FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Massachusetts Roofer Killed in Nine-story Fall

January 08, 2019 — Johanna Knapschaefer - Engineering News-Record
A 41-year-old roofer from Haverhill, Mass. fell through a roof hole nine stories to his death on Dec. 18 while working on an apartment building project in Haverhill, a city north of Boston. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Johanna Knapschaefer, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

---

Feds Move To Indict NY Contractor Execs, Developer, Ex-Cuomo Aide

November 30, 2016 — Mary B. Powers – Engineering News-Record
Executives at Buffalo, N.Y.-based contractor LPCiminelli and developer COR Development, Syracuse, N.Y., were indicted Nov. 22 on charges of bribery, corruption and fraud in the award of hundreds of millions of dollars in construction contracts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

---

Retired Judge Claims Asbestos in Courthouse gave him Cancer

November 05, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Amos Saunders, retired Passaic County, New Jersey, Superior Court judge claimed "he got cancer as a result of coming into contact with asbestos at the courthouse during his time on the bench," the New Jersey Law Journal reported. Saunders alleged "that he was exposed to asbestos throughout his tenure, up to and including an asbestos removal project at the Paterson, N.J., courthouse in the 1980s." The complaint filed, as quoted in the New Jersey Law Journal, stated that "he has been diagnosed with adenocarcinoma 'as a direct and proximate result' of 'inhalation and ingestion of dust particles and fibers' from asbestos products." According to the complaint, A. H. Environment Inc. was the contractor and Alaimo Group was the consulting engineer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Endorsements Do Not Exclude Coverage for Wrongful Death Claim

August 30, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's motion for summary judgment, attempting to bar coverage under two endorsements for a wrongful death suit, was denied. Essex Ins. Co. v. FD Event Co., LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124400 (C.D. Calif. July 25, 2017). FD Event owned an amusement attraction known as Free Drop, which was operated at county fairs and festivals. Participants paid an admission fee to FD Event in order to jump from a scaffold structure onto an inflatable airbag below. FD Event had a policy with Essex. When securing the policy, FD Event understood that there was no coverage for amusement devices, inflatables, rides or animals. 28th Event, who ran the San Bernardino County Fair, was an additional insured on the policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion

July 06, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a ruling in June on the case of Nevins v. Toll in which they reversed an earlier decision and remanded the case to a lower court for retrial. At issue in the case was the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, J. Anthony Dowling. In depositions, Mr. Dowling said that his estimates for repair were based on a “gut feeling.” Dowling said he had “very little” experience in cost estimates for single-family homes. The defendants sought to bar Dowling’s testimony which was granted by the judge. Without an expert, Ms. Nevin’s case was dismissed.



Describing Dowling’s report as “far from a model of how an expert’s opinion in a construction case should be presented,” the court noted that Dowling is not a professional expert witness. However, the court did note that Dowling is a professional cost estimator. Despite Mr. Dowling using his “gut feeling” to construct his estimate, the New Jersey Supreme Court felt that whether his estimate is convincing is “a question for the jury.”



Read the court’s opinion…

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

---

California Supreme Court Finds that the Notice-Prejudice Rule Applicable to Insurance is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State

October 14, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co. (No. S239510, filed 8/29/19), the California Supreme Court held that California’s notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy in the insurance context, supporting the application of California law under a choice of laws analysis. In addition, the Court held that the rule generally applies to consent (aka “no voluntary payments”) provisions in first party insurance policies but not to consent provisions in third party liability policies. Pitzer College discovered soils contamination while building a new dormitory. Under pressure to complete construction before the start of the school year, Pitzer proceeded to remediate the soils, incurring $2 million in expense. Pitzer submitted a claim to Indian Harbor, which provided Pitzer insurance covering legal and remediation expenses resulting from pollution conditions discovered during the policy period. The policy contained a notice provision requiring Pitzer to provide oral or written notice of any pollution condition to Indian Harbor and, in the event of oral notice, to “furnish … a written report as soon as practicable.” In addition, a consent provision required Pitzer to obtain Indian Harbor’s written consent before incurring expenses, making payments, assuming obligations, and/or commencing remediation due to a pollution condition. The consent provision had an emergency exception for costs incurred “on an emergency basis where any delay … would cause injury to persons or damage to property or increase significantly the cost of responding to any [pollution condition],” in which case Pitzer was required to notify Indian Harbor “immediately thereafter.” Lastly, a choice of law provision stated that New York law governed all matters arising under the policy. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Defect Dispute Governed by Contract Disputes Act not yet Suited to being a "Suit"

June 25, 2019 — William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Southern District of California recently held that a series of demands for a general contractor to investigate and repair several construction defects at a U.S. Army facility did not constitute a “suit” within the meaning of the general contractor’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy. In Harper Construction Co., Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., the U.S. Government hired Harper Construction Company (“Harper”) to construct a U.S. Army training facility for the Patriot Missile System in Fort Sill, Oklahoma. No. 18-cv-00471-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2019). During the project, Harper hired Harper Mechanical Contractors (“Harper Mechanical”), an independent company, as a subcontractor “to perform demolition, grading, and other work at the Project.” After Harper completed the project, the government informed Harper of property damage at the project, “including, but not limited to, gypsum wallboard cracks and binding doors.” Harper attempted to repair the issues, but the problems continued. The issues were apparently the result of Harper Mechanical’s grading work. Subsequently, the government sent two letters requesting an investigation and asking Harper to “propose a plan to correct the issues.” As Harper undertook an investigation spanning multiple years, the government became increasingly frustrated with the delays. The government threatened to initiate “formal administrative recourse” and to demolish the project, forcing Harper to re-build from the ground up. It also sent Harper another letter requesting Harper submit a formal proposal to correct the issues. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

---

Understand and Define Key Substantive Contract Provisions

March 23, 2020 — Phillip L. Sampson Jr. & Richard F. Whiteley, Construction Executive
The following contract provisions should be clearly understood before undertaking any construction project commences. Force Majeure Often referred to as an “Act of God,” a force majeure is an event, typically beyond the parties’ control, that prevents performance under a contract. To determine if a contractor need a force majeure clause in its contract, it should ask whether there may be instances where events beyond the contractor’s control could impact its contractual performance? If so, it will want this clause. Courts currently treat force majeure as an issue of contractual interpretation, focusing on the express language in the contract. Consequently, the scope and applicability of a force majeure clause depends on the contract’s terms. Using broad language in a force majeure clause may help protect against unforeseen events. But to the extent possible, parties should describe with particularity the circumstances intended to constitute a force majeure. The law relating to force majeure also fairly consistently provides that parties cannot avoid contractual obligations because performance has become economically burdensome. Courts have refused to apply force majeure clauses where an event only affects profitability. Recent attempts to categorize tariffs on construction materials as a force majeure have failed. Unless a tariff or tax is specifically listed as a force majeure event, it is unlikely to constitute a force majeure because it only affects profitability. Reprinted courtesy of Phillip L. Sampson Jr. & Richard F. Whiteley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---