FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

First-Time Homebuyers Make Biggest Share of Deals in 17 Years

February 22, 2018 — Prashant Gopal – Bloomberg
Millennials are playing homeownership catch-up. First-time buyers rushed into the market last year, making 38 percent of all U.S. single-family home purchases, the biggest share since 2000, data released Thursday by Genworth Mortgage Insurance show. The 2.07 million new or existing homes bought by first-timers was 7 percent more than in 2016, according to the insurer, part of Genworth Financial Inc. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg

---

Coverage Under Builder's Risk Policy Properly Excluded for Damage to Existing Structure Only

April 05, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court's determination that there was no coverage under the builder's risk policy. Gerald H. Phipps, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2764 (10th Cir. Feb. 16, 2017). GH Phipps Construction Company (GHP) was hired to renovate and expand the University of Denver's library. GHP was completing installation of a new roof on the library when water from melting snow leaked into the building. The water damaged existing drywall and insulation in the stairwells and elevator shafts that GHP planned to preserve and update. Before the snow melt mishap, GHP had completed some preliminary work in the damaged areas to designate locations for future installation of mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems. But GHP had not yet installed any new materials, updated any lighting fixtures, or patched and painted any existing drywall in the damaged areas. 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

---

Florida trigger

May 18, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Johnson-Graham-Malone, Inc. v. Austwood Enterprises, Inc., No. 16-2009-CA-005750-XXXX-MA (Fla. 4th Cir. Ct. Duval County, April 29, 2011), insured JGM was the general contractor for an apartment project completed in 1998. In 2007, the project owner sued JGM seeking damages for defective construction resulting in moisture penetration property damage. JGM tendered its defense to Amerisure. Amerisure denied a defense. JGM defended and settled the underlying suit and then filed suit against Amerisure seeking recovery of defense and settlement costs. The trial court granted JGM’s motion for partial summary judgment. The court first addressed Amerisure’s duty to defend. Applying Florida law, the court held that, although the underlying complaint alleged that the property damage was not discovered until after expiration of the Amerisure policies



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

---

Lake Charles Tower’s Window Damage Perplexes Engineers

October 05, 2020 — Autumn Cafiero Giusti - Engineering News-Record
When Hurricane Laura came onshore Aug. 27 as a Category 4 hurricane with sustained winds of 150 mph, it shattered windows on nearly every level of the 22-story Capital One Tower in the Lake Charles, La., business district. The glass damage is perplexing to engineers who study wind dynamics and window performance. Reprinted courtesy of Autumn Cafiero Giusti, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

They Say Nothing Lasts Forever, but What If Decommissioning Does?

June 10, 2019 — Stella Pulman - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The looming decommissioning liabilities of offshore energy producers have been a focus of the federal government in recent years. One recent case out of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Taylor Energy v. United States, highlights the tension between the federal government’s desire to maintain financial security for decommissioning activities, and that of an operator whose security is tied up indefinitely while the government awaits technological advances to allow for safe decommissioning. The case relates to a trust agreement between Taylor Energy and the United States, established to secure Taylor’s decommissioning liabilities for 28 wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Taylor completed certain decommissioning work for which it was reimbursed by the trust. However, with over $400 million remaining in the trust, Taylor and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) concluded that the ecological benefits of further decommissioning would be outweighed by the ecological risks. But despite recognizing that the limitations of current technology made the environmental impacts of further decommissioning work unjustifiable, the BSEE declined to release Taylor from its decommissioning obligations and instead decided to await “changes in technology and a better understanding of the undersea environment.” Because Taylor’s decommissioning obligations remained in place, the U.S. refused to release the remaining funds in the trust. Taylor claimed that the United States should release the remaining funds in the trust because “decommissioning the remaining wells is not ‘currently technologically feasible.’” Taylor asserted that Louisiana law applied to the trust agreement, and that under Louisiana law every contract must be completed within an ascertainable term. By holding the trust funds until decommissioning was complete, Taylor argued that the government was essentially holding the funds in perpetuity given the technological infeasibility of completing decommissioning. Taylor also asserted that the agreement was premised on an impossibility (the full decommissioning of the wells), and/or a mutual mistake of the parties (that the wells could be decommissioned). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stella Pulman, Pillsbury
Ms. Pulman may be contacted at stella.pulman@pillsburylaw.com

---

Asbestos Client Alert: Court’s Exclusive Gatekeeper Role May not be Ignored or Shifted to a Jury

February 07, 2014 — Lee Marshall and Chandra L. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In Estate of Henry Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc., - F.3d -, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 774, 2014 WL 129884 (9th Cir., Jan. 15, 2014) en banc, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a $10.2 million judgment in the Plaintiffs’ favor in a case where Plaintiff alleged that occupational exposure to asbestos from dryer felts caused his mesothelioma. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by neglecting its duty as a “gatekeeper” under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993), and Federal Rule of Evidence 702, by improperly admitting expert testimony at trial without first determining its reliability. The en banc court held that admitting the testimony on the debated theory that “each asbestos fiber causes mesothelioma” was prejudicial error and the court remanded the case for a new trial. The court also held that a reviewing court has the authority to make Daubert findings based on the record established by the district court, but in the instant case, the record was “too sparse” to determine whether the expert testimony was relevant and reliable or not. This ruling is a victory for the defense in that it reaffirms the federal court’s exclusive gatekeeper role and holds that the role may not be ignored or shifted to a jury. Unfortunately, the court did not go so far as to evaluate the inherent reliability of expert opinions based on the theory that “each asbestos exposure causes mesothelioma.” As such, it did not provide guidance as to what specific foundational requirements are required to admit, or exclude, these types of opinions under a Daubert analysis. In Barabin, Plaintiff alleged he was exposed to asbestos while working at a paper mill with dryer felts manufactured and supplied by Defendants. The issue was whether the dryer felts substantially contributed to Barabin’s development of mesothelioma, a determination that required expert testimony. Reprinted Courtesy of Lee Marshall, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP and Chandra L. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP Mr. Lee may be contacted at lmarshall@hbblaw.com and Ms. Moore may be contacted at cmoore@hbblaw.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Supply Chain Delay Recommendations

August 07, 2022 — Denise Motta - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
This Bulletin provides guidance to contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and others to ensure compliance with contractual change order requirements in the event work on a construction project is impacted by supply chain delays. Contract Protection Tips: The construction industry is being impacted substantially by inability to obtain necessary construction products due to supply chain issues. Most construction contracts do not accommodate time extensions due to supply chain impacts. To address this gap in contract terms, we recommend including language such as: “lack of or failure of or other inability to obtain necessary transportation, fuel, power, materials, machinery, equipment or facilities, delays caused by other contractors, subcontractors or their subcontractors of any tier, or any materialmen or suppliers” as part of the defined force majeure event under the contract. This provision can be included in the Change Order section of the contract as well by including a provision such as: “If the Work is delayed by the failure of or other inability to obtain necessary transportation, fuel, power, materials, machinery, equipment or facilities, delays caused by other contractors, subcontractors or their subcontractors of any tier, or any materialmen or suppliers, contractor shall be entitled to a change order for its costs and time associated with the delay.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Denise Motta, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
Ms. Motta may be contacted at dmotta@grsm.com

---

New Strategy for Deterring Intracorporate Litigation?: Delaware Supreme Court Supports Fee-Shifting Bylaws

May 13, 2014 — Marc Casarino and Lori Smith – White and Williams LLP
A fee-shifting bylaw of a Delaware non-stock corporation is not facially invalid according to the Delaware Supreme Court’s May 8, 2014 opinion in ATP Tour, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund. In this case, ATP Tour, Inc., a non-stock membership corporation (“ATP”) governed by a seven member board, had adopted a bylaw provision which provided that current and former members of ATP would be responsible for the litigation costs arising out of any litigation initiated by any such member against ATP or any of the other members in which the initiating party did not obtain a judgment on the merits that substantially achieved in substance and amount the full remedy sought. The bylaw provision had been adopted, in accordance with ATP’s charter, by the Board unilaterally without any consent from the members. The members had agreed at the time they joined ATP to be bound by the bylaws, as amended from time to time. Two members of ATP initiated a suit against ATP relating to certain actions taken with respect the ATP’s tournament schedule and format alleging both federal antitrust claims and Delaware fiduciary duty claims but did not prevail on any of their claims. ATP then moved to recover its legal fees relating to such actions. Reprinted courtesy of Marc Casarino, White and Williams LLP and Lori Smith, White and Williams LLP Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---