Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Arizona Court Cites California Courts to Determine Construction Defect Coverage is Time Barred

December 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Construction defect claims in an Arizona community are time barred and so the judge had determined that National Fire & Marine Insurance is not liable for coverage. National Fire claimed that while there was no Arizona case law concerning statutes of limitations for equitable contributions by insurance carriers, the court agreed that “its position is directly supported by cases from other jurisdictions.” In the underlying construction defect case, Steadfast Insurance had settled with homeowners over allegations of construction defects. National Fire was a co-insurer and declined coverage. National Fire’s citing of two California cases was not unique for the Arizona courts. Other Arizona cases cited the same two California cases. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Whether Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is an Occurrence Creates Ambiguity

March 16, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ohio Court of Appeals determined that the CGL policy was ambiguous as to whether a subcontractor's faulty workmanship was an "occurrence." Ohio N. Univ. v. Charles Constr. Serv., 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 258 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2017). In 2007, Ohio Northern University (ONU) entered a contract with Charles Construction Services, Inc. (CCS) to construct a hotel on the campus. In 2011, the building was completed, but ONU found water intrusion and moisture damage in the interior. When remediating the water damage, ONU found additional, serious structural defects. ONU sued CCS, alleging breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and negligent misrepresentation. CCS filed a third-party action against many of its subcontractors. Cincinnati Insurance Company (CIC) intervened and filed a cross-claim for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to provide coverage to CCS. CIC and ONU filed cross motions for summary judgment. 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

Is Safety Compliance Putting Your Project in Jeopardy? Examining the Essentials of DOE’s Worker Safety and Health Program

July 02, 2024 — Lucas T. Daniels & Benjamin J. Hochberg - ConsensusDocs
Most contractors are familiar with the myriad of labor and safety regulations intended to safeguard the health and safety of workers. Many contractors will be equally familiar with the maze of forms and reports, the maintenance of safety personnel, safety walks and talks, and the many other measures intended to prevent and prepare for accidents. Less known among contractors and construction industry leaders is the regulatory framework establishing safety requirements and the ramifications of ignoring safety-related rules. Knowing and understanding the jurisdiction and authority of the agencies monitoring safety compliance on your project is critical to avoiding administrative ordeals and audits that could add days or weeks to your schedule and frustrate your staff. The Department of Energy’s Worker Safety and Health Program Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended (OSH), the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issues and enforces occupational health and safety regulations. OSHA, or a state with approval from OSHA, regulates the occupational health and safety of private sector employees unless another federal agency has and exercises its statutory authority to regulate. Several federal agencies have developed their own safety programs and conduct their own enforcement of those regulations independent of OSHA. For example, projects receiving funding from the Department of Energy (DOE) are subject to additional oversight of their safety programs by this agency. DOE directly manages its own Worker Safety and Health Program (WSHP), codified at 10 C.F.R. § 851, et seq., and will enforce compliance with its WSHP at all DOE sites. A “DOE site” is defined as a DOE-owned or -leased area or location or other area or location that DOE controls, where a contractor performs activities and operations in furtherance of a DOE mission. This broad definition encompasses a wide range of facilities and operations, including those not directly managed by the DOE but still under its control. The contractor at such a site must be aware of the specific requirements and procedures of the DOE under the WSHP and the ramifications of violating these regulations. Reprinted courtesy of Lucas T. Daniels, Peckar & Abramson, P.C and Benjamin J. Hochberg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C Mr. Daniels may be contacted at ldaniels@pecklaw.com Mr. Hochberg may be contacted at bhochberg@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Developer’s Failure to Plead Amount of Damages in Cross-Complaint Fatal to Direct Action Against Subcontractor’s Insurers Based on Default Judgment

January 21, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Yu v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. (No. G054522, filed 12/11/18), a California appeals court held that a developer’s failure to allege the amounts of damages sought in its cross-complaint rendered default judgments against a subcontractor void and, therefore, unenforceable against the subcontractor’s insurers in a direct action under Insurance Code section 11580(b)(2). Yu, the owner, hired ATMI to develop a hotel. ATMI subcontracted with Fitch to perform stucco and paint work. Yu sued ATMI for construction defects and the developer cross-complained against its subcontractors, including Fitch, for breach of contract; warranty; indemnity, etc. Yu’s operative complaint prayed for damages “in an amount not less than $10,000,000, according to proof.” ATMI’s cross-complaint stated that it incorporated the allegations of Yu’s complaint “for identification and informational purposes only,” but “does not admit the truth of any allegations contained therein.” The cross-complaint also prayed for damages with respect to the various causes of action “in an amount according to proof.” 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

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa Rolle and Christopher Acosta Win Motion to Dismiss in Bronx County Trip and Fall

May 22, 2023 — Lisa M. Rolle & Christopher D. Acosta - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle and Associate Christopher Acosta won a motion to dismiss in a trip and fall accident complaint and cross-claim brought before the New York Supreme Court, Bronx County. The underlying accident allegedly occurred on the sidewalk abutting the subject premises, which is owned by the Property Owner and was leased to a Pest Control Company. The Property Owner brought a cross-claim against the Pest Control Company as a result of the initial complaint. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman and Christopher D. Acosta, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Mr. Acosta may be contacted at cacosta@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Manhattan Vacancies Rise in Epicenter Shift: Real Estate

August 20, 2014 — David M. Levitt – Bloomberg
The luster is fading on some of midtown Manhattan’s shiniest skyscrapers. Buildings in Midtown, from 30th Street to Central Park South at 59th Street, have more vacant blocks of contiguous office space than at the height of the recession in 2009, as landlords face increased competition from buildings downtown and at Hudson Yards on the far west side, according to a study by Savills Studley Inc., a New York-based real estate brokerage. “The epicenter of this city has shifted several times before and is in the process of shifting again,” Michael Cohen, tri-state region president of brokerage Colliers International, said in an interview. Midtown is “the hole in the doughnut,” where landlords are vulnerable to extended vacancies and rents that probably won’t rise dramatically. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Levitt, Bloomberg
Mr. Levitt may be contacted at dlevitt@bloomberg.net

Haight has been named by Best Law Firms® as a Tier 1, 2 and 3 National Firm in Three Practice Areas in 2024

November 27, 2023 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP is listed in the Best Law Firms® (2024 Edition) with metro rankings in the following areas: Los Angeles

Metropolitan Tier 1
- Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

Metropolitan Tier 2
- Insurance Law

Metropolitan Tier 3
- Workers’ Compensation Law – Claimants

Orange County

Metropolitan Tier 1
- Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

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

Implied Warranty Claims–Not Just a Seller’s Risk: Builders Beware!

May 10, 2021 — Carin Ramirez - Colorado Construction Litigation
One of the thorns in the side of every construction defect defense litigator is the implied warranty claim. The “implied warranty” is a promise that Colorado law is “implied” into every contract for a sale of a new home that the home was built in a workmanlike manner and is suitable for habitation. Defense attorneys dislike the implied warranty claim because it is akin to a strict liability standard. All that is required to provide the claim is that an aspect of construction is found to be defective — i.e., inconsistent with the building code or manufacturer’s installation instructions — regardless of whether the work was performed to the standard of care. The implied warranty claim is therefore easier to prove than a negligence claim, where a claimant must prove that a construction professional’s work fell below a standard of reasonable care. Additionally, it is not a defense to an implied warranty claim that the homeowners or the HOA are, themselves, partially liable for the defects where damage is due in part to insufficient or deferred maintenance, as it is for negligence claims. The only redeeming aspect to the implied warranty claim was that, until recently, it was believed that it could only be asserted by a first purchaser against the seller of an improvement, because the implied warranty arises out of the sale contract. Recently, the Colorado Court of Appeals opinion in Brooktree Village Homeowners Association v. Brooktree Village, LLC, 19CA1635, decided on November 19, 2020, extended the reach of the implied warranty — though just how far remains to be seen. Specifically, a division of the Court of Appeals held that an HOA can assert implied warranty claims on behalf of its members for defects in common areas, even where there is no direct contractual relationship between the parties to base the warranty upon. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Carin Ramirez, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Ramirez may be contacted at ramirez@hhmrlaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES