FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence

August 17, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Miller v. Lankow that Mr. Miller was within his rights to remediate his home, even though doing so destroyed the evidence of water intrusion.



Linda Lankow built a home in 1992. In 2001 or 2002, Lankow discovered a stucco problem at the garage which she attributed to moisture intrusion. She asked the original contractor to fix the wall. In 2003, Lankow attempted to sell her home, but the home inspection revealed fungal growth in the basement. Lankow made further repairs, including alterations to the landscaping.



In 2004, Lankow put her house on the market once again and entered into an agreement with David Miller. Miller declined to have an independent inspection, as the home had been repaired by professional contractors.



In 2005, Miller put the house on the market. A prospective buyer requested a moisture inspection. The inspection firm, Private Eye, Inc. found “significant moisture intrusion problems.”



Miller hired an attorney who sent letters to the contractors and to Lankow and her husband. Lankow’s husband, Jim Betz, an attorney, represented his wife and sent a letter to Miller’s attorney that Miller had declined an opportunity to inspect the home.



In 2007, Miller’s new attorney sent letters to all parties that Miller had decided to begin remediation work on the house. All stucco was removed. Miller then filed a lawsuit against the prior owners, the builders, and the realtors.



Two of the contractors and the prior owners moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Miller had spoliated evidence by removing the stucco. They requested that Miller’s expert reports be excluded. The district court found for the defendants and imposed sanctions on Miller.



The Minnesota Supreme court found that “a custodial party’s duty to preserve evidence is not boundless,” stating that “it may be particularly import to allow remediation in cases such as the one before us.” Their reasoning was that “remediation of the moisture intrusion problem in the home may be necessary, even essential, to address immediate health concerns.”



Given that Miller needed to remediate the problem in order to continue living there, and that he had given the other parties a “full and fair opportunity to inspect,” the court found that he was within his rights. The court reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded it to them for review.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Texas Supreme Court to Rehear Menchaca Bad Faith Case

January 10, 2018 — Sean P. Mahoney – Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter
On December 15th, the Texas Supreme Court agreed to revisit its April 7, 2017 decision in USAA Texas Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, No. 14-0721, a “bad faith” case arising out of Hurricane Ike damage, in which the court held that a policyholder could potentially recover policy benefits for statutory bad faith under Texas law, even though a jury concluded that the insurer did not breach the terms of the policy, if the policyholder could show that she was nevertheless entitled to the benefit. The decision to rehear this matter comes at the urging of insurers and interested groups, including the Insurance Council of Texas and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who argued that the April 7, 2017 ruling substantially unsettled Texas insurance law. Menchaca is a first-party property insurance coverage case. After Hurricane Ike struck in 2008, plaintiff Menchaca submitted a claim under her homeowners policy to USAA. A USAA adjuster later concluded that Menchaca’s property suffered only “minimal damage” that fell below the deductible. Menchaca sued claiming breach of contract and unfair claims settlement practices in violation of the Texas Insurance Code. As damages, she sought only the policy benefit, court costs, and attorneys’ fees. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sean P. Mahoney, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at mahoneys@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Be Wary of Construction Defects when Joining a Community Association

February 07, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
There are some benefits to living in small developments with correspondingly small community association. Marilyn Briscoe told the Chicago Tribune that in her 34-unit town home association, "people kind of look out for each other here." But the article also cautions to not only meet the other owners, but that you should "know the developer" and "be leery if you discover litigation for construction defects." Ryan Shpritz, an association attorney said that "you don't want to start out your new association by spending money on lawyer fees or repairing defects." Whether the development is large or small, "having construction defect litigation going on will have an impact on salability." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Best Lawyers in America ® 2016

February 23, 2016 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
January 21, 2016 - The Best Lawyers in America® 2016, is the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession. Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys earning this honor for 2016 include the following: William G. Baumgaertner - Personal Injury Litigation Denis J. Moriarty - Insurance Law Since its inception in 1983, Best Lawyers has become regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Because Best Lawyers is based on an exhaustive peer-review survey in which more than 39,000 leading attorneys cast almost 3.1 million votes on the legal abilities of other lawyers in their practice areas, and because lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed, inclusion in Best Lawyers is considered a singular honor. Corporate Counsel magazine has called Best Lawyers “the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

---

The “Program Accessibility” Exception for Public Entities Under the ADA

September 10, 2014 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Public owners, as well as private owners and tenants of commercial and retail properties, are at risk of lawsuits brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and related state law alleging that their facilities are not accessible by those with disabilities. A common misperception among private owners and tenants is that facilities constructed before the ADA went into effect in 1992 are exempt or “grandfathered” from the ADA’s requirements. Not so. At least generally. If, however, you are a public entity, there is such an exception. Lucky you. Under the ADA, public facilities constructed prior to January 26, 1992 need not be “accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities” so long as a public entity’s “service[s], program[s] and activit[ies], when viewed in [their] entirety, [are] readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” Known as “program accessibility,” the exception has left many public entities scratching their heads as to what they can and must do. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

---

Construction Costs Up

February 21, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The cost of putting a building up just got a little higher. The General Contractors of America have tracked an 0.7 percent increase in the cost of building materials between December and January, leading to a 1.3 percent increase through 2012. Ken Simonson, the organization’s chief economist, said that “contractors had to contend with huge leaps in prices for gypsum, wallboard and lumber, as well as significant increases in the cost of insulation and architectural coatings such as paint.” And it isn’t just building materials. Simonson notes that diesel prices are up too, which increases the costs of moving heavy machinery across the site, among other considerations. Don’t expect things to change. “It is clear that costs are rising significantly higher in February,” said Simonson. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

From the Ashes: Reconstructing After the Maui Wildfire

November 27, 2023 — Grace Calengor - Construction Executive
On Tuesday, Aug. 8, a wildfire on the Hawaiian island of Maui ravaged the town of Lahaina, killing nearly 100 people and stranding thousands of survivors, many of whom remain displaced today. The loss of life makes this the deadliest American wildfire on record, while the material cost in property damage has been estimated at upwards of $5 billion. The response to the disaster has involved firefighters and other emergency personnel—and also engineering and construction professionals. One of them is Tam Kim, director of operations for West Maui Construction Inc., a civil contractor on the island. Originally from Oregon, Kim fell in love with Hawaii when he visited on a surfing vacation; eventually he took his technology background and helped found a startup company on Maui in 2008. Eight years later, the startup relocated to Oahu, but Kim stayed on Maui to forge a different path, one that would lead him somewhere he never imagined. Reprinted courtesy of Grace Calengor, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

An Insurance Policy Isn’t Ambiguous Just Because You Want It to Be

December 20, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to insurance contracts, there is a rule of law that states, “where interpretation is required by ambiguity in insurance contracts[,] the insured will be favored.” Pride Clean Restoration, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2584a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (citation and quotation omitted). Stated another way: ambiguities in insurance contracts will be interpreted in favor of the insured and against the insurer. With this rule of law in mind, insureds oftentimes try to argue ambiguity even when there is not one. This was the situation in Pride Clean Construction. In this case, the property insurance policy contained a mold exclusion that stated the policy did NOT insure for “a. loss caused by mold, mildew, fungus, spores or other microorganism of any type, nature, or description including but not limited to any substance whose presence poses an actual or potential threat to human health; or b. the cost or expense of monitoring, testing, removal, encapsulation, abatement, treatment or handling of mold, mildew, fungus, spores or other microorganism as referred to in a) above.” Not only did the policy not insure for loss caused by mold, it went further to state it was NOT insuring for any mold testing or abatement. 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

---