Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Transportation Officials Make the Best of a Bumpy 2020

January 18, 2021 — Jim Parsons & Aileen Cho - Engineering News-Record
The year 2020 provided a bumpy budgetary ride for all modes of transportation, and some industry insiders don’t expect airport and transit ridership to return to pre-pandemic levels for years. Agencies are taking lessons learned, coupled with hopes for the new Biden administration, to carry on as best they can. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record and Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Godfather Charged with Insurance Fraud

July 01, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Texas-based Godfather Construction is a recipient of a fraud suit from the Cook County state attorney’s office. The firm incorporated in Illinois in April 2010, moving there to do business after storms damaged homes in the Chicago suburbs, according to a report in the Chicago Tribune. The state attorney alleges that Godfather brought unlicensed out-of-state workers and the work they performed was “incomplete or shoddy.” Godfather is claimed to have received about $60,000 from Illinois homeowners. The prosecutors are seeking restitution for Godfather’s clients and seek to forbid the firm from doing business in Illinois.

Read the full story…

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

The Miller Act: More Complex than You Think

October 07, 2016 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Keith Bremer, senior partner of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara LLP, has a feature article in the Fall 2016 issue of Construction Claims Magazine, and discusses how the Miller Act has been slowly changing: “This is a complex piece of legislation that is evolving and has been decided differently depending on the federal district a case is heard in,” Bremer wrote. Bremer explained how the courts continue to rule differently in regards to the Miller Act. “Currently it seems jurisdictions are split on the issue of whether or not subcontractors should be allowed to bring both a federal and state cause of action stemming from payment by a Miller Act bond. Therefore, any surety writing these bonds should pay strict attention to how broad or narrow the federal district that would hear the claim has interpreted the scope of a subcontractor’s remedies for Miller Act claims.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Connecticut Supreme Court Again Asked to Determine the Meaning of Collapse

August 20, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Faced with a series of policies, earlier ones which did not define collapse, newer policies which did, the court determined there was a possibility of coverage under the older policies which did not define collapse. Vera v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100548 (D. Conn. June 15, 2018). Connecticut courts have faced a rash of collapse cases as a result of cement provided to build house foundations by J.J. Mottes Concrete Co. Many basement foundations built with the concrete have shown cracking and other signs of premature deterioration. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

EPA Announces Decision to Retain Current Position on RCRA Regulation of Oil and Gas Production Wastes

June 03, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
After much study, EPA has decided against changing its current RCRA Subtitle D rules affecting the state regulation of oil and gas exploration & production waste. Since 1988, EPA has determined that most such wastes should be regulated as only non-hazardous wastes subject to RCRA Subtitle D, and not the more onerous hazardous waste provisions of RCRA Subtitle C. (See the Regulatory Determination of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Exploration, Development and Production Wastes, 53 FR 25,446 (July 6,1988).) As a result, under the Subtitle D rules, the primary regulators of such waste are state regulatory agencies, which follow the state plan non-hazardous waste guidelines developed by EPA. This regulatory disposition has proven to be fairly controversial, and it was recently challenged in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: Environmental Integrity Project, et al. v. McCarthy. To settle this lawsuit, EPA and the plaintiffs entered into a consent decree by which EPA was to make certain determinations about the future of the program after conducting an appropriate study. That study, Management of Exploration, Development and Production Wastes: Factors Informing a Decision on the Need for Regulatory Action, has been completed, and it concludes, after a fairly comprehensive review of these state regulatory programs, that “revisions to the federal regulations for the management of E&P wastes under Subtitle D of RCRA (40 CFR Part 257) are not necessary at this time.” In a statement released on April 23, 2019, EPA accepted these findings and promised that it would continue to work with states and other stakeholders to identify areas for improvement and to address emerging issues to ensure that exploration, development and production wastes “continue to be managed in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

The Double-Breasted Dilemma

July 18, 2022 — Lauren E. Rankins & Saloni Shah - ConsensusDocs
What Is A Double-Breasted Operation? A double-breasted operation is when a firm has two entities, and one entity performs work under collective bargaining agreements and the other does not. While this type of operation is not outright prohibited, it is often subject to a variety of challenges and scrutiny. To legally run a double-breasted operation, the two companies must remain separate and distinct. If the companies are not sufficiently separate and distinct from one another, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) or a court may find that the two companies are operating as a single entity or that the non-union company, or also known as the open shop, is merely an alter ego of the union company and, therefore, bound by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. In order to determine whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct, the two entities must pass either the single employer test or the alter ego test depending on the nature of the double-breasted operation. Typically, the single employer test is used when the two entities run parallel operations, and the alter ego test is used when the open shop replaces the union company. Under the single employer test, the NLRB or courts will generally consider four factors: (1) the interrelation of operations; (2) common management; (3) common control of labor relations; and (4) common ownership. The alter ego test does not require a finding that the companies are a single bargaining unit, but analyzes to what extent the two entities have substantially identical management, business operation and purpose, business equipment, customers, and ownership. While common ownership is a factor considered under both the single employer and alter ego tests, common ownership alone is not dispositive of whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct. In other words, the NLRB and courts do not simply look for common ownership to determine whether the double-breasted operation is lawful. It is merely one of many factors to consider. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lauren E. Rankins, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Rankins may be contacted at lrankins@watttieder.com

Update: Amazon Can (Still) Be Liable in Louisiana

December 31, 2024 — Michael Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation Strategist
On November 25, 2024, in Pickard v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-01448, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215377, the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (District Court) ruled that Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) could be liable for manufacturer-seller liability under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) for a defective product sold by a third-party seller through the “Fulfillment by Amazon” program (FBA). The court also dismissed two tort claims against Amazon as follows: (i) Amazon does not qualify as a “seller” for purposes of non-manufacturer seller liability (because passing title is required for that claim); and (ii) there is insufficient evidence to prove the decedent, Archie Pickard (Pickard), relied on Amazon’s safety practices when purchasing the defective product, precluding a claim for negligent undertaking. Background Pickard died from injuries sustained in a house fire allegedly caused by a defective battery charger he purchased on Amazon. Jisell, a Chinese company and a third-party seller, manufactured and sold the charger. Amazon never took title to the charger but stored it in its warehouse and delivered it to Pickard through the FBA. Pickard’s children filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Amazon alleging three claims: (i) manufacturer-seller liability under the LPLA; and tort-based claims of (ii) non-manufacturer seller liability and (iii) negligent undertaking. After Amazon moved for summary judgment on all claims, the District Court certified questions to the Supreme Court of Louisiana (Supreme Court) seeking guidance as there was minimal guidance regarding the application of products claims to online marketplaces. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

Insurer's Judgment on the Pleadings Based Upon Expected Injury Exclusion Reversed

October 30, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The appellate court reversed the trial court's granting of a judgment on the pleadings based upon the expected injury exclusion in a homeowner's policy. Allstate Indemn. Co. v. Contreras, 2018 Ill. App. LEXIS 170964 (Ill. Ct. App. July 20, 2018). Alejandra Contreras owned Jasmine's Day Care. Her husband, Adan Contreras, was not an employee of the Day Care. Alejandra and Adan had a homeowner's policy which provided day care liability coverage through an endorsement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES