Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Mortgage Battle Flares as U.K. Homebuying Loses Allure

January 28, 2015 — Neil Callanan and Richard Partington – Bloomberg
U.K. banks, which spent six years repairing their balance sheets after the 2008 property crash, want to advance more credit to homebuyers. Borrowers aren’t as enthusiastic. Cheap funding costs and low default rates have made homebuyers attractive to lenders in recent years, boosting returns for companies such as Nationwide Building Society and Lloyds Banking Group Plc. (LLOY) Now, with demand for property cooling, they’re having to fight harder for business. Interest rates on the most popular mortgages fell to record lows in December, according to the Bank of England. Mr. Callanan may be contacted at ncallanan@bloomberg.net; Mr. Partington may be contacted at rpartington@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Neil Callanan and Richard Partington, Bloomberg

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of A Builder’s Implied Warranty Of Habitability

September 10, 2014 — Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and William L. Doerler – White and Williams LLP
In Conway v. Cutler Group, Inc., -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 4064261 (Pa.), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania addressed the question of whether a subsequent home buyer can recover from a home builder pursuant to the builder’s implied warranty of habitability, a warranty that protects those who purchase a newly constructed home from latent defects. Concluding that a builder’s warranty of habitability is grounded in contract, the Court held that a subsequent purchaser of a previously inhabited home cannot recover damages from a builder-vendor based on the builder-vendor’s breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The Court’s decision leaves unanswered the question of whether a purchaser who is also the first user-purchaser of a new home can pursue a breach of warranty action against a builder with whom the purchaser is not in privity of contract. In Conway, the Cutler Group, Inc. (Cutler) sold a new home to Davey and Holly Fields. The Fields subsequently sold the home to Michael and Deborah Conway. After the Conways discovered water infiltration problems in their home, they filed a one-count complaint against Cutler, alleging that Cutler breached its implied warranty of habitability. In response to the Conways’ complaint, Cutler filed preliminary objections, arguing that the warranty of habitability extends from the builder only to the first purchaser of a newly constructed home. The trial court sustained Cutler’s preliminary objections based on the lack of contractual privity between the parties and the Conways appealed the trial court’s decision. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, stating that the implied warranty of habitability is based on public policy considerations and exists independently of any representations by the builder, and even in the absence of an express contract between the builder and the purchaser. Cutler appealed the Superior Court’s decision to the Supreme Court. To address the question of whether the implied warranty of habitability extends to a subsequent purchaser of a used residence, the Court discussed the history of the implied warranty of habitability in Pennsylvania. As stated by the Court, the Court adopted the implied warranty of habitability in the context of new home sales to reject the traditional doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) because the purchaser of a new home justifiably relies on the skill of the developer. Thus, as between the builder-vendor and the buyer, the builder should bear the risk that the home he builds is habitable and functional. In adopting the doctrine, the Court noted that the doctrine is rooted in the existence of a contract – an agreement of sale – between the builder-vendor and the buyer. Reprinted courtesy of Edward A. Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP and William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

WARN Act Exceptions in Response to COVID-19

April 13, 2020 — Yvette Davis & Kyle R. DiNicola - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
California’s WARN Act requires employers of certain covered establishments to provide 60 days written notice of any mass layoff, relocation, or termination. This notice is required to be given to employees and the Employment Development Department. An employer’s failure to comply with this requirement can result in being held liable for back-pay and value of the cost of any benefits to which the affected employee(s) may have been entitled for up to a maximum of 60 days. Due to the COVID-19 crisis and emergency circumstances in which many employers now find themselves, the Governor of California has issued Executive Order N-31-20, which temporarily suspends the 60-days advance notice requirement and the provisions that impose liability and penalties on an employer for the duration of the COVID-19 emergency. Reprinted courtesy of Yvette Davis, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Kyle R. DiNicola, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com Mr. DiNicola may be contacted at kdinicola@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Sources of Insurance Recovery for Emerging PFAS Claims

December 17, 2024 — Jasjeet K. Sahani - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
This year, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued its first-ever national, legally enforceable drinking water standard to protect communities from exposure to harmful per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), also known as “forever chemicals.”[1] In addition, the Food and Drug Administration announced that grease-proofing materials containing PFAS are no longer being sold for use in food packaging in the United States.[2] These are likely the first in a line of many PFAS regulations that will emerge as the harmful effects of PFAS are further understood. With this increasing regulatory focus on PFAS and their harmful effects, companies whose operations might involve these substances should be aware of what they are and potential sources of recovery for claims that arise from their omnipresence. PFAS Background According to the EPA, PFAS are widely used, long-lasting chemicals which break down slowly over time.[3] PFAS can be found in thousands of items, including, but not limited to: pots and pans, cleaning products, fabric and leather coatings, firefighting foam, carpeting, roofing materials, paints, sealants, caulks, and adhesives.[4] Additionally, manufacturing processes, waste storage, and treatment sites commonly release PFAS into the air, soil, and water.[5] Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jasjeet K. Sahani, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Sahani may be contacted at JSahani@sdvlaw.com

Suffolk Pauses $1.5B Boston Tower Project for Safety Audit After Fire

April 22, 2024 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
The team building the $1.5-billion, 51-story South Station Tower in Boston voluntarily shut down the jobsite April 9 for a safety stand down and audit after a small fire broke out, according to contractor Suffolk Construction. No one was injured. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

An Overview of the New EPA HVAC Refrigerant Regulations and Its Implications for the Construction Industry

September 30, 2024 — Stefanie A. Salomon, Nadia Ennaji & Ali Heyat - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced a series of significant changes to the rules governing the use of refrigerants in heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. These changes, which were promulgated under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act, are designed to phase down the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a class of potent greenhouse gases. The AIM Act: A Game-Changer for HVAC Industry The recent changes to refrigerant regulations by the EPA signify a substantial shift in environmental policy that will have profound implications for the construction industry. For the construction industry, this means a transition to next-generation technologies that do not rely on HFCs. The AIM Act’s sector-based restrictions will affect a wide range of equipment, including refrigeration and air conditioning systems integral to building design and function. Starting January 1, 2025, the manufacturing or importing of any product in specified sectors that uses a regulated substance with a global warming potential of 700 or greater is prohibited (40 C.F.R. § 84.54(a)). The specified sectors listed include R-410A, the most common refrigerant used in the HVAC industry. The installation of systems using a regulated substance with a global warming potential of 700 or greater in specified sectors is allowed until January 1, 2026, provided that all system components are manufactured or imported before January 1, 2025. See 40 C.F.R. § 84.54 (c). “Installation” of an HVAC system is defined as the completion of assembling the system’s circuit, including charging it with a full charge, such that the system can function and is ready for its intended purpose. See 40 C.F.R. § 84.52. Reprinted courtesy of Stefanie A. Salomon, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Nadia Ennaji, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Salomon may be contacted at ssalomon@pecklaw.com Ms. Ennaji may be contacted at nennaji@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Obtaining Temporary Injunction to Enforce Non-Compete Agreement

June 09, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
When a party breaches a non-compete agreement (with a non-solicitation clause), the non-breaching party typically moves for a temporary injunction. The breaching party is the party that signed the non-compete agreement, such as a former employee or consultant that agreed not to solicit its employer’s customer lists or referral sources upon leaving. The non-breaching party or the party moving for the temporary injunction is the party that is looking to protect its trade secret customer lists or referral sources, such as the employer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy

September 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

A summary judgment was affirmed in the case of Brown v. Farmers Group, by the California Court of Appeals. The Browns bought a new home in Oakley, California. At the time, they signed disclosure statement “acknowledging that the area around their home experienced gusty winds and would be in development for years to come, which might result in dust and airborne mold.”

The Browns found an unusual amount of dust in their home, which became worse when they ran their heating and air conditioning system. Shelia Brown was later diagnosed with chronic valley fever, which was attributed to airborne mold. The Browns contacted Farmers which investigated the house. Although the adjustor from Farmers said the Browns would be covered, Farmers denied the claim.

After the Browns moved out of the house, an inspector found that the HVAC line in the attic was disconnected, sending dust into the home. The Browns brought action against Mid-Century Insurance, which managed the policy, and Farmers. The identified the HVAC defect, window problems, and valley fever as causes, suing for breach of contact, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The court rejected all these claims. The policy with Farmers excluded losses due to defective construction. This ruled out the faulty HVAC system and any problems there might have been from the windows. The policy also specifically excluded losses from contamination, fungi, pathogens, and noxious substances. The court further found that the adjustor’s opinion was irrelevant to the question of what the policy actually covered. Finally, the court found no evidence of intentional infliction of emotional stress.

On review, the appeals court upheld the trial court’s conclusions and affirmed the summary judgment.

Read the court’s decision…

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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES