Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

What You Need to Know About the Recently Enacted Infrastructure Bill

December 06, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
This past week, President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The bill, commonly referred to as the Infrastructure Bill, provides for $1.2 trillion in spending over the next five years on the nation’s infrastructure and is one of two major legislative initiatives of the Biden Administration, the other being Biden’s $1.75 billion Build Back Better Bill focused on “soft” assets such money to fight climate change, for universal free preschool, for paid family and medical leave, etc. While the Infrastructure Bill contains its fair share of pet projects, economists and historians generally agree that the Infrastructure Bill is the largest investment in the nation’s infrastructure since President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” in 1933. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Greystone on Remand Denies Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment To Bar Coverage For Construction Defects

June 28, 2013 — Tred Eyerly
A prior post here discussed the Tenth Circuit's decision in Greystone Constr., Inc. v. National Union Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 661 F. 3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2011). The court found a duty to defend construction defect claims where damage caused by the faulty workmanship was unintentional. The Tenth Circuit remanded for a determination on whether any policy exclusions precluded a defense or indemnity for damage arising from faulty workmanship. On remand, the district court denied National Union's Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking to establish the policy exclusions precluded its duty to defend and to indemnify. See Greystone Constr., Inc. v. v. National Union Fire & Marine ins. Co., 2013 U. S. LEXIS 46707 (D. Colo. March 31, 2013). Greystone was sued for construction defects in homes it built. The suit alleged that Greystone failed to recognize defects in the soil where the house was built. National Union refused to defend. The district court initially granted summary judgment to National Union because claims arising from construction defects were not covered. As noted above, the Tenth Circuit vacated because the damage in the underlying suit did not categorically fall outside coverage under the policy. On remand, National Union first argued there was no duty to defend based upon an exclusion precluding coverage for damage arising out of work done by subcontractors unless the subcontractors agreed in writing to defend and indemnify the insured and carried insurance with coverage limits equal to or greater than that carried by the insured. The Tenth Circuit rejected this argument because National Union had to rely on facts outside of the underlying complaint. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

First Railroad Bridge Between Russia and China Set to Open

August 06, 2019 — Saibal Dasgupta - Engineering News-Record
Work was completed on the first-ever railroad bridge connecting Russia to China in early April, as Russian engineers installed the final steel beam in its section of the structure over the river called the Amur in Russian and the Heilongjiang. China finished its part of the work last October, as the structure successfully spanned the world's 10th longest river, which markets the boundary between the two countries. Officials say the bridge will open for public use after the necessary inspections in July this year. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Saibal Dasgupta, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Contractual Warranty Agreements May Preclude Future Tort Recovery

January 11, 2022 — Taylor Ostrowski - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
When a buyer purchases a product that is later discovered to be defective, the court offers a remedy to make the buyer whole. Such remedies can arise either out of a contract, including express and/or implied warranties, or under common law through a tort theory. However, what happens when a buyer has already received the remedy specified in the contractual warranty, only to discover the product manufacturer misrepresented the quality of its product by failing to disclose a defect? Can the buyer subsequently recover for the same product under a tort theory of recovery? The Colorado Court of Appeals analyzed such questions in its December 2021 decision in Dream Finders Homes, LLC v. Weyerhaeuser NR Co., 2021 COA 143. In Dream Finders, the court examines the rights of sophisticated buyers who purchased defective products and received a warranty from the product manufacturer with purchase. The court specifically determines whether such buyers may recover under the tort theory product misrepresentation and failure to disclose when the buyers have already received the remedy specified and the warranty expressly excludes the type of damage the buyer now seeks. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Taylor Ostrowski, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Ostrowski may be contacted at ostrowski@hhmrlaw.com

A Survey of Trends and Perspectives in Construction Defect Decisions

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Thomas F. Segella, Ellen H. Greiper, and Matthew S. Lerner, partners at the firm Goldberg Segalia, together with Suzin L. Raso, an associate of the firm, have prepared a wide-ranging survey of cases, in their commentary, “Emerging Trends and Changing Perspectives on Construction Defect Claims. The authors examine 11 coverage cases, representing decisions from eight states, and 15 cases of litigation, here covering 11 states. In each case, they give a one-sentence summary, a further discussion of the case, and they end with a practice note. They start with Alabama, noting that the court found that “faulty workmanship is not an occurrence,” looking at the recent case of Owners Insurance Co. v. Jim Carr Homebuilders, LLC. Here they note that under Alabama law, “there was no damage to personal property or property of others; therefore, there was no ‘occurrence.’” They also note that “the policy involved did not contain a ‘subcontractor exception.’” In Georgia, they noted, the courts concluded that “damage to insured’s completed work is an ‘occurrence.’” Here they cite a recent decision of the Georgia Supreme Court, noting that the court looked at cases from Connecticut, South Carolina, Illinois, Texas, as well as the Fourth and Tenth Circuits. Under litigation, they look at such aspects of construction defect litigation such as the application of the economic loss doctrine in Kansas and Florida, and how the courts view arbitration agreements in states including New Jersey, Louisiana, and Colorado. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

With an Eye Already in the Sky, Crane Camera Goes Big Data

February 02, 2017 — Jeff Rubenstone - Engineering News-Record
It started simple enough: a wireless camera mounted on the hook block of a tower crane, allowing the operator in the cab to see the rigger on the ground and the area around the hook. But just a few years later, Netarus’ HoistCam is part of a method to generate point-cloud images of jobsites from the highest perch around. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, ENR
Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com

Court Finds No Coverage for Workplace “Prank” With Nail Gun

April 04, 2022 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In the recent case of Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Burby, 2022 NY Slip Op 22070, ¶ 1 (Sup. Ct.) Justice Richard M. Platkin of the Supreme Court of Albany County, New York examined a homeowners insurance policy and determined that a duty to defend was triggered in a case seeking recovery for injuries sustained when the insured, Burby allegedly discharged a nail gun in the bathroom of a work facility at which both Burby and the underlying plaintiff worked. Burby pled guilty to assault in the third degree for recklessly causing physical injury. MetLife, Burby’s carrier, disclaimed coverage based on lack of an occurrence, the business activities exclusion and the intentional loss exclusion, which bars coverage for injuries expected or intended by the insured or injuries that are the result of the insured’s intentional and criminal acts or omissions. Justice Platkin initially reviewed the intentional loss exclusion and lack of an occurrence and found that, from a duty to defend perspective, neither provided a dispositive coverage defense. However, the court found that the broadly worded business activities exclusion, which was not the subject of MetLife’s motion and instead was the subject of a cross motion by Burby, applied to bar coverage. In doing so, the court searched the record and granted summary judgment on the issue, despite MetLife not moving for relief under the exclusion. With respect to the expected or intended prong of the intentional loss exclusion, the court found that, even if Burby did intend to pull the trigger of the nail gun, it was not pled in the underlying complaint that the harm that resulted to the plaintiff was expected or intended. As such, the court concluded that MetLife did not prove that there was no possible factual or legal basis upon which it could be found that Burby did not reasonably expect or intend to cause injury to the plaintiff. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

California Supreme Court Endorses City Authority to Adopt Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

August 04, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
The following post was written by my partner Neal Parish on the California Supreme Court’s recent (and surprising) new decision which eases the way for local governments to adopt inclusionary housing ordinances, to the chagrin of residential housing developers. On June 15, 2015, in a decision that came as a surprise to many observers, the California Supreme Court unanimously rejected a challenge to San Jose’s inclusionary housing ordinance which had been filed by the California Building Industry Association (CBIA) and supported by the Pacific Legal Foundation. The Court disagreed with CBIA’s position, which claimed that jurisdictions must first show a nexus between new market-rate residential development and the need for affordable housing before adopting any inclusionary housing requirement. The Court instead held that in adopting an inclusionary housing ordinance the City needs to simply demonstrate a real and substantial relationship between the ordinance and the public interest, and further held that the ordinance did not represent a taking of developers’ property interests. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES