Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Seattle’s Newest Residential Developer

March 13, 2023 — Michael J. Yelle - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
On February 14, 2023, Seattle voters passed Initiative 135, creating the “Seattle Social Housing Developer” (“Public Developer” or “PD”) and the initiative was signed into law by Mayor Bruce Harrel on March 1, 2023.[1] With this initiative, voters created Seattle’s newest housing developer. The PD aims to develop, own, and maintain housing in the City of Seattle.[2] In addition, the PD also intends to retrofit acquired properties to increase energy efficiency and bring them into compliance with accessibility standards.[3] Contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers may see this as an opportunity to compete for and build everything from new multi-unit housing to handrail installation projects. This post will explore some of the basics of contracting with a public corporation like the Public Developer and what contractors may want to consider in their business planning. What is the PD? The Public Developer is a political subdivision of the State of Washington, like a port or fire district.[4] The Public Developer is not an agency or department of the City of Seattle. In this way, it is like Seattle Public Schools (SPS) because both SPS and the PD operate within the City of Seattle, but have (or will have) their own staff, procurement rules, and standard contracts distinct from the City’s. Like SPS, the PD can also enter construction and supply contracts, sue, and be sued. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Yelle, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight

John Boyden, Alison Kertis Named “Top Rank Attorneys” by Nevada Business Magazine

July 25, 2022 — John Boyden & Alison Kertis - Lewis Brisbois
Reno, Nev. (June 16, 2022) – Reno Partner John Boyden and Associate Alison Kertis were recently named to Nevada Business Magazine's 2022 list of "Top Rank Attorneys." Formerly known as "Legal Elite," this annual list represents the top talent in the legal industry across the State of Nevada. According to Nevada Business Magazine, thousands of attorneys are nominated for the list and then scored based on the number and type of votes they receive, with votes from outside an attorney's firm receiving more weight. Finally, before being added to the list, the attorneys, and the votes they receive, go through several levels of verification and scrutiny, with each ballot individually reviewed for eligibility and every voting attorney verified with the State Bar of Nevada. The magazine has published this list for the past 15 years. Reprinted courtesy of John Boyden, Lewis Brisbois and Alison Kertis, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Boyden may be contacted at John.Boyden@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Kertis may be contacted at Alison.Kertis@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Proving Impacts to Critical Path to Defeat Liquidated Damages Assessment

December 16, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When a contractor is staring down the barrel of an owner’s assessment of liquidated damages, the burden will fall on the contractor to establish that the delay was attributable to the owner and the owner’s agents. The contractor will want to do this not only to defeat the assessment of liquidated damages, but because it will want to establish that the delay caused it to incur extended field overhead (general conditions) for which the owner is responsible. A contractor supports its burden by proving the impacts to its critical path. “In general, proving an allegation of government-caused delays without a means of showing the critical path is a steep prospect.” James Talcott Construction v. U.S., 2019 WL 1040383, *8 (Fed. Cl. 2019) (unreported opinion) (finding that because contractor did NOT present a critical path analysis it could not support its claim for delay caused by the government). Avoiding the assessment of liquidated damages means the contractor needs to support that it encountered excusable delay and it is/was entitled to an extension of time to complete the project. 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

Supreme Court Rejects “Wholly Groundless” Exception to Question of Arbitrability

February 06, 2019 — Justin Fortescue - White and Williams LLP
In newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s first opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that the “wholly groundless” exception to arbitrability, which some federal courts had relied on as justification to decide questions of arbitrability over the express terms of a contract, was inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent. Based on this decision, where a contract delegates the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator, courts must respect the parties’ contract and refer the question to the arbitrator. Schein v. Archer & White, 586 U.S. __ (2019). In Schein, Archer & White brought a lawsuit against Henry Schein alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws and seeking both monetary damages and injunctive relief. The relevant contract between the parties contained an arbitration provision that provided:

“Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief . . .) shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Justin Fortescue, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com

White and Williams Announces the Election of Five Lawyers to the Partnership and the Promotion of Five Associates to Counsel

February 16, 2016 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams is proud to announce that Meredith Bieber, Eric Hermanson, Timothy Martin, Brian Tetro and Debra Weinrich have been elected to the partnership. The firm has also promoted Alan Charkey, Michael DiFebbo, William Doerler, Justin Fortescue and Stephen Milewski from associate to counsel. The newly elected partners and promoted counsel represent the wide array of practices that White and Williams offers its clients, including construction, finance, healthcare, insurance coverage, product liability, real estate, reinsurance, and subrogation. These accomplished lawyers have earned this elevation based on their contributions to the firm and their practices. “We are delighted to elect these five lawyers to the partnership and promote five exceptional associates to counsel. Those included in these promotions represent the breadth of services and the deep bench that we have to offer at White and Williams,” said Patti Santelle, Managing Partner of the firm. “The election of our new partners and promotion of our new counsel is a reflection of their success and dedication as well as the continued health of the firm.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

Insurer Must Produce Documents After Failing To Show They Are Confidential

January 19, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Colorado Supreme Court ordered the insurer to produce documents after failing to demonstrate the documents contained were trade secrets. In Re Rumnock v. Anschutz, 2016 Colo. LEXIS 1228 (Colo. Dec. 5, 2016). Stephen Rumnock was involved in an auto accident with an uninsured driver. Rumnock brought negligence claims against the driver and uninsured/underinsured motorist claims against his insurers, including American Family Insurance Company. American Family initially refused to pay benefits, but eventually paid him policy limits. Rumnock then amended his complaint to add bad faith and abuse of process claims against American Family. 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

A Trio of Environmental Decisions from the Fourth Circuit

August 28, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Within the past few weeks, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has issued some very significant rulings regarding the construction of new natural gas pipelines. These cases are Berkley, et al. v. Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, decided July 25; Sierra Club, Inc., et al., v. U.S. Forest Service, The Wilderness Society, et al., v. U.S. Forest Service, and Sierra Club, Inc. et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, decided July 27, 2018; and Sierra Club v. U.S. Department of the Interior and Defenders of Wildlife, et al., v. U.S. Department of the Interior, decided August 6, 2018. The first two cases involve the Mountain Valley Pipeline, and the last case involves the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Expert Medical Science Causation Testimony Improperly Excluded under Daubert; ID of Sole Cause of Medical Condition Not Required

April 15, 2014 — R. Bryan Martin & Whitney L. Stefko - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On April 4, 2014, in Messick v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Defendant Pharmaceutical Corporation because the district court improperly excluded expert testimony. The three-judge panel held that the district court erred by excluding causation testimony offered by Plaintiff's expert it found to be irrelevant and unreliable. Plaintiff was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000. In response to her development of osteoporosis after chemotherapy, Plaintiff treated with the drug Zometa for several months in 2002. Zometa is a bisphosphonate, a class of drug commonly used to treat multiple myeloma. Such drugs are generally used to reduce or eliminate the possibility of skeletal-related degeneration and injuries to which cancer patients are particularly susceptible. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation produces Zometa, which was approved by the FDA in 2001 and 2002. In 2005 after encountering issues with her jaw, it was discovered that Plaintiff had osteonecrosis near three of her teeth. The oral specialists treating Plaintiff did so under the assumption that she was suffering from bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw ("BRONJ"), a condition recognized by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons ("AAOMS"). Plaintiff's BRONJ healed in 2008 - three years after beginning treatment. Thereafter, Plaintiff brought suit against Novartis for strict products liability, negligent manufacture, negligent failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranty, and loss of consortium. In support of her claims, Plaintiff offered her expert's testimony on ONJ and BRONJ, and on the causal link between plaintiff's bisphosphonate treatment and later development of BRONJ. Novartis filed a Daubert motion to exclude the specific causation testimony of Plaintiff's experts and a motion seeking summary judgment. The district court granted both motions on the basis that Plaintiff's expert testimony was irrelevant and unreliable. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES