Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Rental Assistance Program: Good News for Tenants and Possibly Landlords

January 25, 2021 — Marissa Levy, Rachel A. Schneidman & Nancy Sabol Frantz - White and Williams LLP
The recently enacted $2.3 trillion Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (the Act), which combined a $900 billion coronavirus relief bill as part of a larger $1.4 trillion omnibus spending and appropriations bill for the 2021 federal fiscal year, contains key provisions that directly impact the hard-hit real estate industry. In particular, Section 501 of Subtitle A of Title V of Division N of the Act establishes the “Emergency Rental Assistance program” (ERA), which appropriates $25 billion through the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to provide eligible households with direct financial housing assistance. The enactment of the ERA provides landlords, tenants, borrowers, potential buyers, financial institutions and small businesses with a necessary lifeline to weather the ongoing economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. From the $25 billion designated for rental assistance, $800 million is reserved for tribal communities and $400 million is reserved for U.S. territories, with the remaining funds to be distributed to state and local governments (grantees) within 30 days of enactment. Under the ERA, fund allocations will be based on a state’s population, with all states, and the District of Columbia, receiving at least $200 million. Local jurisdictions with populations of 200,000 or more may also apply directly to the Treasury for assistance, which would be reduced from the amount granted to the state in which the jurisdiction is located. Reprinted courtesy of Marissa Levy, White and Williams LLP, Rachel A. Schneidman, White and Williams LLP and Nancy Sabol Frantz, White and Williams LLP Ms. Levy may be contacted at levymp@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Schneidman may be contacted at schneidmanr@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Frantz may be contacted at frantzn@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses

June 10, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals has ruled against a couple who sued their lawyer, after they were unhappy with the results of a construction defect case. Craig and Jeanne Petrik sued Mahaffey and Associates for legal malpractice and breach of contract. Their lawyer, Douglas L. Mahaffey, had settled their case for $400,000. The Petricks claimed Mahaffey did not have the authority make an offer to compromise.

In the original case, Mahaffey held back the $400,000 awarded in the settlement until he and the Petricks came to terms on how much of that was owed to Mahaffey. The lower court concluded that the Petricks were due $146,323,18. The jury did not agree with the Petrik’s claim that conditions had been met in which Mahaffey would not be charging them costs.

Judges O’Leary and Ikola wrote the opinion, with the third judge on the panel, Judge Bedworth offering a dissent only on their view of the cost waiver clause.

Read the court’s opinion

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

Insurer Must Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims

May 02, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined that the insurer improperly denied a defense for construction defect claims made against the insured. Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. McMillin Tex. Homes, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEIS 40363 (W.D. Texas March 8, 2022). McMillin was a developer, general contractor and home seller. It constructed multiple homes in various communities in the San Antonio area. After the homes were completed, homeowners observed defects in the artificial stucco exterior finish. After claims were lodged against McMillin, the various claims were tendered to Amerisure. Amerisure filed for declaratory judgment that it had to duty to defend or indemnify and moved for summary judgment. Amerisure first argued the homeowners' faulty workmanship claims did not allege "property damage" under the policies. It argued there were no allegations that any property damage existed, but merely that the stucco suffered from construction defects. The court disagreed. Among the allegations was the statement that due to the construction defects, the homes suffered damage "not only to the exterior stucco, but also to the underlying wire lath, paper backing, house wrap, flashing, water resistive barriers, sheathing, interior walls, interior floors and/ or other property." Consequently, the underlying claims amounted to property damage. 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

Late Notice Bars Insured's Claim for Loss Caused by Hurricane

October 24, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found that the failure to provide prompt notice of damage caused by Hurricane Irma barred plaintiff's claim for coverage. Garcia v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149312 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2022). On September 10, 2017, plaintiff's property allegedly suffered damage due to Hurricane Irma. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff observed a water stain on the ceiling of the bedroom which was painted over. She did not take any pictures of the water stain before repainting. Plaintiff reported to her experts that she observed other water stains in various areas in 2017, 2018 and 2019, and that she painted over them each time. She again observed water stains in several rooms in 2020, at which time she became aware of the magnitude of the problem and went to an attorney. Plaintiff did not report her claim until May 27, 2020. 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

It’s All a Matter of [Statutory] Construction: Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets the Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Requirements in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co.

May 30, 2018 — Erinn Contreras & Joy O. Siu - Sheppard Mullin Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
On May 14, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., No. S231549, slip. op. (Cal. Sup. Ct. May 14, 2018). In it, the Court narrowly construed the “good faith” exception to the general rule that a direct contractor must make retention payments to its subcontractors within 10 days of receiving any retention payment. The exception provides that “[i]f a good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and a subcontractor, the direct contractor may withhold from the retention to the subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount.” Cal. Civ. Code section 8814(c). Reprinted courtesy of Erinn Contreras, Sheppard Mullin and Joy O. Siu, Sheppard Mullin Ms. Contreras may be contacted at econtreras@sheppardmullin.com Ms. Siu may be contacted at jsiu@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

In Search of Cement Replacements

October 19, 2017 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Could we replace cement as the vital element in concrete some day? We look at two alternative answers to this question. The Problems with Cement Portland cement dominates in the construction and road building industries. From an environmental point of view, cement is not the perfect solution. The cement industry accounts up to 7% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. For every 600 kg of cement, approximately 400 kg of CO2 is released into the atmosphere. It is possible to recycle concrete by crushing it and using the gravel e.g. in road construction. However, the demand for new concrete is huge and increasing. According to The Washington Post, China used more cement between 2011 and 2013 than the U.S. used in the entire 20th Century. The worldwide production of cement has increased from 3.3 billion tons in 2010 to 4.2 in 2016. Even that is not enough; shortage of cement is a real problem in some countries. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at info@aepartners.fi

New York Bars Developers from Selling Condos due to CD Fraud Case

October 15, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to GlobeSt, New York “Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has announced a settlement agreement that bars developers Joseph Scarpinito and Shiraz Sanjana—and five affiliated entities they own and operate—from offering or selling securities, including condo and coop sales, in or from New York State.” The settlement is in “result of an investigation by the Attorney General’s real estate finance bureau into allegations of fraud by the developers of the Mirada, an eight-story Harlem condominium.” GlobeSt also stated that the agreement “provides for binding arbitration with the condo purchasers for alleged construction defects, and requires the developers to pay $500,000 in penalties and fines to New York State.” 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES