FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned

July 16, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The construction of the new eastern span of San Francisco’s bay bridge has been criticized for the $6.5 billion cost, welding crack violations, and alleged cover ups by Caltrans. The Sacramento Bee reported that the company Shanghai Zhenhua Port Machinery Co. Ltd. (ZPMC) “had never built a bridge.” In fact, ZPMC “was a manufacturer of giant cranes for container ports.” How then did ZPMC manage to obtain the contract? The Sacramento Bee stated that the company “had established a reputation as fast and cost-effective, offering savings of about $250 million compared to the competing bidder.” The project was already “years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget by political squabbles and construction delays” and there were some fears that the “old bridge might not survive a major quake.” Caltrans was told by an outside expert that ZPMC was a “high risk,” however, the company received a “contingent pass.” Sacramento Bee reported that an audit showed “ZPMC didn’t have enough qualified welders or inspectors…and routinely welded in the rain, a basic error that often causes defects.” Regardless, Caltrans signed off on the project. “In August 2007, Caltrans auditors approved ZPMC outright, although the firm still lacked adequate quality control, even for ‘fracture critical’ materials,” the Sacramento Bee reported. During the California Senate committee hearing in January, Doug Coe, a senior Caltrans engineer, said “’The race for time’ created overwhelming pressure to keep moving as planned….But there’s no excuse for building something defective like that because we are in a race for time.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

20 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2020 Top Lawyers!

August 24, 2020 — Wilke Fleury
Congratulations to Wilke Fleury’s featured attorneys who made the Sacramento Magazine’s Top Lawyer List for 2020! Each attorney has been awarded an accolade in the following practice areas: Kathryne Baldwin – Insurance Dan Baxter – Business Litigation & Government Contracts Adriana Cervantes – Medical Malpractice Heather Claus – Health Care Aaron Claxton – Health Care Dan Egan – Bankruptcy and Creditor/Debtor Samson Elsbernd – Employment & Labor Danny Foster – Litigation Insurance David Frenznick – Construction & Construction Litigation George Guthrie – Real Estate & Construction Litigation Ron Lamb – Medical Malpractice Neal Lutterman – Medical Malpractice Steve Marmaduke – Business/Corporate & Real Estate Gene Pendergast – Estate Planning & Probate Mike Polis – Health Care Matthew Powell – Business Litigation Bianca Samuel – Employment & Labor Shannon Smith-Crowley – Legislative & Governmental Affairs Spencer Turpen – Medical Malpractice Steve Williamson – Business Litigation & Bankruptcy and Creditor/Debtor Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury

---

Subcontractors on Washington Public Projects can now get their Retainage Money Sooner

July 26, 2017 — Brett M. Hill - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Subcontractors on public projects in Washington State will no longer be required to wait until final acceptance of the project to get their retainage money. A new statute, which goes into effect on July 23, 2017 and applies only to Washington public projects, will allow subcontractors to get their retainage sooner. Under prior law, a subcontractor could only get its retainage prior to final acceptance if the general contractor provided a retainage bond to the public owner to secure a release of the general contractor’s retainage and the subcontractor then provided a similar retainage bond to the general contractor in the amount of its own retainage. If the general contractor decided to not provide a retainage bond to the owner, the subcontractor would be forced to wait until final acceptance of the project before it could get paid its retainage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at bhill@ac-lawyers.com

---

New OSHA Vaccination Requirements For Employers With 100 Or More Employees (And Additional Advice for California Employers)

November 19, 2021 — Laura Fleming & Rana Ayazi - Payne & Fears
Update 11.8.21: On Nov. 6, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a stay of the OSHA ETS, stating that the OSHA ETS may have “grave statutory and constitutional issues.” The stay is not a final ruling on the validity of the ETS but temporarily halts its implementation nationwide. OSHA has until Nov. 8, 2021 at 5:00 PM to respond and the petitioners have until Nov. 9, 2021 at 5:00 PM to reply to OSHA’s response. The Fifth Circuit will then issue its ruling likely late this week or early next week. On Sept. 9, 2021, President Joe Biden announced his COVID-19 Action Plan. The Action Plan called on the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) to develop a rule requiring all employers with 100 or more employees to ensure their workforce is fully vaccinated or require any workers who remain unvaccinated to produce a negative test result on at least a weekly basis before coming to work. On Nov. 4, 2021, OSHA released the rule in the form of an Emergency Temporary Standards (“OSHA ETS”). Here are ten things you need to know about the OSHA ETS:

• How To Count To 100: (1) The applicable number is the total number of employees employed on November 5, 2021—this is the headcount that will be used for the duration of the OSHA ETS. (2) The count must be done at the employer level not the individual location level. (3) Part-time employees do count towards the total number of employees. (4) Employees who work from home do count towards the total number of employees. (5) Independent contractors do not count towards the total number of employee.

Reprinted courtesy of Laura Fleming, Payne & Fears and Rana Ayazi, Payne & Fears Ms. Fleming may be contacted at lf@paynefears.com Ms. Ayazi may be contacted at ra@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Traub Lieberman Partner Jonathan Harwood Obtains Summary Judgment Determining Insurer Has No Duty to Defend or Indemnify

February 27, 2023 — Jonathan R. Harwood - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Jonathan Harwood obtained summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff determining that it had no duty to defend or indemnify an insured in a personal injury action, in a case brought in the Eastern District of New York. The Plaintiff, an insurance provider (“the Insurer”), issued a General Commercial Policy (the “Policy”) to the Defendant, a commercial property owner (the “Property Owner”). In the underlying action, a former employee (the “Employee”) of a concrete vendor sued the Property Owner, and others, in New York Supreme Court, Queens County, for an injury that occurred on the street in front of the Property Owner’s premises during the course of repairs of sewer pipes that serviced the Property Owner’s premises. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan R. Harwood, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Harwood may be contacted at jharwood@tlsslaw.com

---

District Court denies Carpenters Union Motion to Dismiss RICO case- What it Means

March 16, 2017 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
In a case that has been widely discussed on this blog, a United States federal district court Judge denied the Philadelphia Carpenters’ Union’s motion to dismiss a federal RICO case filed against it by the Pennsylvania Convention Center. Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro issued the ruling on the Union’s motion. Unfortunately, Judge Quinoses Alejandro did not issue an opinion to go along with her order. This is a bit unusual. Federal Judges routinely issue opinions (if only in footnote form) even on motion dealing with procedural issues. like discovery disputes. The lack of an opinion prevents us from knowing the Judge’s rationale for denying the motion. Therefore, the order lack precedental value for subsequent cases. However, I do not believe the order is any less significant. Potential plaintiffs now know that a federal RICO case against a union can survive a motion to dismiss. Moreover, the attorneys for the Convention Center have provided potential plaintiffs a road map for doing so. As I have stated before, the fact pattern in the Convention case is hardly unique and the tactics the Carpenters used in that case are de ri·gueur. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

Housing Inflation Begins to Rise

February 25, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Kathleen Madigan writing for The Wall Street Journal, “inflation remains muted at the start of 2014” except in one category: housing. Madigan stated that housing costs were “worth watching.” The “owners’ equivalent rent index had been rising at a steady pace through most of 2012 and 2013, with 12-month percent changes hovering around 2%” however, “the pace picked up” at the end of last year. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Court Discusses Evidentiary Standards for Policy Rescission Based on Material Misrepresentation

August 10, 2020 — Robert S. Nobel - Traub Lieberman
On July 27, 2020, in the case of Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. AKI Renovations Group, Inc., (Sup. Ct. NY Co. 2020), Index No. 159421/2017 (unpublished), the trial court issued an Order granting summary judgment permitting rescission of a CGL policy based upon material misrepresentations in a policy application. The insured submitted an application in which it failed to disclose its demolition operations despite specific questions seeking this information. Mt. Hawley issued a primary and excess policy for the period of December 29, 2016 to December 29, 2017 (collectively, the policy). Subsequently, the insured sought coverage for a claim in which it was alleged that the insured was acting as a general contractor for demolition of a three-story building when the plaintiff was injured. The insurer advised the defendants that it was rescinding the policy ab initio, and also returned defendants’ premium in its entirety. The insurer asserted that it would not have issued the policy had defendants disclosed their demolition operations, then filed the coverage action seeking a judicial declaration ratifying its rescission of the policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Nobel may be contacted at rnobel@tlsslaw.com

---