Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Communications between Counsel and PR Firm Hired by Counsel Held Discoverable

March 22, 2017 — Kevin R. Crisp, David W. Evans, & Sarah A. Marsey – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Counsel handling cases involving newsworthy facts and litigation often hire public relations (“PR”) consultants. In Nicholas Behunin v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 2017 DJDAR 2405 (No. B272225 March 14, 2017) the California Court of Appeal, Second District, denied a petition for writ of mandate concerning a trial court discovery order holding that communications between a plaintiff’s attorney and a public relations firm counsel hired for the purpose of creating a website for the Plaintiff were discoverable, despite claims that such communications were protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff sued Defendants -- (the) Charles Schwab and his son Michael Schwab -- over an unsuccessful real estate investment. Plaintiff’s attorneys hired a public relations consultant to create a website (www.chuck-you.com) that sought to link the Schwabs with the late Indonesian dictator Suharto’s family. The court succinctly described the web site as “a social media campaign to induce the Schwabs to settle the case.” Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Kevin R. Crisp, David W. Evans and Sarah A. Marsey Mr. Crisp may be contacted at kcrisp@hbblaw.com Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Ms. Marsey may be contacted at smarsey@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Indictments Issued in Las Vegas HOA Scam

January 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A federal grand jury has indicted eleven individuals involved in the Las Vegas homeowners association scam. Leon Benzer, Keith Gregory, and Barry Levinson were all indicted for their roles in the scam, where conspirators took over homeowners associations in order to profit from construction defect suits. According to the Las Vegas Review Journal, all eleven were charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. Mr. Levinson's license to practice law has been suspended due to an investigation that he misappropriated client funds. Mr. Benzer has been described as the "mastermind" of the scam. Twenty-eight defendants have plead guilty, with all but one agreeing to cooperate with investigators. The report quotes William C. Woerner, the acting special agent in charge of the FBI in Las Vegas, as saying that "today's indictment demonstrates the continued commitment of the FBI and its law enforcement partners to identify and root out public corruption at all levels." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurance Client Alert: Denial of Summary Judgment Does Not Automatically Establish Duty to Defend

January 28, 2015 — Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In McMillin Companies v. American Safety Indemnity (No. D063586, filed 1/20/15), a California appeals court ruled that an insurer's loss of a summary judgment motion on the duty to defend does not necessarily establish that a duty to defend existed. McMillin was the general contractor for a series of residential construction projects, sued in a construction defect action brought by 117 homeowners. McMillin tendered its defense to its subcontractors' insurers, including American Safety (ASIC), claiming status as an additional insured (AI). ASIC denied the tender. McMillin sued ASIC and other insurers alleging breach of contract and bad faith for the failure to defend McMillin as an additional insured. Eventually, all of the other insurers settled, leaving ASIC as the sole defendant. ASIC moved for summary judgment, but the trial court denied the motion, ruling that ASIC had failed to carry its burden of disproving coverage under a blanket additional insured endorsement in the policy. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com, Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law

November 13, 2023 — Yaron Shaham - Kahana Feld
In order for a plaintiff to prove a defendant is negligent, the plaintiff must prove the defendant (1) owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) breached that duty, (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the resulting monetary damage. However, for both plaintiffs and defendants it is not an all or nothing game in California. This is because California is a pure Comparative Negligence state. California’s Comparative Negligence law provides that even if a plaintiff is deemed 99% at fault, the plaintiff can still recover 1% in damages from a defendant. Thus, even if a plaintiff is deemed to be more than 50% (or even 99%) at fault for the incident, the plaintiff could still recover some monetary amount, or the defendant will still have to pay plaintiff, depending on how you see it. In most instances, a jury decides what percentage of fault to assign to each party. Just as a plaintiff must prove he/she/its negligence case against a defendant, if the defendant claims plaintiff was partially responsible for the incident, the defendant must prove plaintiff was also negligent and said negligence contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. The total amount of monetary responsibility distributed among all defendants and plaintiffs must equal 100%. As crazy as it may sound, a plaintiff found to be 99.9% at fault, is still entitled to recover 0.01% from a defendant in California. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Yaron Shaham, Kahana Feld
Mr. Shaham may be contacted at yshaham@kahanafeld.com

CDJ’s #5 Topic of the Year: Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, et al.

December 31, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefko of Haight Brown & Bonesteel analyzed the Beacon decision, and discussed how it affects developers and general contractors: “On July 3, 2014, the California Supreme Court (the “Court”) came out with its decision in Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, et al. The Beacon decision settled a long-standing dispute in California about whether design professionals such as architects and engineers owe a duty to non-client third parties. In finding that the plaintiffs in Beacon could state a claim against the architects of the Beacon project, the Court also sowed the seeds of change in the way contracts are structured between developers, architects, engineers, and even general contractors.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Columbus, Ohio’s Tallest Building to be Inspected for Construction Defects

July 16, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Fox 28 news reported that “[t]he state of Ohio is going to spend more than $166,000 to inspect…the 40-year-old Rhodes Tower” in Columbus. "They're going to look at the exterior of the building - [at] sealants between the joints, the condition of the panels, the window systems, how they're draining, how they're operating, and how they're sealed," Ned Thiell, of Ohio Facilities Construction Commission, told ABC 6/FOX 28 news. A study completed last year declared there were “’deficiencies’ on the building’s stone covering” and there were “panels with severe fracture defects” that “will need to be replaced with new stone panels.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Zillow Seen Dominating U.S. Home Searches with Trulia

July 30, 2014 — Alex Sherman, Jeffrey McCracken and Prashant Gopal – Bloomberg
A Zillow Inc. (Z) purchase of Trulia Inc. (TRLA) would create a dominant search website for U.S. house hunters, reshaping an online industry the companies helped popularize. Zillow, the largest U.S. real estate website, is seeking to buy No. 2 Trulia for as much as $2 billion in cash and stock, according to people with knowledge of the matter. An agreement may be announced as soon as next week, said one of the people, who asked not to be identified because the information is private. Talks are ongoing and may not lead to a deal. The companies help buyers and renters find information on homes, generating revenue by selling advertising and charging Realtors to place their listings prominently. Together the Zillow and Trulia networks had more than 68 million unique visitors in June, representing about 71 percent of all visitors to ComScore’s real estate category. That includes desktop and mobile users, ComScore said. A combination would make it hard for rivals to compete, said Steve Murray, president of Real Trends Inc. in Castle Rock, Colorado. Mr. Sherman may be contacted at asherman6@bloomberg.net; Mr. McCracken may be contacted at jmccracken3@bloomberg.net; Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alex Sherman, Jeffrey McCracken and Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg

Global Insurer Agrees to Pay COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims

July 06, 2020 — Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
AXA, one of the biggest insurance companies in the world, has agreed to pay COVID-related business interruption claims by a group of restaurants in Paris after a court ruled that the restaurants’ revenue losses resulting from COVID-19 and related government orders were covered under AXA’s policies. AXA initially took the position that its insurance policies did not cover business interruption caused by COVID-19. The restaurant then sued AXA in a French court, seeking coverage for operating losses resulting from a government order issued in March mandating the closure of restaurants and bars in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court concluded that the government orders, which prohibited restaurants from receiving the public and offering traditional sit-down dining services, triggered the policy’s coverage for business interruption coverage. The court rejected AXA’s argument that the pandemic was uninsurable, and made clear that if AXA intended to exclude such a risk it should have done so expressly in its policy. The court also rejected AXA’s argument that there must be a prerequisite of an insured event for the application of the “administrative closure” provision, noting that no prerequisite was required by the policy. AXA’s argument that the government orders did not require the restaurant to be closed because the restaurant was authorized to maintain take-away services was also rejected. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the policyholders, holding that the business interruption loss resulting from the government orders qualified for insurance coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES