Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Trio of White and Williams Attorneys Named Top Lawyers by Delaware Today

January 06, 2020 — John Balaguer, FACTL, Stephen Milewski, & Dana Monzo - White and Williams
White and Williams is pleased to announce that John Balaguer, Managing Partner of the Wilmington office, Partner Stephen Milewski, and Counsel Dana Spring Monzo have been chosen by their peers as Delaware Today's 2019 "Top Lawyers." The annual list recognizes John, Steve and Dana in the practice area of Medical Malpractice, Defense. Delaware Today conducts an annual survey of the 4,900 members of the Delaware State Bar Association to identify top lawyers in specific practice areas. The magazine’s editors compile the results to create the annual Top Lawyers list, which is published in the November issue. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys John Balaguer, Stephen Milewski and Dana Monzo Mr. Balaguer may be contacted at balaguerj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Milewski may be contacted at milewskis@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Monzo may be contacted at monzod@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

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

Mediating Contract Claims and Disputes at the ASBCA

December 20, 2021 — Brian Waagner - Construction Executive
The Contract Disputes Act establishes the formal process for resolving nearly all claims and disputes that arise under federal government contracts. It is the source of the requirement that contractors certify claims in excess of $100,000, the contracting officer’s final decision and the deadlines for bringing a dispute to the court of federal claims or an agency board of contract appeals. It is also the source of the federal government’s authority to use mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution. Here are six key factors contractors should know about mediating contract claims and disputes at the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA). 1. The Parties Control the Parameters of ADR Proceedings Many commercial contracts and court rules require mediation of every dispute. There is no settlement meeting, mediation or any other type of mandatory ADR proceedings in cases brought to the ASBCA. The parties control the process, and they may adopt any approach to ADR that they believe will be effective. Mediation is nevertheless voluntary. Without the agreement of both parties, it won’t happen. Reprinted courtesy of Brian Waagner, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Admissibility of Expert Opinions in Insurance Bad Faith Trials

November 04, 2019 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
In 2010, Hansen Construction was sued for construction defects and was defended by three separate insurance carriers pursuant to various primary CGL insurance policies.[i] One of Hansen’s primary carriers, Maxum Indemnity Company, issued two primary policies, one from 2006-2007 and one from 2007-2008. Everest National Insurance Company issued a single excess liability policy for the 2007-2008 policy year, and which was to drop down and provide additional coverage should the 2007-2008 Maxum policy become exhausted. In November 2010, Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primarily policy but agreed to defend under the 2006-2007 primarily policy. When Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primary policy, Everest National Insurance denied under its excess liability policy. In 2016, pursuant to a settlement agreement between Hansen Construction and Maxum, Maxum retroactively reallocated funds it owed to Hansen Construction from the 2006-2007 Maxum primary policy to the 2007-2008 Maxum primary policy, which became exhausted by the payment. Thereafter, Hansen Construction demanded coverage from Everest National, which continued to deny the claim. Hansen Construction then sued Everest National for, among other things, bad faith breach of contract. In the bad faith action, both parties retained experts to testify at trial regarding insurance industry standards of care and whether Everest National’s conduct in handling Hansen Construction’s claim was reasonable. Both parties sought to strike the other’s expert testimony as improper and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Florida Supreme Court Adopts Federal Summary Judgment Standard, Substantially Conforming Florida’s Rule 1.510 to Federal Rule 56

June 07, 2021 — Lewis Brisbois
Effective May 1, 2021, the Florida courts will transition to a new summary judgment standard meant to “align Florida’s summary judgment standard with that of the federal courts and of the supermajority of states that have already adopted the federal summary judgment standard.” In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.510, 309 So. 3d 192, 192 (Fla. 2020). Consistent with this amendment, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 has been amended to adopt the federal summary judgment rule, with exceptions for timing-related issues. The Florida Supreme Court’s most recent opinion on rule 1.510 and the text of new rule 1.510 can be found here. As background, on December 31, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court adopted the federal summary judgment standard by amending Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c) to include the following sentence: “The summary judgment standard provided for in this rule shall be construed and applied in accordance with the federal summary judgment standard articulated in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1976); and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) [(the ‘Celotex trilogy’)].” In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.510, 309 So. 3d at 196. The court’s amendment was slated to take effect on May 1, 2021, subject to a public comment period. The court also sought guidance from the Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee. After careful consideration of numerous responses, the court ultimately chose to adopt the substance of the text from federal rule 56. Along with its amendments, the court provides substantial guidance as to how the Florida courts and practitioners should interpret the new rule. A summary of the court’s thorough discussion follows. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Caution to GCs! An Exception to Privette Can Leave You Open to Liability

February 01, 2023 — Nicole Whyte - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
In a recent important decision, Brown v. Beach House Design & Development the Court of Appeal addressed an issue that frequently arises under the Privette doctrine—the extent to which a general contractor can be held liable for injuries to a subcontractor’s employee. The injuries in Brown arose when a window casing subcontractor’s employee fell from a scaffold erected by a plastering subcontractor at a construction site. According to evidence offered by the plaintiff in opposition to a motion for summary judgment filed by the general contractor, the scaffold was not properly secured to the building where the work was being performed. As a result the scaffold was defective and failed, causing the injuries. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicole Whyte, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Ms. Whyte may be contacted at nwhyte@bremerwhyte.com

Chinese Billionaire Sues Local Governments Over Project Payment

January 28, 2015 — Bloomberg News
The billionaire founder of closely held China Pacific Construction Group sued six local governments in a bid to force payment of 900 million yuan ($144 million) his company is owed for infrastructure projects. Yan Jiehe said today he was trying to prove a point and winning the lawsuits wasn’t his main goal. Courts in Hebei, Yunnan, Guizhou, Hunan and Shandong provinces accepted the cases, he said in an interview. “We cannot let the governments work without any supervision anymore,” Yan said. “The results of the lawsuits are not that important to me and I care more about rule of law.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News

Flag on the Play! Expired Contractor’s License!

October 02, 2015 — Yas Omidi – California Construction Law Blog
It’s football season again. Which means, of course, that in addition to touch downs and field goals, you’ll also see hooting and hollering when the ref throws down a yellow flag signaling that a foul has been committed. In Judicial Council of California v. Jacob Facilities, Inc., Case Nos. A140890, A141393 (August 20, 2015), The California Court of Appeals for the First District threw down its own yellow flag under the dreaded Business and Professions Code section 7031, finding that a contractor was required to disgorge all monies received on a project – to the tune of a whopping $18 million – when its parent company allowed the subsidiary’s contractor’s license to lapse when it rebranded a new company to perform the work of the old company but never formally assigned the contract. I think someone in marketing may be in big trouble. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Yasmeen, Omidi, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Ms. Omidi may be contacted at yomidi@wendel.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES