FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

School System Settles Design Defect Suit for $5.2Million

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A school district in New York State has settled a dispute with its architectural and engineering firm for $5.2 million. Greece School District alleged that the multi-million dollar remodel lead to a variety of problems due to design defects. The problems included leaking roofs, malfunctioning drainage systems, and problems with heating systems. Tetra Tech had one work at 20 schools in the district. The state Comptroller audited the $119.5 million renovation project and concluded that haste in the planning resulted in costly changes. Prior to the lawsuit, the architectural and engineering firm managed to recoup about $200,000 on behalf of the school district for work that was defective. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Allegations Versus “True Facts”: Which Govern the Duty to Defend? Bonus! A Georgia Court Clears Up What the Meaning of “Is” Is

December 11, 2023 — Rachel E. Hudgins & Syed S. Ahmad - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Courts scrutinize a complaint’s factual allegations to decide whether the allegations trigger a duty to defend. [1] If the facts unambiguously exclude coverage, there is no duty to defend. [2] But what if the factual allegations fall within a policy exclusion, but the allegations are untrue or questionable? What if the true facts would mean the exclusion doesn’t apply? In that case, many courts have found that the insurer should base its decision on the policyholder’s version of the “true facts.” [3] An insurer can’t rely on the complaint’s allegations to deny coverage when the facts that the insurer knows or can ascertain show that the claim is covered. [4] A recent case, United Minerals & Properties Inc. v. Phoenix Insurance Co., No. 4:23-cv-00050 (N.D. Ga.), illustrates these policy interpretation principles. Reprinted courtesy of Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com Mr. Ahmad may be contacted at sahmad@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Court Holds That the “Lesser of Two” Doctrine Limits Recoverable Damages in Subrogation Actions

September 23, 2019 — Michael L. DeBona - The Subrogation Strategist
In New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v. TopBuild Home Servs., Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69634 (April 24, 2019), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently held that the “lesser of two” doctrine applies to subrogation actions, thereby limiting property damages to the lesser of repair costs or the property’s diminution in value. In New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co., New York Central Mutual Insurance Company’s (New York Central) insureds, Paul and Karen Mazzola, suffered a fire to their home. After the fire, New York Central paid the Mazzolas $708,465.74 to repair the property. New York Central brought a subrogation action against TopBuild Home Services, Inc. (TopBuild), alleging that the fire was caused by negligent work performed by TopBuild. New York Central sought to recover the repair costs it paid to the Mazzolas. TopBuild conceded liability but disputed the proper measure of damages. TopBuild filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that under the “lesser of two” doctrine, New York Central could recover only the lesser of the costs to repair the property or the property’s diminution in value. TopBuild, therefore, asserted that New York Central was not entitled to the repair costs of $708,465.74 but, rather, could recover only the property’s decline in value following the fire – approximately $250,000.[1] In response, New York Central argued that New York’s “lesser of two” doctrine does not apply to subrogation actions because an insurance company cannot mitigate the payment it makes to its insured. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLP
Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Full Extent of Damage From Turkey Quakes Takes Shape

February 20, 2023 — Jeff Rubenstone - Engineering News-Record
Nearly two weeks after a pair of severe earthquakes rocked central Turkey and northern Syria, the full extent of damage to buildings and other structures is beginning to emerge. With the magnitude 7.8 and 7.5 epicenters located hundreds of kilometers apart, the area affected is vast. Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, Engineering News-Record Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Suffolk Stands Down After Consecutive Serious Boston Site Injuries

May 23, 2022 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
After two serious safety incidents in consecutive days, the Boston-area’s largest contractor voluntarily issued a safety stand down on all projects in Boston through May 6. 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

---

Does Your 998 Offer to Compromise Include Attorneys’ Fees and Costs?

June 15, 2017 — Anthony J. Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer to compromise is explained in section 998(c)(1):

If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added). The Basic Requirements for a Valid 998 Offer Pursuant to section 998(b), a 998 offer must satisfy three principal conditions: (1) it must be contained in a writing; (2) it must state the terms and conditions of the proposed judgment or award; and (3) it must contain a provision allowing the offeree to accept the offer by signing a statement to that effect. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(b). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony J. Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

---

Location, Location, Location—Even in Construction Liens

October 28, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
We all know the importance of filing a construction lien within 120 days of your last work. Nebraska Construction Lien Act, § 52-137. But, equally, if not more important is filing the construction lien on the correct property. Often times on a construction project, the exact address of the project may not be known. And, if there are a few buildings going up on the same general site, it is difficult to determine which property or building address you are working on. Sometimes you can look at the contract. For example, the AIA family of documents lists the address on the first page. But, what if the wrong address is listed? What if the wrong owner is listed? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---

Protecting Expert Opinions: Lessons Regarding Attorney-Client Privilege and Expert Retention in Construction Litigation

August 19, 2024 — David McLain - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
The Hill Hotel Owner LLC v. Hanover Insurance Company case has garnered attention due to its implications on the scope of attorney-client privilege in construction litigation. This blog post delves into the project’s background, the ensuing litigation, and the intricate work undertaken by attorneys and experts, highlighting the potential pitfalls associated with assumptions about privilege protections. Background of the Project Hill Hotel Owner LLC initiated a construction project in Boulder, Colorado, which included building a basement-level parking garage with an 18” thick concrete slab floor. The project utilized “void form,” a cardboard underlayment intended to create a gap between the foundation and the underlying soil. Unfortunately, the void form became wet and collapsed under the weight of the fresh concrete, causing considerable damage, and necessitating millions of dollars in remediation costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---