Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

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

Texas Condo Construction Defect Code Amended

September 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to David H. Fisk of Kane Russell Coleman & Logan PC, “Before filing a lawsuit or initiating an arbitration proceeding pertaining to a construction defect, a condominium association in Texas with eight or more units must now comply with the newly added Section 82.119 to Chapter 82 of the Texas Property Code.” Fisk reported that the new section “requires affected associations to have a licensed professional engineer inspect the units and common elements in question and prepare a written report that (1) identifies the specific units or common elements, (2) describes the present physical condition of the units or common elements, and (3) describes any modifications, maintenance, or repairs to the units or common elements performed by the unit owners or the association.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (04/18/23) – Clean Energy, Critical Infrastructure and Commercial Concerns

April 25, 2023 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In today’s roundup, construction waxes and wanes, energy goals are set, and concerns abound for the commercial real estate market in the United States and Europe.

A new AI-driven real estate platform, Land on Earth, will use their ChatGPT-powered HomeMatch technology to match house hunters with their ideal properties. (Business Wire)
Following a strong show in February, new construction decreased in March, with an 8.8 percent decrease in permits. (Tim Smart, U.S. News)
The UK’s construction industry made a strong performance this winter, but strikes have offset gains, dimming hopes of economic revival. (Paul Godfrey, UPI)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

4 Steps to Take When a Worker Is Injured on Your Construction Site

March 27, 2023 — Zachary Perecman - Construction Executive
The construction industry continues to be one of the fastest-growing labor trades. According to the Center for Construction Research and Training, since 2019, 11.4 million U.S. workers have been employed in construction, a 25% increase from 2011. Amid this growth, the industry has remained one of the most dangerous, and workers are often at higher risk of injuries and deaths due to occupational incidents. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 150,000 injuries on construction work sites annually. Under Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) law, employers have a responsibility to provide a safe work environment. That includes providing a workplace that is free of serious recognized hazards. Despite best efforts in implementing risk-mitigation and safety protocols, employers must be prepared with an incident procedure should an incident occur on a jobsite. Taking immediate, clear actions can impact the severity and outcome of injuries from a workplace incident. With this in mind, employers should take the lead in implementing safety procedures for injuries on construction sites and should inform all safety site managers and workers of the steps that should be taken. Reprinted courtesy of Zachary Perecman, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Federal Contractors – Double Check the Terms of Your Contract Before Performing Ordered Changes

July 08, 2019 — Jonathan Schirmer - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
As federal contractors may be aware, the general rule when performing a contract for the federal government is that only the contracting officer (“CO”) can bind the government. Often, the CO delegates responsibility to a contracting officer’s representative (“COR”). While in some cases a COR may be able to bind the federal government, the contract may limit that ability exclusively to the CO. Important for our clients, it is the responsibility of the contractor to determine whether the COR can legally bind the federal government when ordering changes to the scope of work. [1] This is true even when a COR possesses apparent authority to order changes to the work, and when the project is almost exclusively overseen by COR’s. [2] A recent case highlights the dangers of a contractor relying on the orders of a COR when performing work outside the scope of a contract. In Baistar Mechanical Inc., a contractor was awarded a maintenance and snow removal contract with the federal government. The contract expressly stated that only the CO had contracting authority regarding additional or changed work. [3] However, Baistar, the contractor, argued it was directed by the contracting officer’s representatives to perform work outside of the contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jonathan Schirmer, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Schirmer may be contacted at jonathan.schirmer@acslawyers.com

Court Rules that Damage From Squatter’s Fire is Not Excluded as Vandalism or Malicious Mischief

April 15, 2015 — Valerie A. Moore, Christopher Kendrick, and Colin T. Murphy – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Ong v. Fire Insurance Exchange (No. B252773, filed 4/3/15), a California appeals court ruled that a vacancy exclusion limited to damage caused by “vandalism or malicious mischief” did not bar coverage for damage to a vacant property caused by a warming fire purposely started by a transient that got out of control and spread to other parts of the property. In Ong, the insured’s rental premises had been vacated by tenants and the utilities turned off. Nearly two years later, the insured submitted a claim for fire damage that had just occurred. An investigator reported finding signs that a squatter had been living in the building, stating that: “[I]t appears the fire may have been initiated as the result of an uncontrolled warming fire started by an unauthorized inhabitant.” The investigator found firewood and a mattress, and concluded that holes burned in the floor were the result of the squatter attempting to throw burning wood out the door when the fire got out of control. The policy excluded vandalism as follows: “We do not cover direct or indirect loss from: . . . 4. Vandalism or Malicious Mischief, breakage of glass and safety glazing materials if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days . . . just before the loss. A dwelling under construction is not considered vacant.” The term “Vandalism” was not defined in the policy. The insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion, stating: “Our investigation indicates that this loss was the result of vandalism. A trespasser entered the vacant dwelling and intentionally set a fire on the kitchen floor.” Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Valerie A. Moore, Christopher Kendrick and Colin T. Murphy Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com. Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Mr. Murphy may be contacted at cmurphy@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

June 28, 2013 — Tred Eyerly
The federal district court assumed there was "property damage" caused by an "occurrence," but found the business risk exclusions barred coverage for construction defect claims. Hubbell v. Carney Bros. Constr., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68331 (D. Colo. May 13, 2013). The plaintiffs entered a construction contract with the insured general contractor to build a home. After the project was one-third completed, plaintiffs terminated the contract. Experts hired by plaintiffs found a failure to properly site the residence, as the house was constructed 48 feet from the intended location; violations of county height restrictions; failure to follow building plans, which were themselves deficient; and an improperly poured foundation. The experts estimated that the costs of repairing the property to be between $1.3 and $1.5 million, and that the cost of demolishing the structure and rebuilding it would be between $1.1 and $1.3 million. After plaintiff filed suit, a stipulated judgment of $1.952 million was entered. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team on Obtaining a Defense Verdict in Favor of their Subcontractor Client!

April 02, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara’s Newport Beach Partner Morgan Stiefel and Associate Brandon Cook obtained a defense verdict after years-long litigation in favor of their subcontractor client. This lawsuit stemmed from a claim made by Plaintiff for eye injuries arising out of claimed negligence and strict liability associated with our client’s performance of a sandblasting job at a construction site adjacent to Plaintiff’s home. Plaintiff alleges that while she was in her backyard, sand hit her in the eyes at a high velocity speed, resulting in permanent damage to her eyes. We argued our clients took all necessary safety precautions in the performance of this job, and Plaintiff’s eye irritation symptoms could not have been caused by our client. All of her alleged injuries were either pre-existing or could be explained by circumstances other than our client’s actions. Through expert testimony and our arguments, we were able to show the jury that Plaintiff lied about the sand entering her eyes at a high velocity and her symptoms being caused by our clients’ performance of the sandblasting job. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES