Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Seattle’s Tallest Tower Said Readying to Go On the Market

March 12, 2015 — Hui-yong Yu – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- Seattle’s Columbia Center, the curved black office tower that’s the city’s tallest building, is poised to go on the market as its owners seek to tap into robust demand for U.S. real estate. Beacon Capital Partners, a Boston-based private-equity real estate company, is working with Eastdil Secured LLC on the sale of the 76-story Columbia Center, the second-tallest U.S. building west of Chicago, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. Formal marketing is likely to begin in coming months, said the person, who asked not to be identified because the process is private. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hui-yong Yu, Bloomberg
Ms. Yu may be contacted at hyu@bloomberg.net

New York Office Secures Appellate Win in Labor Law 240(1) Fall in Basement Accident Case

March 20, 2023 — Nicholas P. Hurzeler & Gregory S. Katz - Lewis Brisbois
New York, N.Y. (March 14, 2023) – New York Appellate Partner Nicholas P. Hurzeler and Managing Partner Gregory S. Katz recently prevailed when the New York Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the dismissal of a Labor Law 240(1) claim involving an accident that occurred in the basement of a house under construction. Balfe v. Graham, ___ AD3d ___ (2d Dept. 2023), decided March 8, 2023. In this matter, the plaintiff was installing ductwork in the basement of a house that had been stripped down to its foundation when he stepped backwards into an open hole that had been dug out of a concrete floor to accommodate the installation of an ejector pump. The lower court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim based on Labor Law 240(1), and he appealed. The plaintiff argued that he fell into an unprotected opening that should have been covered or barricaded. He further claimed the accident qualifies as a typical “falling worker” case within the scope of Labor Law 240(1), citing the depth of the hole needed to accommodate the ejector pump, and the size of the pump. Under the case law, a worker who falls into an uncovered opening on a construction site will typically be covered by Labor Law 240(1). Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas P. Hurzeler, Lewis Brisbois and Gregory S. Katz, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Katz may be contacted at Greg.Katz@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Hurzeler may be contacted at Nicholas.Hurzeler@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Injury to Employees Endorsement Eliminates Coverage for Insured Employer

February 01, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court granted summary judgment to the insurer based upon an endorsement which barred coverage for injuries to employees. Northfield Ins. Co. v. Z&J Mgt. LLC, 2020 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 10801 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 18, 2020). Ravi Sooklal sued his employer, Z&J Management LLC (Z&J), for injuries at the job site. Northfield, who had issued a CGL policy to Z&L, denied coverage based upon two endorsements. The first was titled "Injury to Employees of Insureds" and the second was "Employers' Liability." Northfield sued for a declaratory judgment and now moved for summary judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Beginning of the 2020 Colorado Legislative Session: Here We Go Again

February 10, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
The 2020 Colorado legislative session started on Wednesday, January 8th. It seems like there will be plenty of issues this year to which home builders will want to pay close attention. On January 13th, Senators Fenberg, Foote, and Jackson sponsored SB 20-093, known as the “Consumer and Employee Dispute Resolution Fairness Act.”

Prohibits the waiver of standards for and challenges for evident partiality prior to a claim being filed and requires any waiver of such provisions after the claim is filed to be in writing;
Provides that the right of a party to challenge an arbitrator based on evident partiality is waived if not raised within a reasonable time of learning of the information leading to the challenge but that such right is not waived if caused by the opposing party;
Establishes ethical standards for arbitrators; and
Requires specified public disclosures by arbitration services providers but includes protections for certain confidential information.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement

June 18, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Hartford Casualty Ins. v. Swift Distribution (No. S207172, filed 6/12/14), the California Supreme Court affirmed a 2012 appeals court holding that there is no advertising injury coverage on a theory of trade disparagement if the competitor's advertisements do not expressly refer to the plaintiff's product and do not disparage the plaintiff's product or business. In doing so, the Supreme Court expressly disapproved Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 969 ("Charlotte Russe"), which held that coverage could be triggered for "implied disparagement" by allegations that a retailer's heavy discounts on a manufacturer's premium apparel suggest to consumers that the manufacturer's products are of inferior quality. In Hartford v. Swift the plaintiff, Dahl, held a patent for the "Multi-Cart," a collapsible cart that could be manipulated into different configurations. When Dahl's competitor Ultimate began marketing the "Ulti-Cart," Dahl sued alleging that Ultimate impermissibly manufactured, marketed, and sold the Ulti-Cart, which infringed patents and trademarks for Multi-Cart and diluted Dahl's trademark. Dahl alleged patent and trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution of a famous mark, and misleading advertising arising from Ultimate's sale of Ulti-Carts. However, the advertisements for Ulti-Cart did not name the Multi-Cart, Dahl, or any other products beside the Ulti-Cart. 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

D.C. Decision Finding No “Direct Physical Loss” for COVID-19 Closures Is Not Without Severe Limitations

August 24, 2020 — Michael S. Levine & Michael L. Huggins - Hunton Andrews Kurth
On August 6, 2020, in Rose’s 1 LLC, et al. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Civ. Case No. 2020 CA 002424 B, a District of Columbia trial court found in favor of an insurer on cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether COVID-19 closure orders constitute a “direct physical loss” under a commercial property policy. At its core, the decision ignores key arguments raised in the summary judgment briefing and is narrowly premised on certain dictionary definitions of the terms, “direct,” “physical,” and “loss.” Relying almost entirely on those definitions – each supplied by the insureds in their opening brief – the court set the stage for its ultimate conclusion by finding “direct” to mean “without intervening persons, conditions, or agencies; immediate”; and “physical” to mean “of or pertaining to matter ….” The court then apparently accepted the policy’s circular definition of “loss” as meaning “direct and accidental loss of or damage to covered property.” Importantly, however, despite recognizing the fundamental rule of insurance policy construction that the court “must interpret the contract ‘as a whole, giving reasonable, lawful, and effective meaning to all its terms, and ascertaining the meaning in light of all the circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made,’” the court apparently ignored the insureds’ argument that the term “property damage” is specifically defined in the policy to include “loss of use” without any specific reference to physical or tangible damage. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Port Authority Reaches Deal on Silverstein 3 World Trade

June 26, 2014 — David M. Levitt – Bloomberg
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey approved a financing agreement for Larry Silverstein’s 3 World Trade Center that allows him to use $159 million of insurance proceeds to expedite construction. The agreement, which alters a 2010 deal on the project, follows about a year of negotiations and provides Silverstein with far less than the $1.2 billion of loan guarantees he sought under a previous plan that had been opposed by some board members. Silverstein plans to seek private financing to complete construction on the tower, which is stalled at eight floors. The Port Authority, which owns the Trade Center site, unanimously approved the alterations to the agreement at a meeting today. The new deal meets the criteria of not creating additional debt for the agency, said Commissioner Kenneth Lipper, who led opposition to the loan guarantee, viewing it as too risky and a threat to the authority’s credit rating. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Levitt, Bloomberg
Mr. Levitt may be contacted at dlevitt@bloomberg.net

Summary Judgment Granted to Insurer for Hurricane Damage

January 24, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's motion for summary judgment, contending there was no coverage for hurricane damage, was granted. Laurence v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227807 (S.D. Texas Nov. 29, 2021). When Hurricane Harvey hit, Mike Laurence held a homeowner's policy from Liberty Insurance Corporation and a contractor policy for his business, Pride Plumbing, Inc., issued by State Farm Lloyds. Laurence's property suffered water damage during the storm. State Farm investigated and concluded that all but a small amount, within the policy's deductible, was from flood damage and excluded. Laurence sued. The property covered by the State Farm policy included Laurence's home, Pride Plumbing's office and two sheds. Pride Pluming did not own or lease any of the buildings on the property. Laurence testified in his deposition that the only damage to his property not caused by flood water was to three buildings from fallen tree limbs and equipment from his business. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES