Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Contract Change # 10: Differing Site Conditions (law note)

March 28, 2018 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
Previously, the A201 required a Contractor to provide notice to the Owner and Architect within 21 days after discovery of unforeseen site conditions. This notification is required prior to the conditions being disturbed, so as to allow the Design Team the ability to evaluate the site and determine the compensability of any such differing conditions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina

EEOC Issues Anti-Harassment Guidance To Construction-Industry Employers

July 22, 2024 — Christopher Kelleher & Andrew Scroggins - The Construction Seyt
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has issued guidance tailored to the construction industry regarding compliance with anti-harassment laws. This lines up with our prediction in early 2024 that the EEOC had put the construction industry squarely in its sights. The guidance is important for construction-industry leaders and employers to understand to prevent and remedy workplace harassment, and to avoid potential harassment liability. On June 18, 2024, the EEOC issued its Promising Practices for Preventing Harassment in the Construction Industry. This guidance provides key recommendations that construction-industry leaders and employers should consider implementing to prevent and address harassment in the workplace, and avoid being the target of the EEOC’s enforcement efforts. The guidance is intended to supplement the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”) for fiscal years 2024-2028, which provides direction on the EEOC’s current objectives, principles, and enforcement efforts – among them, increasing diversity in the construction industry and remedying harassment. (We’ve written previously about the proposed and final SEP.) Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kelleher, Seyfarth and Andrew Scroggins, Seyfarth Mr. Kelleher may be contacted at ckelleher@seyfarth.com Mr. Scroggins may be contacted at ascroggins@seyfarth.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Are Defense Costs In Addition to Policy Limits?

December 02, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
I recently had a discussion with an insurer about whether defense costs were included within the policy limits of a client’s coverage or in addition to policy limits. This was an important discussion because if costs of defense were included in the policy limits, my client was going to exceed those policy limits in a hurry. How would this situation play out with your insurance? Fortunately, the majority of insurance policies, such as Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies, provide that defense costs are “in addition” to the policy limits. But some policies, often times referred to as “burning limits” policies, provide that cost of defense is included in the policy limits. This means that if you have $1,000,000.00 policy limits, your costs of defense will reduce that limit throughout the course of litigation. 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

Avoid L&I Violations by Following Appropriate Safety Procedures

November 07, 2022 — Reeya Patel - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Department of Labor and Industries of the State of Washington v. Roof Doctor, Inc. d/b/a Roof Doctors, Inc. of Tacoma (Unpublished opinion) Roof Doctor, a company engaging maintenance of roofs, was hired to complete work for a commercial building in Tacoma in February 2018. During the job, Roof Doctor was cited for two violations by a Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ (L&I) compliance inspector and seven additional asbestos violations. Each citation was rated with a probability of 1 – 3 to determine the likelihood of injury, illness, or disease. The ratings allowed issuance of an appropriate monetary penalty. The disputes among the parties on appeal were as follows: First, L&I and Roof Doctor disputed the asbestos probability ratings and calculated penalties. L&I produced as evidence, the fact that nine employees were physically hanging roofing material with asbestos, but none had training or knew that the material contained asbestos. L&I did agree that that most of the employees were experienced in handling roofing material and knew of the dangers that asbestos presented. Roof Doctor explained that because the employees were working outdoors, the danger of asbestos exposure was mitigated due to a low probability that a high concentration of asbestos could be inhaled by the employees when outdoors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC

Norfolk Southern Agrees to $310M Settlement With Feds Over 2023 Ohio Derailment

June 21, 2024 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
Norfolk Southern Corp. has agreed to pay more than $310 million and implement safety improvements as part of a settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Dept. of Justice over the disastrous February 2023 train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, officials and the company announced May 23. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer Returns to Newmeyer Dillion as Partner in Newport Beach Office

September 14, 2020 — Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer - Newmeyer Dillion
Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer has rejoined the firm as a partner in the Newport Beach office. Schotemeyer will expand the firm’s Real Estate Litigation, Construction Litigation, Business Litigation and Labor & Employment practices and strengthen the firm’s legal offerings for companies operating without a dedicated in-house legal counsel. “We are thrilled to be welcoming Dutch back to Newmeyer Dillion. He brings a wealth of litigation experience and has served as a trusted advisor to companies facing myriad complex legal disputes,” said the firm’s Managing Partner, Paul Tetzloff. “His experience as in-house counsel will greatly complement Newmeyer Dillion’s business-first mindset when it comes to providing legal counsel to our clients. He is an invaluable asset to the team.” Prior to rejoining Newmeyer Dillion, Schotemeyer was Vice President and Associate General Counsel for William Lyon Homes, Inc. and Vice President and Deputy General Counsel for Taylor Morrison. His experience as a corporate attorney has strengthened his ability to work with in-house counsel and serve as a relationship attorney that assists clients in managing legal needs by building the right team of legal specialists. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com

Solar Energy Isn’t Always Green

August 27, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
IEEE Spectrum reported that photovoltaics, used in Solar Energy, “varies substantially by technology and geography” and some emit chemical pollution. However, IEE Spectrum stated that “the industry could readily eliminate many of the damaging side effects that do exist.” One challenge is that “nearly half the world’s photovoltaics are manufactured in China” who, according to IEEE Spectrum, “typically [does] the worst job of protecting the environment and their workers.” It is also difficult for consumers to make choices based upon photovoltaic manufacturer practices, since solar energy doesn’t have a formal ecolabel like Energy Star, IEEE Spectrum reported. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Claimants’ Demand for Superfluous Wording In Release Does Not Excuse Insurer’s Failure to Accept Policy Limit Offer Within Time Specified

September 15, 2016 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Barickman v. Mercury Casualty Co. (No. B260833, filed 7/25/16, ord. pub. 8/15/16) a California appeals court affirmed a $3 million bad faith award against Mercury Casualty Co. based upon its failure to accept a policy limit demand within the time provided, finding that wording inserted by the claimants’ counsel into the release did not affect the insured’s rights such that the refusal to agree to the wording was unreasonable and in bad faith, exposing the insurer to liability for the insured’s stipulated judgment. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES