FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

The Sky is Falling! – Or is it? Impacting Lives through Addressing the Fear of Environmental Liabilities

March 30, 2016 — John Van Vlear and Karl Foster – Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
Six months ago, a couple anxiously relayed to N&D lawyers how the sky was falling – with environmental liabilities at the center of their seemingly real Chicken Little fears. The couple owned two properties in a central California town, one being a former gas station which an oil company had abandoned alleging the lease was void given partial eminent domain actions. Before interviewing us, the couple had spent in excess of $100,000 in legal fees with another law firm trying to force the oil company to take responsibility for potential environmental impacts under the disputed lease. Reprinted courtesy of John Van Vlear, Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP and Karl Foster, Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP Mr. Van Vlear may be contacted at john.vanvlear@ndlf.com. Mr. Foster may be contacted at karl.foster@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

“But I didn’t know what I was signing….”

May 30, 2018 — Bobby Kethcart - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In real estate cases—which frequently involve long purchase agreements, loan documents, personal guarantees, deeds of trust, etc.—we’ve likely all had a client or opposing party who trots out the line that they didn’t know what they were signing, or they didn’t read or understand what they were signing, so the document shouldn’t be enforced according to its terms. Most of us instinctively believe the claim is a loser: You signed the document, you’re bound by it. But is this actually right? Well, we did some digging. Here is the Arizona law on the subject: Nationwide Resources Corp. v. Massabni, 134 Ariz. 557, 658 P.2d 210 (App. 1982):

“A mistake of only one of the parties to a contract in the expression of his agreement or as to the subject matter does not affect its binding force and ordinarily affords no ground for its avoidance, or for relief, even in equity.” “A manifestation of acceptance to the offeror or his agent forms a contract regardless of the intent of the acceptor.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bobby Kethcart, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Kethcart may be contacted at rkethcart@swlaw.com

---

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Burks Smith and Katie Keller Win Daubert Motion Excluding Plaintiff’s Expert’s Testimony in the Middle District of Florida

September 20, 2021 — Burks A. Smith, III & Kathryn Keller - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner, Burks Smith, and Associate, Katie Keller, represented a national property insurer in a breach of contract action brought by a homeowner in the Middle District of Florida for substantial property damage alleged to have been caused by hail and wind. Throughout the course of litigation, the homeowner disclosed his expert, which is the same individual that prepared the homeowner’s estimate of damages and causation report. The expert’s credentials list that he is a general contractor, independent adjuster, and inspector. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller moved under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to exclude testimony and introduction of any evidence prepared by the homeowner’s expert. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller argued that the homeowner’s expert was not qualified to render expert testimony in this case, as he did not have the requisite qualifications to render an expert opinion, the methodology utilized by the expert to form his opinion was not sufficiently reliable, and his anticipated testimony was not helpful in the case, as it is imprecise and unspecific. Therefore, the expert’s opinions did not meet the standards for admission of expert testimony as set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and should not be admitted as expert testimony at trial. Reprinted courtesy of Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman and Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman Mr. Smith may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Illinois Federal Court Determines if Damages Are Too Remote

July 13, 2020 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
Foreseeability is a tort concept that tends to permeate several aspects of legal analysis, often causing confusion in litigants’ interpretation of, and courts’ application of, foreseeability to their cases. In Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Progress Rail Services. Corp., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73967 (C.D. Ill.), the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois took on the task of analyzing a case dealing with foreseeability issues to determine if the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty and if the damages were so remote as to violate public policy. The court held that since the defendant’s actions contributed to the risk of harm to the plaintiff and the facts satisfied the four-prong duty test, the defendant owed the plaintiff’s subrogor a duty of reasonable care. It also held that the plaintiff’s damage claim did not open the defendant up to liability that would violate public policy. In the case, an employee of defendant Progress Rail Services Corporation (Progress Rail) was operating a crane at Progress Rail’s Galesburg location on May 7, 2018. The employee struck an overhead power line while working, causing a power disruption to nearby businesses. The plaintiff’s subrogor, Midstate Manufacturing Company (Midstate), was one of the affected businesses, reporting that its Amada hydraulic punch was damaged. Midstate submitted a property damage claim to its carrier, Cincinnati Insurance Company (Cincinnati), who reimbursed it under its policy. Subsequent to its payment, Cincinnati filed suit against Progress Rail in Illinois state court. Progress Rail then removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Earth Movement Exclusion Denied

October 28, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

After carefully dissecting the earth movement exclusion, the court denied the insurer’s motion for summary judgment. High Street Lofts Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109043 (D. Colo. Sept. 26, 2011).

The City of Boulder performed road repair work near High Street’s property, some of which involved the use of a vibrating compactor to compact and set the roadbed. High Street noticed damage to its building, such as cracks in walls, sloping of floors and separations of porches from the building itself. High Street contacted the City of Boulder, who forwarded the complaint to its contractor, Concrete Express, Inc.

High Street also filed a claim with its business insurer, American Family, who denied the claim. American Family relied on an opinion letter by High Street’s engineer. The letter indicated that the damage was the result of "soil consolidation/settlement," in response to the construction activities. Based on this letter American Family concluded the claim was excluded under the policy’s earth movement exclusion.

High Street sued American Family, who moved for summary judgment.

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

---

Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Applied to Pass-Through Agreements

June 19, 2023 — Scott D. Cessar - Construction Executive
Pass-through claims are claims by a party that has suffered damages but does not have a contractual relationship with the entity that caused the damages. In the construction industry, subcontractors commonly have claims for additional costs based on actions or inactions by the owner. However, since the subcontractor is not in privity of contract with the owner, it has no direct cause of action against the owner other than, perhaps, on a nongovernment project, a lien claim. In such cases, subcontractors may seek to pass the claim through the general contractor, who is in privity with the owner, to the owner. Indeed, many construction contracts require the subcontractor, in such cases of owner-caused damages, to pass the claim through the general contractor to the owner. And since the harm visited on a subcontractor by the owner usually also affected the general contractor, the subcontractor’s claim is packaged together with the general contractor’s claim, which is usually greater, for presentation to the owner and, if not resolved, litigation with the owner. Reprinted courtesy of Scott D. Cessar, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

How Long is Your Construction Warranty?

February 26, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
The Nebraska Court of Appeals threw a wrench into the calculation of your warranty earlier this year in Adams v. Manchester Park, LLC and Southfork Homes, Inc. In that case, the court found that the statute of limitations for a warranty claim started running after the homebuilder’s warranty expired. So, the four year breach of warranty statute of limitations did not begin until after the one year homebuilder warranty expired. In this case, the homeowner purchased a home from Southfork in September, 2007. The purchase agreement provided for a one-year New Home Limited Warranty which covered material defects in workmanship and materials. The homeowner noticed cracks in the drywall and problems with windows within 6 months of the purchase. The builder told the homeowner to keep track of all the problems and they would be fixed at the yearend walk through. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---

Courts Will Not Second-Guess Public Entities When it Comes to Design Immunity

May 13, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It was a bizarre confluence of events. Jorgen Stufkosky was driving on SR-154 in Santa Ynez, California. Martha Aguayo was driving on the same highway ahead of Stufkosky when she struck a deer causing it to fly across the centerline into traffic from the opposite direction. The deer struck a SUV causing its driver to lose control. The driver of the SUV crossed the same centerline where he collided head on with Stufkosky, killing him. Stufkosky’s children later sued the California Department of Transportation in the case Stufkosky v. California Department of Transportation, 97 Cal.App.5th 492 (2023), alleging that their father’s death was due to Caltrans’ negligent design of SR-153, inadequate number of deer crossing signs, and its high posted speed limit. While in the trial court, Caltrans filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Caltrans was immune from liability under Government Code section 830.6, the so called “design immunity” statute. The trial court agreed and the Stufloskys appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---