Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Fair Share Act Does Not Preempt Common Law When Apportioning Liability

March 09, 2020 — Mark T. Caloyer & Joelle Nelson - Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
On February 19, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a long awaited opinion in the matter of Roverano v. John Crane, Inc., No. 26 EAP 2018, No. 27 EAP 2018 (Pa. 2020). The Court’s opinion is a must-read for anyone involved in asbestos litigation in Pennsylvania. In Roverano, the Court ruled that Pennsylvania’s Fair Share Act (42 Pa.C.S. § 7102) does not preempt Pennsylvania common law favoring per capita apportionment of liability to strict liability defendants. In addition, the Court ruled that bankruptcy trusts, that are either joined as third-party defendants or that have entered into a release with the plaintiff, may be included on the verdict sheet for purposes of liability. In this case, Mr. Roverano sued 30 defendants in strict liability and Defendant Crane filed a joinder complaint against Johns-Manville Personal Injury Trust. The case proceeded to trial against eight defendants in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. At trial, some of the defendants filed motions in limine seeking a ruling that the Fair Share Act applied to asbestos cases. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that asbestos exposure cannot be quantified, and held that that it would apportion liability on a per capita basis consistent with the Court’s opinion in Baker v. AC&S, 755 A.2d 664 (Pa. 2000). Reprinted courtesy of Mark T. Caloyer, Lewis Brisbois and Joelle Nelson, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Caloyer may be contacted at Mark.Caloyer@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Nelson may be contacted at Joelle.Nelson@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pacing in Construction Scheduling Disputes

September 14, 2017 — Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
On a high level, construction delay litigation involves sorting out the impacts to the critical project path and determining which party is responsible for those impacts. One of the more difficult elements of this process is determining whether a delay would have occurred regardless of one party’s critical path impact due to a separate, independent impact to the critical path by the other party. For example, a contractor cannot collect delay damages for delays caused by the owner if the contractor itself was causing independent impacts that would have pushed off the completion date anyway. However, the concept of “pacing” provides a potential defense for a party who is not on pace with the as-planned schedule for noncritical activities, even where those activities are still ongoing after the planned completion date. “Pacing delays” are a type of concurrent delay that occur when one party makes a conscious decision to decelerate or slow down the pace of noncritical activities to keep pace with the critical delays of another party. A more formal definition would be “deceleration of the work of the project, by one of the parties to a contract, due to a delay caused by the other party, so as to maintain steady progress with the revised overall project schedule.” Zack, Pacing Delays–The Practical Effect, Construction Specifier 47, 48 (Jan. 2000). A party to the construction process may decide to slow down its performance of noncritical activities to keep pace with the delayed progress. For example, contractors may adjust the pace of their work in light of delays in owner-furnished equipment, delays by other multiple prime contractors, delays in permits, limited access, or differing site conditions. Owners may slow down their response time to requests for information or submittals, or postpone the delivery of owner-furnished equipment or the processing of change orders. Id. at 48. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

Loan Modifications Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: FDIC Answers CARES Act FAQs

May 11, 2020 — Nancy Sabol Frantz, Marissa Levy, Timothy E. Davis & Kristen E. Andreoli - White and Williams
In support of financial institutions and borrowers during the COVID-19 pandemic, the newly enacted Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) includes a number of provisions permitting lenders to suspend, during a covered period, requirements under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) with respect to categorizing certain loan modifications as a troubled debt restructuring (TDR) due to COVID-19. In light of the CARES Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a series of answers to FAQs for financial institutions with respect to loan modifications. The FAQs help guide lenders as well as borrowers as they address pending defaults under existing credit facilities. The FAQs encourage financial institutions to work with borrowers who may be unable to meet their payment obligations due to COVID-19 in several ways: Payment Accommodations Short-term accommodations which modify, extend, suspend or defer repayment terms should be intended to facilitate the borrower’s ability to work through the immediate impact of the virus. According to the FAQs, all loan accommodation programs should ultimately be targeted towards repayment. To that end, the FDIC recommends that financial institutions address deferred or skipped payments by either extending the original maturity date or by making those payments due in a balloon payment at the maturity date of the loan. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys Nancy Sabol Frantz, Marissa Levy, Timothy E. Davis and Kristen E. Andreoli Ms. Frantz may be contacted at frantzn@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Levy may be contacted at levymp@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Davis may be contacted at davist@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Andreoli may be contacted at andreolik@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Appellate Division Confirms Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owners in Action Alleging Labor Law Violations

June 19, 2023 — Lisa M. Rolle - Traub Lieberman
In this action brought before the State of New York, Appellate Division, Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle represented Defendant Property Owners in an appeal asserting Labor Law violations. In the underlying case, Plaintiff allegedly was injured while working on a construction project at a property owned by the Defendants, alleging violations of Labor Law §§240(1) and 241(6). The Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), arguing that they could not be held liable for such violations due to the exemption set forth in those statutes for owners of one- and two-family dwellings. The Supreme Court of the State of New York granted the motion for summary judgment, and the Plaintiffs appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com

New Jersey Law regarding Prior Expert’s Testimony

April 15, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Mary Pat Gallagher writing for the New Jersey Law Journal reported that “[l]awyers who track down an opposing expert's testimony from prior cases must disclose that fact during discovery but need not say whether they plan to use it in cross-examining the expert at trial, a New Jersey appeals court says.” In Dalton v. Crawley, the Appellate Division held that “[d]ecisions about cross-examination ‘involve the attorney's mental processes, so they are inherently work product.’” The issue began when “one of the defense lawyers, Michael McGann, figured out from the deposition questions Mahoney directed at one of his experts that he had transcripts of testimony from earlier cases,” according to the New Jersey Law Journal. “Hit with a notice to produce the transcripts, [Plaintiff attorney Brian] Mahoney refused, saying they were ‘attorney work product and we will not be telling you what we have developed regarding this expert.’" The New Jersey Law Journal declared that the “ruling means both sides will have to indicate what transcripts they have gathered for use—giving the name of each expert as well as the name and docket number of the prior cases where those experts testified. “ Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Plehat Brings Natural Environments into Design Tools

May 01, 2019 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Natural elements are an essential part of the built environment. However, BIM tools offer almost no support to landscape architecture. Plehat is introducing a new solution that helps architects and decision-makers to understand the dynamics of nature and make smart design choices. Plehat used photogrammetric 3D models of Uunisaari islands, to the south of Helsinki. The experimenters modeled the buildings and the plants on the island and used game engine software to create a virtual reality (VR) experience. They called the app the “Landscape Time Machine”. The technology solution they developed paved the way for new software that the company will launch later this year. In 2018, Plehat, a landscape design startup, received funding from the Finnish national KIRA-digi digitalization project to carry out a test. The experimentation demonstrated how seasonal changes and weather conditions affect plants, and how the environment can be visualized and analyzed virtually. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Alert: AAA Construction Industry Rules Update

August 26, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
The American Arbitration Association has made some needed updates to their Construction Industry Arbitration and Mediation Rules, effective July 1, 2015. Among the changes listed at their website are:

A mediation step for all cases with claims of $100,000 or more (subject to the ability of any party to opt out).
Consolidation and joinder time frames and filing requirements to streamline these increasingly involved issues in construction arbitrations.
New preliminary hearing rules to provide more structure and organization to get the arbitration process on the right track from the beginning.
Information exchange measures to give arbitrators a greater degree of control to limit the exchange of information, including electronic documents.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

New Jersey Construction Company Owner and Employees Arrested for Fraud

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Frank Chimento, Jr., the owner of Chimento Construction of Parsippany, New Jersey, and three of his employees, Joseph Carsillo, Frank Chimento III, and Carl J. Corso, were arrested by federal agents. The elder Chimento is accused of falsifying his own income taxes, as well as failing to collect and turn over federal and state payroll taxes. He is additionally charged with falsifying union benefit fund contributions. The three employees are also accused of filing false income tax statements and also of attempting to defraud the state of New Jersey of unemployment compensation benefits. An additional unnamed conspirator made transactions at multiple financial institutions in order to pay employees directly in cash. One of the three employees, Mr. Carsillo, worked for the company and received cash payments while maintaining to the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development that he was unemployed. Mr. Carsillo was receiving $526 per week from the NJDOL-WD in unemployment benefits, starting in 2009. From 2009 through 2011, Mr. Carsillo received $19,988 in unemployment benefits and an additional $351,788 in wages from Chimento. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES