Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Buffett’s $11 Million Beach House Is Still on the Market

February 28, 2018 — Noah Buhayar – Bloomberg
Warren Buffett auctions a lunch date for charity every year, and the winning bid usually stretches to seven figures. He twice sold his used cars to fans for multiples of their Kelly Blue Book value. Someone once even paid more than $200,000 to purchase his old wallet. (It had a stock tip inside.) For those who venerate one of the world’s best investors, money is usually no object when buying a piece of the legend. A year ago, Buffett put his vacation home in Emerald Bay, a gated enclave next to Laguna Beach, Calif., up for sale. He bought the property in 1971 at the urging of his first wife, Susan, for $150,000—the equivalent of a bit less than $1 million today. At the time, he didn’t think of it much as an investment, he told the Wall Street Journal last year. Laguna was less developed back then, more surfer-and-hippie paradise than multimillionaire’s haunt. The couple and their family often spent summers at the home, as well as time around Christmas, when Buffett would hole up in the master bedroom working on his closely followed annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway Inc. shareholders. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Noah Buhayar, Bloomberg

How to Challenge a Project Labor Agreement

May 24, 2018 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
Building and Construction Trades Council of Metropolitan District v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts Rhode Island, Inc Massachusetts Water Resources Authority v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts Rhode Island, Inc, 507 U.S. 218, 113 S.Ct. 1190, 122 L.Ed.2d 565 (1993) , affectionately knows as Boston Harbor, is the seminal Supreme Court decision that held that the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) does not preempt government mandated project labor agreements (“PLAs”) if the government entity is acting as a market participant rather than a market regulator. Boston Harbor has led to many believing that virtually all PLAs are legal when the government agency is a project owner or if the PLA involves a private project. However, does Boston Harbor really cut that far? In short, no. The primary issue in Boston Harbor was one of preemption. The Supreme Court addressed whether the NLRA preempted state and local laws and ordinances mandating PLAs. On that narrow issue, the Supreme Court said there is no preemption if the government is acting as a market participant. What the Court did not address is whether other federal statutes invalidate PLAs. Specifically, whether PLA’s can run afoul of Section 8(e), the so called “hot cargo” provisions, of the NLRA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Highest Building Levels in Six Years in Southeast Michigan

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Macomb Township in southeast Michigan has had $122 million in new development in 2013, all of which helped the region reach its highest building levels since 2007. The wider area saw 398 permits issued for single-family homes in the last twelve months, fifty-two more than in the twelve months prior. “The improvement is economically driven,” said Michael Stoskofa, the CEO of the Home Builders Association of Southeast Michigan. As employment improves in the area, “more people are willing and able to purchase a home,” he said. Home inventory in the area is also at a record low. As a result, projects that were put on hold in 2008 are active again. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer Not Bound by Decision in Underlying Case Where No Collateral Estoppel

February 25, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eleventh Circuit determined that the trial court did not err by refusing to give preclusive effect to findings made in the underlying state-court action because there was no collateral estoppel. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sharif, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2114 (11th Cir. Feb. 4, 2014). Bashir's owned a grocery and was insured by Nationwide. The decedent was accidentally killed by a pistol stored under the cash register. The decedent's personal representative sued Bashir in state court. Nationwide declined to defend because it maintained that the employment exclusion applied to bar coverage. The personal representative argued two alternative claims, the first assuming the decedent was not an employee of Bashir's and the second assuming that he was. The state court granted a motion to dismiss the second claim that the decedent was an employee. In a subsequent trial, judgment was awarded against Bashir and another defendant in the amount of $950,000. 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

Sometimes You Just Need to Call it a Day: Court Finds That Contractor Not Entitled to Recover Costs After Public Works Contract is Invalidated

June 29, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
January was a tough month in the courts for Hensel Phelps Construction Company. Hot off the heels of Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Superior Court, a case concerning the 10-year statute of limitations under Civil Code section 941, comes Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Case No. B293427 (January 28, 2020), a bid dispute case . . . The Tale of a Bid, a Bid Protest, and Two Cases A. The Bid and Bid Protest On March 15, 2015, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) issues an Invitation for Bid for the HVAC project at the Ironwood State Prison. The deadline to submit bids was April 30, 2015. Hensel Phelps Construction Co. submitted a timely bid and was determined to be the “apparent low bidder” with a bid of $88,160,000. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

$24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed to Prove Supplier’s Negligence or Breach of Contract Caused an SB800 Violation

November 21, 2017 — Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin
Originally published by CDJ on March 16, 2017 Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWL Inc. (2017) 2017 WL 371379 COURT OF APPEAL EXTENDS GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. v. MIDTEC, INC., HOLDING THAT CIVIL CODE §936 CREATES A NEGLIGENCE STANDARD FOR CLAIMS AGAINST MATERIAL SUPPLIERS BROUGHT UNDER SB800. The Fourth District California Court of Appeal recently published its decision Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWI, Inc. (2017) 2017 WL 371379, holding that claims against a material supplier under SB800 (Civil Code §895 and §936) require proof that the SB800 violation was caused by the supplier's negligence or breach of contract. Civil Code §936 states in relevant part, that it applies "to general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals to the extent that the general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals caused, in whole or in part, a violation of a particular standard as the result of a negligent act or omission or a breach of contract .... [T]he negligence standard in this section does not apply to any general contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, individual product manufacturer, or design professional with respect to claims for which strict liability would apply." Reprinted courtesy of Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq., Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq., Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Montana Trial Court Holds That Youths Have Standing to Bring Constitutional Claims Against State Government For Alleged Climate Change-Related Harms

September 18, 2023 — Paul A. Briganti & Julia Castanzo - White and Williams LLP
On August 14, 2023, in a “landmark” ruling, a Montana state court held that youth plaintiffs had standing to assert constitutional claims against the State of Montana, its governor and state agencies for “ignoring” the impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on climate change. Held v. State of Montana, Cause No. CDV-020-307 (1st Judicial Dist. Ct., Lewis & Clark Cty., Mt.). Agreeing with the plaintiffs, the court concluded that a limitation in the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), which prohibited the state from considering climate impacts when issuing permits for energy projects, violated the plaintiffs’ right under the state constitution to a “clean and healthful environment.” MEPA, enacted in 1971, states that its purposes include “provid[ing] for the adequate review of state actions in order to ensure that . . . environmental attributes are fully considered by the legislature in enacting laws to fulfill constitutional obligations . . . .” In 2011, the legislature amended the statute to curtail the scope of environmental reviews. Under the so-called MEPA limitation, Montana agencies cannot consider “an evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate in the state or beyond the state’s borders.” Mont. Code Ann. § 75-1-201(2)(a). In 2023, the legislature added a provision that eliminated equitable remedies (i.e., the ability to “vacate, void, or delay a lease, permit, license, certificate, authorization, or other entitlement or authority”) for litigants who “claim that [an] environmental review is inadequate based in whole or in part upon greenhouse gas emissions and impacts to the climate in Montana or beyond Montana’s borders . . . .” Id. § 75-1-201(6)(a)(ii). Reprinted courtesy of Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP and Julia Castanzo, White and Williams LLP Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Castanzo may be contacted at castanzoj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CalOSHA Updates its FAQ on its COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Regulations

March 22, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
As we reported in early December, CalOSHA adopted emergency temporary regulations requiring, among other things, that employers implement a written COVID-19 prevention program, that notice be given by employers to employees in the event of potential COVID-19 exposure, and that employers continue to pay employees who have been exposed to COVID-19 even if the employee has no paid time off available. In conjunction with the emergency temporary regulations, CalOSHA posted a FAQ on the emergency regulations. On February 26, 2021, CalOSHA updated its FAQ. Among other things, the updated FAQ updates the following sections of the FAQ:

Scope of Coverage: Clarifies that the emergency regulations apply even to workplaces with only one employee but that it does not apply to employees working remotely.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES