge was rejected almost entirely by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The loan was intended to drive down borrowing costs for the replacement span being built across the Hudson River, with half of it being provided at zero interest. The agency, the Environmental Facilities Corp., approved the borrowing in June, saying it could use the funds from a program that targets clean-water projects. The EPA said today in a letter to state officials that building a new bridge doesn’t fit the intention of the program, which is backed by federal dollars. The agency, citing the U.S. Clean Water Act, said only $29.1 million could be allowed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Freeman Klopott, Bloomberg
Mr. Klopott may be contacted at fklopott@bloomberg.net

MBIA Seeks Data in $1 Billion Credit Suisse Mortgage Suit

June 26, 2014 — Chris Dolmetsch and Jody Shenn – Bloomberg
MBIA Inc. (MBI) asked a judge to order Credit Suisse Group AG (CSGN) to turn over internal records that the bond insurer says bolster its contention the bank lied about how it processed loans packaged into mortgage-backed securities. MBIA said in a court filing today that Credit Suisse has withheld evidence about how the bank’s actual practices diverged from its representations -- including documents identified as exhibits in other lawsuits based on the same allegations. The bond insurer asked Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan to force the bank to search documents and e-mails on its policies and practices including those related to loan underwriting and origination, due diligence and post-acquisition quality-control review. Mr. Dolmetsch may be contacted at cdolmetsch@bloomberg.net; Ms. Shenn may be contacted at jshenn@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chris Dolmetsch and Jody Shenn, Bloomberg

Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: The Duty to Defend

February 28, 2022 — Lorelie S. Masters, Patrick M. McDermott & Rachel E. Hudgins - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
This post in our Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series discusses the Montana Supreme Court’s consideration of an insurer’s duty to defend in National Indemnity Co. v. State, 499 P.3d 516 (Mont. 2021). For 67 years, W.R. Grace & Company’s mining operations spread asbestos through the town of Libby, Montana, causing elevated rates of asbestosis and asbestos-related cancer in Libby residents – even among those who never worked in the mine. The Environmental Protection Agency deemed the Libby Mine the “most significant single source of asbestos exposure” in US history. In 2000, Libby residents began filing lawsuits against the State of Montana, alleging that the State had failed to warn them about the mine’s danger, and this failure contributed to their bodily injuries. Id. at 521-22. The Libby plaintiffs’ asbestos exposures and related injuries had occurred decades earlier, and so the State searched its storage units for records of any potentially applicable insurance policies. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Court of Appeal Vacates $30M Non-Economic Damages Award Due to Failure to Properly Apportion Liability and Attorney Misconduct During Closing Argument

February 08, 2021 — Krsto Mijanovic, Peter A. Dubrawski, Arezoo Jamshidi & Catherine M. Asuncion - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On January 20, 2021, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six (Ventura), in Plascencia v. Deese (B299142), vacated a $30 million non-economic damages award in a highway fatality case because: (1) the award did not properly apportion non-economic damages among everyone at fault in violation of Proposition 51; and (2) the amount of the award appeared to have been influenced by plaintiffs’ counsel’s misconduct and prejudicial remarks during closing argument. In Plascencia, the plaintiffs sued several defendants for the wrongful death of their daughter arising from a highway fatality accident. All the defendants settled or were dismissed before trial except the trucking defendants. The highway fatality was caused when one defendant driver made an illegal U-turn on a highway as she left another defendant’s fruit stand. The plaintiffs’ daughter swerved to avoid the U-turn driver, lost control of her car, and crashed into the back of the trucking defendants’ diesel tractor-trailer. The truck driver had parked the truck on the side of the highway near the fruit stand, which the trucking defendants’ expert conceded fell below the standard of care. Reprinted courtesy of Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, Peter A. Dubrawski, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Catherine M. Asuncion, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Dubrawski may be contacted at pdubrawski@hbblaw.com Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com Ms. Asuncion may be contacted at casuncion@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Economic Waste Doctrine and Construction Defects / Nonconforming Work

February 01, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
I recently did a presentation on the economic waste doctrine. It is an applicable doctrine dealing with construction defects and nonconforming work. When it comes to construction defects and nonconforming work, EVERYTHING starts with your measure of damages. How are you going to prove your damages? Next, what evidence are you going to use to prove your damages? Or, what are the defenses and how do you prove those defenses to a construction defect and nonconforming work claim including the economic waste doctrine? If you are interested in learning more, the below presentation can shed detail. However, don’t rely on the presentation in a vacuum. Work with knowledgeable construction counsel (like me!) that can best position your case whether you are the one proving construction defects and nonconforming work or the one defending against such a claim. This way, if you are arguing economic waste, you are not just throwing it out there, but you are arguing it to actually mean it! 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

Type I Differing Site Conditions Claim is Not Easy to Prove

May 30, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A differing site condition claim will almost universally result in both a cost and time impact. There will be additional, unanticipated costs incurred. And there will likely be a delay requiring additional time to perform. A Type I differing site condition claim is when the contractor encounters conditions at the site different than those indicated in the contract documents. That seems easy enough to prove, right. Nope. And, I mean nope! If you don’t believe me, consider the recent decision in Meridian Engineering Co. v. U.S., 885 F.3d 1351 (Fed.Cir. 2018). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability Cannot Be Disclaimed or Waived Under Any Circumstance

May 01, 2023 — Jason Feld & Stephanie Wilson - Kahana & Feld LLP
Arizona residential construction and single-family home production is growing at a rapid pace. And just as fast as the homes are sold, homeowners are constantly seeking warranty repairs from their homebuilders. Despite having strong purchase documents with express warranty language, the Arizona Supreme Court in Zambrano v. M & RC, II LLC, 254 Ariz. 53 (2022) adopted a bright line rule that regardless of the contract, the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability (“implied warranty”) cannot be disclaimed or waived under any circumstance. The Arizona Supreme Court opinion provides clear guidance of the law in this area on the scope of the implied warranty in contracts between homebuyers and builder/vendors, specifically on the issue of whether an express warranty can negate and effectively waive the common law implied warranty – which is a definitive violation of public policy. The Zambrano decision involved a licensed real estate broker who bought a new single family home for herself in a newly constructed master planned community in Surprise, AZ. Zambrano entered into a valid sales contract with Scott Homes (homebuilder) which contained a stand-alone 45-page pre-printed form express warranty. The express warranty was to be the “only warranty applicable to the home.” The contract further clarified that the buyer was expressly disclaiming (and, thus, waiving) the implied warranty. The sales documents and express warranty were signed and authorized by Zambrano. A short time later, the home developed alleged “design and construction defects” that were “either time barred or outside the coverage” of the express warranty. Zambrano filed suit for the alleged defects based on the implied warranty. Scott Homes filed summary judgment based on the Zambrano’s waiver and disclaimer of the implied warranty in the purchase agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment and the matter was appealed up to the Arizona Supreme Court. Reprinted courtesy of Jason Feld, Kahana & Feld LLP and Stephanie Wilson, Kahana & Feld LLP Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanafeld.com Ms. Wilson may be contacted at swilson@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES