Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Best Lawyers® Recognizes 38 White and Williams Lawyers

September 13, 2021 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams is proud to announce that 30 lawyers were recognized in the 2022 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® 2022 and eight were recognized as “Ones to Watch.” Inclusion in Best Lawyers® is based entirely on peer-review. The methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Fixing the Problem – Not the Blame

November 30, 2016 — Curtis W. Martin – Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Bulletin
Who is responsible for defective design under Texas law? The contractor, under Lonergan? The owner, under Spearin? A recent Fifth Circuit decision suggests that in some cases this might be the wrong question when design responsibility is disputed. The appellate court recently remanded a case back to the district court to determine whether the contractor or owner breached an implied duty to cooperate in discovering defects in design and subsequently pricing the change required to correct the problem. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Curtis W. Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com

On to Year Thirteen for Blog

January 13, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Insurance Law Hawaii hits twelve years of existence this week, 1347 posts later. We started in December 2007. We continue in order to keep up on developing issues in insurance law. We strive to keep readers abreast of new developments in cases from Hawaii and across the country. Other Damon Key blogs to check out are inversecomdemnation.com [here] authored by Robert Thomas, Mark Murakami's oceanlawhawaii.com [here] and hawaiiconstructionlaw.com [here] by Anna Oshiro. 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

Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys

April 28, 2014 — David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In conflict with an earlier decision by a different division within the same District, and with a prior decision of another District which followed the earlier case, Division Three of the Second Appellate District has concluded, contrary to established precedent, that the general two-year limitations period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 (“Section 335.1”) applies to malicious prosecution claims against attorneys, rather than the specific one-year statute of limitations for claims against attorneys codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 (“Section 340.6”). In Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC (filed April 15, 2014, Case No. B237424, consolidated with Case No. B239375), Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. (“Cleveland Golf”), filed a malicious prosecution action against Krane & Smith (“the Attorneys”), who had unsuccessfully prosecuted the underlying breach of contract matter for their client against Cleveland Golf. In that action, on April 26, 2010, the trial court entered its order granting a motion for nonsuit and dismissing the complaint in favor of Cleveland Golf. On May 24, 2011, or approximately 13 months after the trial court had dismissed the underlying complaint, Cleveland Golf commenced a malicious prosecution action against the Attorneys. In the interim, the Attorneys initiated an appeal of the underlying judgment, which was eventually dismissed approximately seven months later. In response to the complaint, the Attorneys filed a special motion to strike, commonly referred to as an anti-SLAPP motion, which included the argument that the malicious prosecution claim was time-barred under the one-year limitations period of Section 340.6. The trial court granted the Attorneys’ motion based on the statute of limitations (and Cleveland Golf’s failure to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits) and dismissed the case. Cleveland Golf’s appeal followed. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Subsequent Owners of Homes Again Have Right to Sue Builders for Construction Defects

October 07, 2016 — Mark L. Parisi – White and Williams LLP
Owners of homes with damage from construction defects have long had the standing to sue the builders of their homes using the legal theories of 1) breach of contract, 2) breach of implied warranty, and 3) breach of Pennsylvania’s consumer fraud statute, the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). Before the 2014 decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Conway v. Cutler, even owners who were not the original purchasers of their homes, so-called subsequent owners, had a right to sue the builder of their homes using implied warranty as the legal theory. But the Supreme Court in Conway said in 2014 that even though an implied warranty theory is not based on a written contract, it is a quasi contract theory and because subsequent owners never had a contractual relationship with the builder of their home, the implied warranty cause of action was not available. Subsequent purchasers were thus left without a remedy for damage from defective construction in their homes and builders had a second safe harbor from claims regarding homes they built. The first safe harbor is Pennsylvania’s Statute of Repose. If the home was completed more than 12 years before a lawsuit was filed, the Statute of Repose bars the claim. But after Conway, if the home was sold, this also cut off a builder’s potential liability for construction defects in the home. ENTER THE UTPCPL On July 26, 2016 the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Adams v. Hellings Builders issued a non-published (and therefore non-precedential) decision in a stucco construction defect case that held that subsequent purchasers could sue their home’s builder under the UTPCPL because the Act had no requirement that the purchaser of a product, or home, be the original purchaser. The decision cites several other appellate cases not involving construction defect claims that held that the UTPCPL was a valid legal theory for claims regarding products purchased second hand by the plaintiffs in those other cases. The court in Adams held that there was no reason that a suit regarding construction defects in a home should be treated any differently. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mark L. Parisi, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Parisi may be contacted at parisim@whiteandwilliams.com

Beyond the Statute: How the Colorado Court Upheld Modified Accrual in Construction Contracts

November 13, 2023 — Hal Baker - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
In a case of first impression, the First Division of the Colorado Court of Appeals recently reviewed whether parties may contractually alter the accrual time established by Colorado’s statute of limitations for construction defect actions, C.R.S. § 13-80-104, in South Conejos Sch. Dist. RE-10 v. Wold Architects, Inc., 2023 COA 85 (2023), decided on September 21, 2023. The Court held that sophisticated parties may contractually alter the accrual time standards, enlarging the accrual time as was the issue in this case. Notably, the Court’s decision was made in the context of commercial construction, not residential. The issue in South Conejos Sch. Dist. RE-10 arose from the construction of a school in Antonito, Colorado. Prior to construction, the South Conejos School District RE-10 (the “School District”) and Wold Architects, Inc. (“Wold”) entered a contract that provided: Unless a longer period is provided by law, any action against [Wold] brought to recover damages for deficiency in the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction or observation of construction or for injury to person or property shall be brought within two years after the claim for relief arises and is discovered by [the District]; … “Discovered” as used herein means detection and knowledge by [the District] of the defect in the improvement that ultimately causes the injury, when such defect is of a substantial or significant nature. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hal Baker, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Baker may be contacted at baker@hhmrlaw.com

Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Owner’s Claims Based on Contractual One-Year Claims Limitations Period

October 04, 2021 — Cassidy Ingram - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
In a recent unpublished decision – Tadych v. Noble Ridge Construction, Inc.– the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division One, held that a one-year contractual claim limitations clause was valid and enforceable. The Tadych decision is important because it reiterates the strict approach courts will take to a claim limitations clause less than the statutory six years for breach of contract claims prescribed by RCW 4.16.040(1). In other words, when the parties agree to shorten the limitations period, the agreement will be enforced barring any procedural or substantive unconscionability. In Tadych, plaintiff owners (the Tadychs) contracted with defendant contractor (Noble Ridge Construction, Inc., or NRC) for the construction of a custom home in 2012. The contract provided a one-year claim limitations clause in which claims could be raised, and that all claims not raised in the one-year period would be waived. In December 2013, as the project neared completion, the Tadychs met with NRC to identify any outstanding project issues. The Tadychs noted several, including rainwater pools at the landing at the bottom of the stairs and several nicks and cracks on the stucco exterior walls. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Cassidy Ingram, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Ms. Ingram may be contacted at cassidy.ingram@acslawyers.com

More Musings From the Mediation Trenches

July 30, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
As those that read this construction blog on a regular basis know, I became a Virginia Supreme Court certified mediator a few years ago. I did so because I believe that mediation as a form of alternate dispute resolution is in most cases a much better alternative to resolve a construction dispute than litigation. While I still act as counsel to construction companies participating in mediations (and have posted my thoughts on this topic on numerous occasions), working with the General District Courts of Virginia and acting as a mediator for private disputes has given me an interesting perspective on how the flexibility and process of mediation can resolve disputes in a way that formal court litigation or other forms of ADR may not. After almost 4 years of working with the general district courts here in Virginia and working with private companies and individuals to resolve their disputes, I have come to the conclusion that often the real issue is not the money (though that is the big one) but some other intangible issue, whether an emotional one or some conflict of personality or even what may seem in hindsight to be a minor miscommunication. Because of this fact of life, and the life of a mediator, the ability to “vent” in the confidential setting of a mediation and in a way that no Court with rules of evidence could allow can go a long way toward a resolution of the dispute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES