Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Best Lawyers®

September 18, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai has been recognized by Best Lawyers® in its 30th edition of The Best Lawyers in America® in the area of Construction Law for 2024. This is the the first year Garret has been recognized by Best Lawyers®. Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Boston Team Obtains Complete Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in Professional Liability Matter

June 08, 2020 — Kenneth Walton & Oliver Vega - Lewis Brisbois
Boston, Mass. (June 5, 2020) - Boston Partner Kenneth B. Walton and Associate Oliver J. Vega recently obtained a complete defense verdict after a 10-day bench trial in the U.S District Court for the District of South Carolina. The plaintiff in this matter, who is the owner of a newly acquired food processing facility, alleged breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims against our client, a Massachusetts engineering firm, arising out of allegedly defective design and construction management services provided during the renovation of and addition to said facility. Reprinted courtesy of Kenneth Walton, Lewis Brisbois and Oliver Vega, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Walton may be contacted at Ken.Walton@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Vega may be contacted at Oliver.Vega@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review Regarding Necessary Parties in Lien Foreclosure Actions

August 17, 2017 — Lindsay K. Taft - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
For several years, the requirements for which parties must be named in a lien foreclosure action when a release of lien bond is in place have been cloudy. RCW 60.04 et seq., the “mechanics’ lien” or “construction lien” statute, provides protection for a party or person who provides labor, materials, or equipment to a construction project. That person or party, if not paid, can file a lien against the construction project property to secure recovery. As the lien impacts the property by “clouding title” and could potentially result in foreclosure of the property, the statute sets forth strict requirements with respect to timing, notice, and parties. For example, the lien must be recorded within 90 days of the person or party’s last day of work or materials or equipment supplied, and the lien claimant must then give a copy of the claim of lien to the owner or reputed owner within 14 days of the lien recording. RCW 60.04.081. The statute also allows a property owner or other party to “free” the property from the lien prior to the claim being resolved by issuing a release of lien bond. While the claim is still in dispute, the lien then attaches to the bond and not the property. The same rules about foreclosure, however, still apply but not without some confusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay K. Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Ms. Taft may be contacted at ltaft@ac-lawyers.com

Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s

January 04, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As any reader of this construction law blog knows, mechanic’s liens make up much of the discussion here at Construction Law Musings. A recent case out of Fairfax County, Virginia examined the question of whether contractual privity between the general contractor and owner of the property at issue is necessary. As a reminder, in most situations, for a contract claim to be made, the claimant has to have a direct contract (privity) with the entity it sues. Further, for a subcontractor to have a valid mechanic’s lien it would have to have privity with the general contractor or with the Owner. The Fairfax case, The Barber of Seville, Inc. v. Bironco, Inc., examined the question of whether contractual privity is necessary between the general contractor and the Owner. In Bironco, the claimant, Bironco, performed certain improvements for a barbershop pursuant to a contract executed by the two owners of the Plaintiff. We wouldn’t have the case here at Musings if Bironco had been paid in full. Bironco then recorded a lien against the leasehold interest of The Barber of Seville, Inc., the entity holding the lease. The Plaintiff filed an action seeking to have the lien declared invalid because Brionco had privity of contract with the individuals that executed the contract, but not directly with the corporate entity. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Additional Dismissals of COVID Business Interruption, Civil Authority Claims

December 29, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Among the recent decisions dismissing complaints for business interruption and civil authority coverage due to closures caused by COVID-19 are Pappy's Barber Shops, Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166808 (S.D. Calif. Sept. 11, 2020) and Sandy Point Dental v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171979 (E.D. Ill. Sept. 21, 2020). The difficulty in proving "direct physical loss" was the downfall of both cases. In Pappy's, claims were made for business income losses insured as a result of local and state closure orders. The policy required "direct physical loss of or damage to property at the described premises." Plaintiffs argued that "direct physical loss of" did not require a tangible damage or alteration to property and that the loss of the ability to continue operating their businesses as a result of the government orders met this requirement. The court relied upon a prior decision, 10E, LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Connecticut, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165252 (C.D. Calif. Sept. 2, 2020) [post here], where the court noted that under California law, losses from inability to use property did not amount to "direct physical loss" within the meaning of 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

High Court Could Alter Point-Source Discharge Definition in Taking Clean-Water Case

March 18, 2019 — Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to review lower court rulings on whether a permit is required under the federal Clean Water Act when pollutants originate from a point source but are carried to navigable waters by a non-point source such as groundwater could set some new parameters for compliance, observers say. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Norfolk Southern Agrees to $310M Settlement With Feds Over 2023 Ohio Derailment

June 21, 2024 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
Norfolk Southern Corp. has agreed to pay more than $310 million and implement safety improvements as part of a settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Dept. of Justice over the disastrous February 2023 train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, officials and the company announced May 23. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court finds subcontractor responsible for defending claim

May 18, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

In an unpublished decision, the California Fourth Appellate District Court has reversed the judgment of Judge Linda B. Quinn of the Superior Court of San Diego. In the case Inland California, Inc. v. G.A. Abell, Inland, a general contractor had subcontracted with Apache Construction and Precision Electric Company (G.A. Abell).

Apache alleged that extra demolition and drywall work was needed due to Precisionâ€™s electrical work. Inland tendered a defense of Apacheâ€™s claims. However, Precision did not provide any defense. Inland withheld payment from Precision.

At trial, Inland â€œconceded Precision earned the $98,000 in progress payments Inland withheld.â€ They were obligated to additionally pay Precisionâ€™s costs and attorney fees.

The Fourth Appellate District court has overturned this and remanded the case back to the lower court. The judges determined that Precision was obligated to defend itself against the claims raised by Apache and therefore vacated the judgment against Inland.

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES