Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Ten-Year Statute Of Repose To Sue For Latent Construction Defects

November 12, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you are dealing with latent construction defects, it is imperative that you consult with counsel to understand your rights. This not only includes claims for property damage stemming from latent construction defects, but also personal injury stemming from such defects. There is a ten-year statute of repose to sue for latent construction defects. See Fla.Stat. s. 95.11(3)(c). After the expiration of this statute of repose you are out of luck, meaning you can no longer sue. Now, I probably will not be the first to tell you that the statute of repose is not written so clear that you know the precise date it ends (or the last date you can sue for a latent defect). For this reason, you really want to operate conservatively, meaning it is always better to sue early if you think you could be running on the end of the statute of repose period. It is always advisable to avoid any legitimate argument that you filed your construction defect lawsuit too late. In Harrell v. The Ryland Group, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2054b (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), a subsequent owner of a house sued the original homebuilder in negligence for a construction defect causing a personal injury. The subsequent owner claimed the homebuilder defectively installed an attic ladder (that provided access to the attic for the original construction) which collapsed as he was using it. The homebuilder filed a motion for summary judgment that the statute of repose expired so the owner’s claim was time-barred. The First District agreed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Addressing Safety on the Construction Site

January 27, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Construction Law Musings Guest Post, we welcome a new face, Patrick Rafferty. Patrick (@ThePraff) is a consultant for Brahman Systems and has an interest in construction safety. First of all, I’d like to say that I am not an attorney. Anything I say in this article should be taken with a grain of salt. All of the information that I have written in this article comes from personal work experience on the worksite. Each year, construction sites around the nation see hundreds of thousands of injuries related to equipment operation and situations that could be avoidable with the right precautions in place. In 2011 alone, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, there were 4,069 workers killed on a construction site, most of which were avoidable. Though some sort of on-site problems are unavoidable, they can be minimized with simple practices that every construction site should have in place, whether it is the building of a high-rise building or a simple house renovation. Here are some of the most common issues that lead to injuries on the construction site: Lack of training Before anyone steps onto a construction site, they need to have a thorough understanding of not only what they will be doing, but also how to use the equipment involved in the building process. All operators of heavy machinery should have verifiable training on the machine or equipment they will operate. Most equipment dealers offer training as part of their customer service, such as usage manuals, videos and quizzes. Once these are complete, many will offer a certificate of completion at the end of the process. The larger and more complex the machine, the more time should be allotted for training. 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

Flawed Welding Faulted in Mexico City Subway Collapse

October 04, 2021 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
Faulty structural welds have been blamed for the deadly May 3 collapse of an elevated section of Mexico City’s Line 12 subway, according to a report issued Sept. 7 by Norwegian risk management firm DNV. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, 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

CA Supreme Court Expands Scope of Lawyers’ Statute of Limitations to Non-Legal Malpractice Claims – Confusion Predicted for Law and Motion Judges

August 26, 2015 — David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Lee v. Hanley (S220775 – Filed 8/20/2015), the California Supreme Court clarified the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 by holding that its limitations period applies to claims against attorneys “whose merits necessarily depend on proof that an attorney violated a professional obligation in the course of providing professional services.” Although it resolved a district split by finding that the statute governs for non-legal malpractice claims against attorneys including those of non-clients, by having the statute’s applicability “turn on the conduct alleged and ultimately proven, not on the way the complaint was styled,” this 5-2 decision also increased the specter of creative pleading and lengthy litigation. In Lee, the client had advanced $120,000 to cover attorney’s fees, costs and expert witness fees for the underlying litigation. After the case settled, the attorney advised the client that she had a credit balance of approximately $46,000. In response to her demand for a refund, the attorney then advised the client that she did not have a credit balance. More than one year later, the client filed suit to recover the $46,000, plus interest. The trial court sustained the attorney’s demurrer based on the one-year statute of limitations in section 340.6. The appellate court, however, reversed, reasoning that the client’s claim could be construed as one for conversion, in which case section 340.6 would not apply. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Mississippi exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

June 07, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Lafayete Ins. Co. v. Peerboom, No. 3:10cv336 (S.D. Miss. June 2, 2011), claimant homeowner Peerboom hired insured contractor Absolute to raise Peerboom’s house two feet to avoid future flooding. While Absolute was raising the house, it fell, resulting in physical injury to the home. Peerboom sued Absolute for negligence, breach of contract, and fraud, seeking damages for the destruction of the home. Absolute’s CGL insurer Lafayette defended under a reservation of rights and filed a declaratory judgment action.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

The Miller Act Explained

May 21, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Garret Murai, on his California Construction Law Blog, goes over the nuances of the Federal Miller Act. Murai explained, “Named after John E. Miller, former Arkansas Congressman, later U.S. Senator and still later federal judge, the Miller Act was enacted in 1935 in the middle of the Great Depression, to help ensure that subcontractors and material suppliers working on federal projects get paid, by requiring contractors who contract directly with the federal government on federal construction projects furnish payment and performance bonds.” Murai answered questions such as what is required under the act, who is protected, how a general contractor could protect itself from a Miller Act claim, as well as others. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Congratulations to our 2019 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

July 30, 2019 — John Arbucci, Frances Brower, Lisa Hsiao, Kristian Moriarty & Michael Parme - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Congratulations to attorneys John Arbucci, Frances Brower, Lisa Hsiao, Kristian Moriarty and Michael Parme who were selected to the 2019 Southern California Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys T. Giovanni “John” Arbucci, Frances Brower, Lisa Hsiao, Kristian Moriarty and Michael Parme Mr. Arbucci may be contacted at jarbucci@hbblaw.com Ms. Brower may be contacted at fma@hbblaw.com Ms. Lisa may be contacted at lhsiao@hbblaw.com Mr. Kristian may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Collapse Claim Fails Due To Defectively Designed Roof and Deck

May 28, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured's claim for collapse of his roof and deck failed due to defective design and other exclusions under the policy. Dudar v. State Farm & Cas. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52706 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 6, 2024). The insured submitted a claim to State Farm for damage to the roof ("Roof Claim"). State Farm's adjuster placed a ladder on the deck to access the roof and a portion of the deck collapsed. The insured then reported a claim to State Farm for damage to the deck ("Deck Claim"). The claims were denied and suit was filed. The roof had leaked on several occasions prior to submission of the Roof Claim. On February 25, 2022, the insured discovered that a branch had cut a hole in the tarp, causing water to leak into the home. The insured performed repairs on the roof. On March 8, 2022, a storm caused more water to seep through the tarp into the ceilings and walls. Thereafter, the Roof Claim was submitted. The damage from the leaking roof and the deck collapse were caused by rotting. The rotting, in turn, was caused by a combination of defective building design and resulting water damage from rain and storms over the years. The roof and deck were constructed to provide mutual support to one another. The roof did not contain an adequate slope, which caused water to seep down into the walls and flooring rather than to flow downward and away from the property. Over time, penetrating water caused portions of the roof, the floor, and the supporting wall between the roof and deck to rot. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES