FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

OSHA: What to Expect in 2022

December 20, 2021 — Stephen E. Irving - Construction Executive
COVID-19 created great upheaval throughout the economy and the legal compliance world as well. The pandemic has been a great disruptor and has brought rules, regulations and related agency guidance that have served to overwhelm even the most conscientious and attentive employer. The welcomed arrival of COVID-19 vaccines, and now the perhaps less welcome OSHA vaccine mandate, simply add to an employer’s compliance burden. While OSHA is busy attempting to implement its vaccine/testing mandate, it also has numerous other significant matters in the works of which employers in the construction industry should be aware. These include new rule drafting and several national and regional emphasis programs, which illustrate OSHA’s current priorities. 1. The Vaccine Mandate Pursuant to a directive from President Biden, in October 2021, OSHA issued an emergency temporary standard implementing a mandate for all employers with more than 100 employees. This mandate requires that employees of such employers be vaccinated for COVID-19 or submit to regular testing. OSHA has also expressed interest in issuing a permanent standard and potentially expanding to include smaller employers. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen E. Irving, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement

December 20, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
The Court of Appeals of Washington has struck down a construction defect settlement between a building owner and the companies she hired to repair the siding, among other repairs to bring the building up to code. Yuan Zhang hired Hawk Construction LLC to do repair work. Hawk, in turn, hired Ready Construction LLC for some aspects of the project. Hawk and Ready were both insured by Capital Specialty Insurance Corporation. There were several problems with Ready’s work. After removing old siding, they did not protect the building, nor did they remove all of the damaged layers. Ready covered, but did not fix, a mildew problem under the old siding. When new siding was reattached, the nails used were too short to adequately attach it. After paying for an inspection of the work, Zhang had Hawk and Ready begin the repairs again, but the work was abandoned without being completed. Zhang sued Hawk for breach of contract. Hawk then sued Ready, claiming that “Ready was liable to Hawk to the extent that Hawk was liable to Zhang.” Capitol retained defense for both contractors. Zhang settled with Hawk, in an agreement that gave her “the right to collect and/or pursue all costs and attorney fees paid by Hawk or its insurance company defending against the Zhang’s claims and pursuing claims against Ready.” Subsequently, she also settled with Ready. Both companies ceased operations. Zhang had the settlements reviewed by a court, which concluded that the settlements were reasonable. Capital was allowed to appeal, claiming that the settlement included costs that were Zhang’s responsibility. The appeals court did not examine the question of the reasonableness of the settlement, concluding that Capitol’s interests were relevant only to “questions of bad faith, collusion, and fraud.” In the case of Zhang, the court concluded that the relationship between Zhang and her former contractors was collusive. The court noted that “bad faith or collusion may exist when the evidence indicates a joint effort to create, in a non-adversarial atmosphere, a resolution beneficial to both parties, yet highly prejudicial to the insurer as intervener.” The court noted that both companies had minimal assets which were, in any case, exempted from the agreement. Further, the court found that the agreements failed to determine “what amount of the repairs related to preexisting water damage.” Zhang’s calculation of costs also included her expenses for architectural and engineering services, which the court points out, “where always Zhang’s costs to bear.” The court concluded that “the overall structure of the settlements is highly probative of collusion, fraud, or bad faith.” Zhang’s agreements with Hawk and Ready allowed her to collect compensation from Hawk and then collect Ready’s compensation to Hawk for their portion of the settlement, allowing Zhang to collect the monies twice. Further, she was allowed to pursue Capitol for Hawk’s attorney expenses, even though Hawk had none. “The right to recover Hawk’s fees merely set up a windfall recovery for Zhang.” The court described the agreements among Zhang, Hawk, and Ready as “precisely the type of manipulation [the law] is intended to preclude.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP Expands into Georgia

November 03, 2016 — Beverley BevenFlorez – CDJ Staff
Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP (WSHB) has opened a new regional office in Atlanta, Georgia. Richard E. Zelonka, Jr., will be the Managing Partner. With over a decade of trial experience, Mr. Zelonka has handled complex litigation in both state and federal courts throughout the Southeastern United States. “I am thrilled to be joining Wood Smith Henning & Berman. WSHB’s sterling reputation, coupled with its national footprint, is especially attractive. That, coupled with the Firm’s passionate dedication to their clients, made this move a very easy choice for me,” said Mr. Zelonka. “I could not be more excited to lead WSHB’s new Georgia office.” The Firm’s Atlanta office is located at 1170 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1200, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. The main phone number is (404) 885-5700. The fax number is (404) 506-9108. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Another Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix

January 18, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Here at Construction Law Musings, we’ve discussed the fact that, in Virginia, the “economic loss rule” generally renders claims of fraud and construction contracts like oil and water. This is true in most states, including Florida. What this means is that as a general rule where any party is supposed to perform under a contract, and fails to do so, the Virginia courts will dismiss a fraud claim out of a desire to avoid turning any breach of contract (read “broken promise”) case into a claim for fraud. As you have likely gathered by the title of this post, there are exceptions. One is a properly plead Virginia Consumer Protection Act (“VCPA”) claim. Another, found in a recent Loudoun County, VA Circuit Court opinion in Madison v. Milton Home Systems Inc., is so called fraud in the inducement (in other words, inducing a person to enter the contract under false pretenses). In Madison the Court analyzed several counts based upon a modular home contract and so called “performance agreement” guarantying that the home would be installed by the manufacturer in the event that it’s installer failed to perform. 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

---

AAA Revises its Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures

April 02, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
This one is for the lawyers. Or for those of you who are claims-minded . . . Effective March 1, 2024, the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) revised its Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures. For those involved in construction, this is important since the AAA Rules are the default arbitration rules contained in AIA form contracts and are often the arbitration rules referenced in other construction contracts as well. So, what are the changes?

• General: Fax numbers have gone the way of the Dodo bird and replaced by email addresses for all parties. Also, while already done in practice, preliminary hearings may now be held via videoconference in addition to telephone and in-person (Rule R-23).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Hirer Not Liable Under Privette Doctrine Where Hirer Had Knowledge of Condition, but not that Condition Posed a Concealed Hazard

December 11, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The Privette doctrine, so-called because of a case of the same name, Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 698 (1993), provides a rebuttable presumption that a hirer is not liable for workplace injuries sustained by employees of hired parties. In other words, if a property owner hires a contractor, and one of the contractor’s employees gets injured while working on the property, there is a rebuttable presumption that the property owner is not liable for the employee’s injuries, the rationale being that because the contractor is required to carry workers’ compensation insurance the contractor is in the better position to absorb losses incurred a workplace injury. There are, however, two widely recognized exceptions to the Privette doctrine. The first, is the Hooker exception, again named after a case of the same name, Hooker v. Department of Transportation, 27 Cal.th 198 (2002), which provides that a hirer is liable for injuries to a hired parties’ employees, if the hirer retained control over the work being performed, negligently exercised that control, and the negative exercise of that control contributed to the employee’s injury. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

FAA Seeks Largest Fine Yet on Drones in Near-Miss Crackdown

October 21, 2015 — Alan Levin – Bloomberg
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration is proposing the largest fine to date against a drone operator as the agency cracks down on the booming use of unmanned aircraft in congested skies over populated areas. The FAA said Tuesday it was recommending a $1.9 million penalty against SkyPan International Inc., which made 65 drone flights from 2012 to 2014 in airspace above cities including New York. The company uses drones to photograph the prospective views from Manhattan high rises under construction, according to its website. The action comes as the FAA has struggled to enforce existing rules on drones and attempts to finalize the first regulations allowing small unmanned vehicles to operate commercially. Drone sightings by pilots, including close-calls with airliners, have surged from only a handful a month last year to over 100 per month. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alan Levin, Bloomberg

---

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

---