FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Preliminary Notices: Common Avoidable But Fatal Mistakes

August 26, 2019 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
In the California building and construction industry, service of a “Preliminary Notice” is a prerequisite for Subcontractor and Supplier claims for payment through the Mechanics Lien, Stop Payment Notice and Payment Bond Claim process. Without proper drafting and service of a Preliminary Notice, these extremely valuable claims cannot be protected. Unfortunately, despite the vital importance of the Preliminary Notice, Subcontractors and Suppliers often make common self-defeating mistakes that make their Preliminary Notice efforts completely ineffective, resulting in loss of their claims rights. The purpose of this article is to list some of these common mistakes in the hope that the reader will avoid such mistakes, preserve the integrity of the Preliminary Notice, and protect the claims rights it makes available: Not Sending out the Preliminary Notice Within 20 Days After Supplying Labor or Materials: The protection of a Preliminary Notice begins 20 days before it sent out. This means that if a Subcontractor or Supplier claimant delivered $100,000 in materials on February 1, that same claimant must serve the Preliminary Notice on or before February 21 (the sooner the better), or the claimant will not be able to pursue an enforceable Mechanics Lien, Stop Payment Notice or Payment Bond claim for that $100,000. There are very few exceptions. Best practice: A Subcontractor or Supplier must send out the Preliminary Notice as soon as an agreement to provide work or materials to a California construction project is in place (See California Civil Code 8204). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---

Case Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment Granted for BWB&O’s Client in Wrongful Death Case!

November 18, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to San Diego Partner JohnPaul Salem on his recent MSJ victory in a wrongful death case! Plaintiffs, the family of a pedestrian who was struck and killed by a train at a San Diego trolley station when he walked onto the tracks while warning lights and bells were active, filed suit for (i) dangerous condition of public property; and (ii) negligence arising out of the accident. Plaintiffs alleged BWB&O’s Client had created a dangerous condition and failed to warn of the alleged danger. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

PAGA Right of Action Not Applicable to Construction Workers Under Collective Bargaining Agreement

December 26, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
California is one of the most employee-friendly states in the country. From strict hiring laws (don’t think about asking about an applicant’s criminal, credit or even salary history), to generous benefits (minimum wage, overtime, meal and rest breaks, family medical leave, etc.) and strict anti-harassment laws (if you have to think about it, even for a second, don’t do it), to protections for terminated workers (whistle blower protections, WARN notices, non-compete restrictions), California workers enjoy protections that many others do not. This includes PAGA, or the Private Attorneys General Act, which authorizes aggrieved employees to file lawsuits against their employers to recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees, and the State of California for Labor Code violations. In general, the right of an employee to file a PAGA action cannot be waived by contract. However, Labor Code section 2699.6 which was enacted in 2018 provides an exception for construction workers who perform work under certain collective bargaining agreements. In the next case, Oswald v. Murray Plumbing and heating Corporation, 82 Cal.App.5th 938 (2022), the 2nd District Court of Appeal examined whether collective bargaining agreement with a retroactive date, signed after an employee was terminated, precluded an employee from bringing a PAGA action. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

WARN Act Exceptions in Response to COVID-19

April 13, 2020 — Yvette Davis & Kyle R. DiNicola - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
California’s WARN Act requires employers of certain covered establishments to provide 60 days written notice of any mass layoff, relocation, or termination. This notice is required to be given to employees and the Employment Development Department. An employer’s failure to comply with this requirement can result in being held liable for back-pay and value of the cost of any benefits to which the affected employee(s) may have been entitled for up to a maximum of 60 days. Due to the COVID-19 crisis and emergency circumstances in which many employers now find themselves, the Governor of California has issued Executive Order N-31-20, which temporarily suspends the 60-days advance notice requirement and the provisions that impose liability and penalties on an employer for the duration of the COVID-19 emergency. Reprinted courtesy of Yvette Davis, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Kyle R. DiNicola, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com Mr. DiNicola may be contacted at kdinicola@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

September 12, 2022 — Gregory S. Pennington - Traub Lieberman
In a case brought before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington won a motion for summary judgment in favor of their client, the owner of a residential property (“Property Owner”) in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The Property Owner had retained a Construction Company (“Construction Company” or “Contractor”) to perform renovations to the residence, which included building a new staircase. The Plaintiff alleged that while walking down a set of temporary wooden steps on the property, the third step broke, which caused him to fall and resulted in the alleged injuries. The Plaintiff brought suit against the Property Owner and Construction Company for personal injuries as a result of the alleged fall. In the contract between the Property Owner and the Construction Company, it is stated that “[the Contractor] shall be solely responsible for all construction methods and materials and for coordinating all portions of the Work….The Contractor warrants to [the Property Owner] that all materials and equipment incorporated are new and that all work shall be of good quality and free of defects or faults.” The contract continues to state that the Construction Company shall indemnify and hold harmless the Property Owner against all claims, which includes damages, losses, expenses, legal fees and other costs that might arise from the Construction Company’s performance of the work under the contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Pennington, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Pennington may be contacted at gpennington@tlsslaw.com

---

BWB&O Expands to North San Diego

December 09, 2019 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara is excited to announce our expansion to North San Diego County. Our new office location in Encinitas is strategically located between our Newport Beach and Downtown San Diego offices. The new North San Diego office will provide further resources to better serve our clients. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara

---

To Sea or Not to Sea: Fifth Circuit Applies Maritime Law to Offshore Service Contract, Spares Indemnity Provision from Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act

March 29, 2017 — Richard W. Brown & Afua Akoto – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Faced with the issue of whether maritime or state law should be applied to determine the validity of an indemnity clause in a Master Services Contract (MSC), the Fifth Circuit affirmed that where there is no historical treatment of the contract in question (1), it would consider six factors established in Davis (2). In Doiron, the Apache Corporation and STS (3) entered a broad-form blanket MSC, under which STS agreed to perform flow-back services, a process designed to dislodge solid objects from inside a well, on Apache’s well located off shore of Louisiana. The MSC also contained an indemnification provision, which required STS to defend and indemnify Apache and its company groups against all claims of property injury or bodily injury. During the flow-back operation, Larry Doiron Inc. (LDI), one of the Apache Company groups, supplied a crane barge for use by STS employees. Subsequently, the crane knocked over an STS employee, causing him to suffer severe injuries. LDI then made a formal demand to STS for defense and indemnification. STS rejected the demand and argued that the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act applied to the MSC instead of maritime law. Pursuant to the Act, indemnity clauses in agreements pertaining to wells for oil, gas or water are void as against public policy. But, under maritime law, the enforcement of such provisions is not barred. Therefore, if the MSC was construed under the Act, STS had no duty to defend or indemnify LDI. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Afua S. Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Companies Can Be Liable for “Secondary Exposure” of Asbestos to Household Members

October 26, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The history of asbestos regulation in the United States is complicated. Prior to the 1970s, asbestos-containing materials used in construction was widespread. In 1971, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued an emissions standard for asbestos as part of the Clean Air Act. In 1972, the EPA extended this regulation to an occupational standard and, over the next decade, the EPA together with the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a wide array of regulations aimed at asbestos. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---