Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Diggerland, UK’s Construction Equipment Theme Park, is coming to the U.S.

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
This summer, Sahara Sam’s Oasis, located in West Berlin, New Jersey, will open Diggerland Adventure Park, a new 14-acre construction equipment themed amusement park, according to Equipment World. The United Kingdom currently has Diggerlands in four locations: “There, the parks use primarily JCB backhoes, excavators, and skid steers in a variety of ways.” Machines are used as rides, including “Spindizzy, in which an excavator takes a bucket full of people on a 360 degree spin.” Diggerland is currently owned by Allsafety Ltd. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Flood-Threat Assessment Finds Danger Goes Far Beyond U.S. Homes

October 18, 2021 — Leslie Kaufman, Rachael Dottle & Mira Rojanasakul - Bloomberg
If the floods don’t get you, lack of electricity or a swamped hospital might. Nearly a quarter of U.S. critical infrastructure—utilities, airports, police stations and more—is at risk of being inundated by flooding, according to a new report by First Street Foundation, a Brooklyn nonprofit dedicated to making climate risk more visible to the public. Around 25% of national critical infrastructure is at risk. Roughly 14% of Americans’ properties face direct risk from major storms, but the study shows danger extends far from those property lines. Reprinted courtesy of Leslie Kaufman, Bloomberg, Rachael Dottle, Bloomberg and Mira Rojanasakul, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

How to Get Your Bedroom Into the Met Museum

February 23, 2016 — James Tarmy – Bloomberg
A dressing room, i.e., a large closet devoted explicitly to the putting on and taking off of clothing, has just gone on permanent display at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. The room, labeled the Worsham-Rockefeller Dressing Room after its two previous owners, is a dizzying, gilded-age assemblage of competing wallpaper patterns, woodwork, and metal ornament. Still. The Met has one of the largest and most important collections of art in the world: Why did a dressing room end up migrating from a house slated for demolition on West 54th Street to a museum's hallowed halls? And what, for that matter, did every owner of the three-dozen period rooms do to get their homes on display? By narrating the history of the following rooms, three of the Met's curators have helped supply an answer to what it takes to get your bedroom into the Met. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James Tarmy, Bloomberg

Lien Release Bonds – Remove Liens, But Not All Liability

February 20, 2023 — Mia Hughes - ConsensusDocs
Lien Release Bonds – Remove Liens, But Not All Liability Among owners and contractors, payment and performance bonds are commonly used together in an effort to mitigate future risk against derivative subcontractor claims. But what happens when despite the effort to mitigate risk, a derivative claimant nevertheless files a mechanics’ lien on the owner’s real property? Not all hope is lost. There is another classification of bond, a “lien release bond”—also commonly referred to as an indemnity bond or a mechanics’ lien bond—which provides protections for real property after a mechanics’ lien has already been filed. The purpose of a lien release bond is to remove claims against the relevant real property. Notably, a lien release bond does not necessarily eliminate all liability of an owner or a general contractor. In number of states, an owner or a general contractor can be held personally liable for derivative claims despite a valid lien release bond. What is a Lien Release Bond? A lien release bond is a specific type of surety bond that removes an existing mechanics’ lien from an owner’s real property. In an effort to protect real property, an owner, or a general contractor, can obtain a lien release bond that will substitute or take the place of a mechanics’ lien. In the event a lien claimant files suit on the mechanics’ lien and seeks to collect on their claim, any proceeds recovered will come from the lien release bond rather than proceeds from the sale or foreclosure of the real property. The threat of mechanics’ liens is always present on a construction project— it is estimated that over 60,000 mechanics liens were filed in 2021 alone. Lien release bonds are an added layer of protection for an owner’s real property against a pending mechanics’ lien. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mia Hughes, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Hughes may be contacted at mhughes@joneswalker.com

Feds, County Seek Delay in Houston $7B Road Widening Over Community Impact

March 15, 2021 — Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record
The Federal Highway Administration has asked Texas to delay issuing requests for proposals and pause ongoing contracting on a $7-billion, three-phased highway expansion project in metropolitan Houston as it evaluates complaints that up to 1,000 homes and multifamily buildings and 350 businesses would be condemned to build the project. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

May 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

In the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.

First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”

The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”

Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”

The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”

Read the court’s decision…

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

Can You Really Be Liable For a Product You Didn’t Make? In New Jersey, the Answer is Yes

December 14, 2020 — James Burger & Robert Devine - White and Williams LLP
New Jersey has recently expanded liability for product distributors and manufacturers to products that the distributor/manufacturer did not make or sell. This alert discusses this new law and steps that distributors and manufacturers may consider to reduce their potential liability. In Whelan v. Armstrong International, Inc., the New Jersey Supreme Court held that distributors and manufacturers can be strictly liable for injuries caused by replacement parts added after the point of sale which had not been manufactured or sold by any of the defendants in the case. In Whelan, the defendants’ products had originally been sold with asbestos-containing parts. Mr. Whelan, the plaintiff, argued that asbestos-containing replacement parts were required to repair and maintain the products. The court found that because the products were designed with asbestos-containing parts, “[d]efendants had a duty to provide warnings given the foreseeability that third parties would be the source of asbestos-containing replacement components.” (Emphasis added). This reasoning, based on “foreseeability,” should give pause to all product distributors and manufacturers—even those who do not make or sell products that contain asbestos. Certainly distributors and manufacturers of products with asbestos-containing parts must take heed that they may now be liable for replacement parts that they neither manufactured nor sold. This alone is a significant holding that expands potential liability. Reprinted courtesy of James Burger, White and Williams LLP and Robert Devine, White and Williams LLP Mr. Burger may be contacted at burgerj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Legislatures Shouldn’t Try to Do the Courts’ Job

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

David Thamann, writing in Property Casualty 360, argues that current actions by legislatures on insurance coverage amount to “legislative interference or overreach.” He notes that under current Colorado law, “a court shall presume that the work of a construction professional that results in property damage — including damage to the work itself or other work — is an accident unless the property damage is intended and expected by the insured.” He argues that here legislators are stepping into the role of the courts. “Insureds and insurers are not always going to be pleased with a court ruling, but that is the system we have.”

Read the full story…