FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Another Worker Dies in Boston's Latest Construction Accident

June 20, 2022 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
Boston Police and the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration are investigating a June 9 early morning construction accident that killed a worker in Boston’s Seaport district— the latest in a spate of fatalities at worksites across the city's metro area during the past 18 months. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Like Water For Chocolate: Insurer Prevails Over Chocolatier In Hurricane Sandy Claim

November 08, 2017 — Afua S. Akoto - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Recently, a New Jersey Magistrate ruled that an insurer did not have to provide coverage for a chocolatier’s property damage and business interruption losses due to Hurricane Sandy. Madeline Chocolate Novelties Inc. (Madeline), a family-owned chocolatier in Queens Rockaway Beach, held a one-year all-risk policy with Great Northern Insurance (Great Northern). The policy contained a flood exclusion and a windstorm endorsement. When Hurricane Sandy hit in October 2012, Madeline suffered extensive damage and ceased operations during the ensuing holiday season. The chocolatier claimed $40 million in property damage and $13.5 million in business interruption losses and sought coverage under its policy. Great Northern paid just under $4 million and denied the remainder of the claim, citing the policy’s flood exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Afua S. Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com

---

Labor Development Impacting Developers, Contractors, and Landowners

June 25, 2019 — John Bolesta & Keahn Morris - Sheppard Mullin Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
It is unlawful for unions to secondarily picket construction sites or to coercively enmesh neutral parties in the disputes that a union may have with another employer. This area of the law is governed by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), the federal law that regulates union-management relations and the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), the federal administrative agency that is tasked with enforcing the NLRA. But NLRB decisions issued during the Obama administration have allowed a union to secondarily demonstrate at job sites and to publicize their beefs over the use of non-union contractors there, provided the union does not actually “picket” the site. In those decisions, the NLRB narrowed its definition of unlawful “picketing,” thereby, limiting the scope of unlawful activity prohibited by law. Included in such permissible nonpicketing secondary activity is the use of stationary banners or signs and the use of inflatable effigies, typically blow-up rats or cats, designed to capture the public’s attention at an offending employer’s job site or facilities. A recently released NLRB advice memo, however, signals the likely reversal of those earlier decisions and that contractors and owners may now be able to stop such harassing union job site tactics simply by filing a secondary boycott unfair labor practice change with the NLRB. The 18 page memo, dated December 20, 2018 (and released to the public on May 14, 2019), directs the NLRB’s Region 13 to issue a complaint against the Electrician’s Union in a dispute coming out of Chicago where the union erected a large, inflatable effigy, a cat clutching a construction worker by the neck, and posted a large stationary banner proclaiming its dispute to be with the job’s general contractor over the use of a non-union electrical sub at the job site’s entrance. Though not an official Board decision, the memo suggests the NLRB General Counsel’s (GC) belief that the earlier Obama era decisions may have been wrongly decided and should be reconsidered by the NLRB on the theories that the Union’s nonpicketing conduct was tantamount to unlawful secondary picketing, that it constituted “signal” picketing that unlawfully induced or encouraged the employees of others to cease working with the subs or that it constituted unlawful coercion. Reprinted courtesy of John Bolesta, Sheppard Mullin and Keahn Morris, Sheppard Mullin Mr. Bolesta may be contacted at jbolesta@sheppardmullin.com Mr. Morris may be contacted at kmorris@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

An Obligation to Provide Notice and an Opportunity to Cure May not End after Termination, and Why an Early Offer of Settlement Should Be Considered on Public Works Contracts

August 17, 2020 — Jeff Kaatz - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
In 2015, the City of Puyallup (“City”) and Conway Construction Company (“Conway”) executed a public works contract for road improvements (“Project”). On March 9, 2016, approximately four months after work started on the Project, the City issued Conway a notice of suspension and breach of contract and identified nine defective and uncorrected work and safety concerns. Conway denied any wrongdoing, and on March 25, 2016, the City issued a notice of termination for default and withheld payments due to Conway. Conway subsequently filed suit in Pierce County Superior Court and alleged the City’s termination for default breached the contract and sought a determination that the City’s termination for default was improper and should be deemed a termination for convenience. Conway sought approximately $1.25 million in damages and recovery of its attorney fees and costs. Following a bench trial, the Trial Court found the City breached the contract and awarded Conway damages, attorney fees, and costs. The City appealed.[1] On appeal, after affirming the trial court’s determination that the City improperly terminated Conway, the Court of Appeals considered two other issues raised by the City. First, whether the City was entitled to a set-off for replacing defective work discovered after Conway was terminated. Second, whether Conway is entitled to attorney fees if it did not make the statutorily required offer of settlement per RCW 39.04.240. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Kaatz, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Mr. Kaatz may be contacted at Jeff.Kaatz@acslawyers.com

---

Client Alert: Stipulated Judgment For Full Amount Of Underlying Claim As Security For Compromise Settlement Void As Unenforceable Penalty

March 26, 2014 — David W. Evans, Krsto Mijanovic, and Gregory M. Smith-Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Purcell v. Schweitzer (No. D063435 - filed February 24, 2014, certified for publication March 17, 2014), the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld an order setting aside a stipulated default judgment for the full amount of plaintiff’s claim which had been agreed to by the parties to a settlement agreement, finding that it constituted an unenforceable penalty because the amount bore no reasonable relationship to the settling party’s actual damages resulting from a breach of the settlement agreement. In an agreement settling a breach of contract action seeking $85,000 in damages based on an unpaid debt, the plaintiff agreed to settle the claim and to accept $38,000 in 24 monthly installments, including interest on the unpaid principal at 8.5 percent. The agreement provided that payments were due on the first day of each month and to be considered “timely,” had to be received by the fifth day of each month. If any payment was not made on time, it was to be considered a breach of the entire settlement agreement, making the entire $85,000 original liability due pursuant to a stipulation for entry of judgment for such amount. The stipulation included language to the effect that the $85,000 figure accounted for the “economics” of further proceedings. The agreement also specified that the foregoing provision did not constitute an unlawful “penalty” or “forfeiture” and that defendant waived any right to an appeal and any right to contest or seek to set aside such a judgment. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys David W. Evans, Krsto Mijanovic, and Gregory M. Smith Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com; Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com, and Mr. Smith may be contacted at gsmith@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Firm Settles Suit Over 2012 Calif. Wildfire

January 15, 2019 — Associated Press - Engineering News-Record
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Officials say a construction company and a logging firm have collectively agreed to pay $9 million for damages resulting from a 2012 wildfire that burned more than 1,600 acres of national forest land in Northern California. The U.S. Attorney's office in Sacramento says Monday that the agreement settles a lawsuit brought by the federal government against Kernen Construction and Bundy & Sons Logging. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

---

When Must a New York Insurer Turn Over a Copy of the Policy?

December 23, 2023 — Nicholas P. Hurzeler - Lewis Brisbois
New York, N.Y. (December 7, 2023) - It has long been the rule in New York that a defendant should disclose all insurance policies that might provide coverage to the plaintiff for an underlying claim. McKiernan v Vaccaro, 168 AD3d 827 [2d Dept 2019]; Keenan v Harbor View Health & Beauty Spa, 205 AD2d 589 [2d Dept 1994]. This rule applies to all tort cases, including motor vehicle; however, it does not apply to lawsuits seeking to recover No Fault expenses (see, CPLR 3101(f)(5)). Frequently, a plaintiff will demand a copy of the policy even when the claim is still pre-suit. This raises the question of when the insurer must comply with this specific type of discovery demand in New York. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas P. Hurzeler, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Hurzeler may be contacted at Nicholas.Hurzeler@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Attorneys' Fees Awarded "Because Of" Property Damage Are Covered by Policy

August 29, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court's decision that the insured Association of Apartment Owners was entitled to coverage for the attorneys' fees incurred [prior post here].Assoc'n of Apartment Owners of the Moorings, Inc. v. Dongbu Ins. Co., Ltd., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20251 (9th Cir. July 20, 2018). The District Court for the District of Hawaii granted summary judgment to the AOAO, requiring Dongbu to indemnify the AOAO for an award of attorney's fees that an arbitrator ordered the AOAO to pay to the underlying claimants. The claimants prevailed on a claim that their condominium unit incurred water damage due to a common roof leak. Dongbu's policy required it to reimburse those sums that the AOAO was legally obligated to pay as damages because of property damage. The AOAO became legally obligated to pay the claimants' fees once the state court confirmed the arbitration award. Further, the water damage to the home constituted covered property damage under the policy. 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

---