Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

David M. McLain, Esq. to Speak at the 2014 CLM Claims College

August 13, 2014 — David M. McLain, Esq. – Colorado Construction Litigation
David McLain will be a speaker at the School of Construction. The Claims College will be held from September 7-10 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Mr. McLain is a founding member of Higgins, Hopkins,McLain & Roswell, LLC, a firm which specializes in construction law and construction litigation throughout Colorado. Mr. McLain received his undergraduate degree from Colorado State University, graduating cum laude, and his law degree from the University of Denver, College of Law. Mr. McLain completed the Claims and Litigation Management Alliance Litigation Management Institute, earning the designation from that organization as a Certified Litigation Management Professional. He has a general civil litigation practice with an emphasis on the defense of complex construction lawsuits on behalf of developers and general contractors. As a result of the experience gained by defending some of Colorado’s largest residential construction defect lawsuits, developers, general contractors, and subcontractors seek out Mr. McLain to consult on risk avoidance and risk management strategies. Currently among his clients are several of the state’s largest home builders, regional and custom builders, and numerous insurance carriers. Mr. McLain is an AV® Preeminent™ Peer Review Rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell and is a regular speaker at local, regional, and national seminars regarding construction defect litigation in Colorado. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Policyholder Can “Stack” the Limits of Each Primary Policy After Asbestos Claim

December 19, 2018 — Michael S. Levine & Alexander D. Russo - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A Georgia Court of Appeals judge recently ruled that Scapa Dryer Fabrics was entitled to $17.4 million worth of primary coverage from National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA for claims of injurious exposure to Scapa’s asbestos-containing dryer felts. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc., No. A18A1173, 2018 WL 5306693, at *1 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2018). Scapa sought coverage under five National Union policies issued from 1983–1987. The 1983, 1984 and 1985 National Union policies had limits of $1 million per occurrence and $1 million in the aggregate. The liability limits for the 1986 and 1987 renewal policies were amended by endorsement to $7.2 million. Scapa sought to recover the full $17.4 million from all five policies. National Union argued that a “Non-Cumulative Limits of Liability Endorsement” in the 1986 and 1987 policies limited Scapa’s recovery to only $7.2 million. Scapa sued National Union and its sister company, New Hampshire Insurance Company (from which Scapa purchased excess liability coverage), in Georgia state court. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Alexander D. Russo, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Russo may be contacted at arusso@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Meet the Forum's ADR Neutrals: LESLIE KING O'NEAL

January 29, 2024 — Marissa L. Downs - The Dispute Resolver
Company: JAMS Office Location: Orlando, FL Email: lkoneal1117@gmail.com Website: https://www.jamsadr.com/oneal/ Law School: University of Florida, J.D. (1977) Types of ADR services offered: Mediation, arbitration, neutral evaluation Geographic area served: Nationwide Q: Describe the path you took to becoming an ADR neutral. A: Florida was one of the first states to allow judges to send civil cases to mediation. When I was an advocate, nearly all my cases went to mediation at least once—sometimes more than once! I became a firm believer in the value of mediation and other ADR methods. I became a Florida certified circuit court mediator in 2021 and I joined JAMS in 2022, after retiring as in-house counsel with Brasfield & Gorrie, a large commercial general contractor. I am also an adjunct professor at Pepperdine Law School, teaching arbitration theory and practice in its master of dispute resolution and master of laws programs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLP
Ms. Downs may be contacted at mdowns@lauriebrennan.com

Making the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive, Part 2

July 16, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
John P. Ahler, on the Ahlers & Cressman PLLC blog, has posted the second part of his two-part series on Ways to Make the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive. In this post, Ahler discussed “tips on how lawyers and stakeholders can make things move quicker in arbitration.” For example, Ahler looked at the arbitration clause in the initial contract, various options for arbitration, evidence decisions, and others. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Not so Fast – Florida’s Legislature Overrules Gindel’s Pre-Suit Notice/Tolling Decision Related to the Construction Defect Statute of Repose

May 11, 2020 — Rahul Gogineni - The Subrogation Strategist
As discussed in a prior blog post, in Gindel v. Centex Homes, 2018 Fla.App. LEXIS 13019, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal held that when the plaintiffs provided a pre-suit notice in compliance with §558.004 of Florida’s construction defect Right-to-Cure statute, Fla. Stat. §§ 558.001 to 558.005, et. seq., they commenced a “civil action or proceeding,” i.e. an “action,” within the meaning of Florida’s construction defect Statute of Repose, Florida Statue § 95.11(3)(c). Thus, the court held that the plaintiffs commenced their action prior to the time Florida’s 10-year statute of repose period ended. In overturning the lower court’s dismissal of the action, the court found that because the Right-to-Cure statute, §558 of the Florida Statutes, sets out a series of mandatory steps that must be taken prior to bringing a judicial action, filing pre-suit notice of claim sufficiently constituted an “action” for purposes of Florida’s Statute of Repose. For various reasons, the parties appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Florida. In July of 2019, before the Florida Supreme Court could decide whether to hear the case, the Florida legislature passed legislation that effectively overruled the decision. To overrule the decision, the Florida Legislature modified § 558.004 of Florida’s Right-to-Cure statute to expressly state that a notice of claim served pursuant to the Right-to-Cure statute does not toll the 10-year statute of repose period for construction claims. See Fla. Stat. § 558.004(d). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

PSA: Latest Updates from AGC-VA on COVID Rules (UPDATED)

June 14, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
The recent changes in masking requirements and COVID-related restrictions have prompted questions and concerns throughout the construction industry. We understand your questions and continue to work closely with the Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI) and the Safety and Health Codes Board. Here is what we know at this point:

The Governor’s second order terminates the state of public emergency as of May 28, 2021. At that point, the DOLI Safety and Health Codes Board will have 2 weeks to meet and decide whether to rescind, modify, or continue the Final Permanent Standard for Prevention of Covid-19. Companies should continue to follow the standard until further notice.
UPDATE: At present, the emergency order does not expire before June 30, unless amended or otherwise changed. Therefore, the two-week period to announce a meeting of the SCHB to review the permanent COVID-19 standard does not begin until July 1, though the meeting can occur after the two-week period. AGCVA has joined other groups in pushing for a meeting as soon as possible.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

What You Need to Know About Enforcement Actions by the Contractors State License Board

April 15, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
I questioned whether to even write this post. Because, of course, YOU would never find yourself hightailing it out of town with the California Contractor’s State License Board (“CSLB”) sniffing down your tail pipes. Then again, mistaken identities occur all the time. So, here’s what you need to know if the CSLB mistakes you for one of “those” contractors. What violations are subject to CSLB enforcement actions? The CSLB can take enforcement actions based on any one of numerous violations set forth under the California Business and Professions Code (“B&P Code”), including: 1. B&P Code §7107: Abandonment of a construction project or operation without legal excuse. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Three-Year Delay Not “Prompt Notice,” But Insurer Not “Appreciably Prejudiced” Either, New Jersey Court Holds

November 04, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
In Harleysville Preferred Insurance Company v. East Coast Painting & Maintenance, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135295 (D.N.J. Aug. 12, 2019) (East Coast Painting), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that an insurer, which received notice of a bodily injury accident three years after it happened, was not “appreciably prejudiced” by such late notice, even as the court acknowledged notice three years later did not satisfy the policy’s “prompt notice” condition. The court also held that the policy’s “Operational Exclusion,” which excluded coverage for bodily injury arising out of the operation of “cherry pickers and similar devices,” did not apply because the accident arose out of the use of a “scissor lift,” which is not a device similar to a cherry picker. East Coast Painting arose out of a Queens, New York bridge-painting project, during which an employee of the insured, East Coast Painting and Maintenance LLC was injured while “standing on a scissor lift mounted to the back of a truck,” owned and operated by East Coast. The employee sued various project-related entities which, in turn, joined East Coast as a defendant. East Coast sought coverage under its business auto policy, and the insurer agreed to defend the insured under a reservation of rights. The insurer subsequently sought a declaration that it did not owe coverage based on, among other things, the policy’s “Operational Exclusion,” and the insured’s failure to satisfy the policy’s “prompt notice” condition. The insurer moved for summary judgment on both of those bases, but the court in East Coast Painting denied the motion. As for the insurer’s “prompt notice” defense, the court in East Coast Painting concluded that, the insured’s notice to the insurer was not prompt because it did not receive notice until three years after the accident. But, the court added, the inquiry does not end there. “[T]his Court must determine whether [the insurer] was appreciably prejudiced by that delay.” Reviewing the facts, the court held that the insurer was not “appreciably prejudiced,” even though during the three-year delay the lift truck was “not properly maintained” or “in the same condition it was at the time of the Accident.” The court observed that the insurer had “ample other evidence with which it can defend itself,” such as experts who inspected the lift truck and opined about the cause of the accident.” [Emphasis added.] Further, “there are multiple contemporaneous accident reports,” “a list of the East Coast employees on site at the time,” “photographs of the lift truck and its location when [the employee] was injured,” and “depositions of [the employee] and others regarding the events at issue.” Thus, the court held, the insurer was not prejudiced and summary judgment was inappropriate. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES