Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Forcible Entry and Detainer Actions: Courts May Not Consider Tenant’s Hardship

December 08, 2016 — Erica Stutman – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
If you own property and a tenant wrongfully refuses to vacate the premises (for example when the lease expires or after proper written notice of termination), you may have a quick and easy remedy to have the tenant removed. Arizona’s forcible entry and detainer (FED) statute allows a person to bring a speedy, summary action to obtain an order that the person must leave the property immediately. See A.R.S. § 12-1171 – 1183. To allow for quick resolution, the only question a court may consider in a FED action is who has the right of possession of the property. A.R.S. § 12-1177(A) (“On the trial of an action of forcible entry or forcible detainer, the only issue shall be the right of actual possession and the merits of title shall not be inquired into.”). Counterclaims and cross-claims are not permitted in a FED action, and must be addressed in a separate civil action between the parties. If factual questions bear on the right of possession, they will also need to be resolved in a regular civil action. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Erica Stutman, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Stutman may be contacted at estutman@swlaw.com

Drones Used Despite Uncertain Legal Consequences

March 12, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Francis Manchisi of Wilson Elser discussed how several industries—including construction—are using unmanned aircraft systems or unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly referred to as drones, and are either exploiting legal loopholes or ignoring laws altogether. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has recently released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which is now in a 60-day “notice and comment” period that is open to the public. Once that period ends, the FAA will consider the comments before putting the rules into law. According to Manchisi, the proposed rules include:

Unmanned aircraft must weigh less than 55 lbs. (25 kg).
Unmanned aircraft must remain within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the operator or visual observer.
Maximum altitude is 500 feet above ground level.
Preflight inspection by the operator is required.
Operators are required to obtain an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a sUAS rating from the FAA.

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

Neighbor Allowed to Remove Tree Roots on Her Property That Supported Adjoining Landowners’ Two Large Trees With Legal Immunity

July 14, 2016 — Paul R. Cressman, Jr. – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC Blog
A recent Washington Court of Appeals opinion addressed the rights of a neighbor to destroy roots and branches on her property that belonged to trees located on an adjoining landowner’s property.[1] Mustoe had two large Douglas-fir trees located entirely on her property, about two and one-half feet from the property line with her neighbor Ma. Ma caused a ditch to be dug on her property along the border with Mustoe’s lot. The ditch was 18-20 inches deep. In the process, Ma exposed and removed the trees’ roots, leaving them to extend only three-four feet from the trunks of the trees. This resulted in a loss of nearly half of the trees’ roots, all from the south side, exposing them to southerly winds with no support. The damaged trees posed a high risk of falling on Mustoe’s home. The landscape value of the trees was estimated to be $16,418. The cost of their removal was estimated to be $3,913. Mustoe filed suit against Ma asserting that Ma had negligently, recklessly, and intentionally excavated and damaged her trees, along with other property, and also sought emotional distress damages. The trial court dismissed Mustoe’s suit. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul R. Cressman, Jr., Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Cressman may be contacted at pcressman@ac-lawyers.com

#3 CDJ Topic: Underwriters of Interest Subscribing to Policy No. A15274001 v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. D066615

December 30, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Michael R. Vellado and Nicole R. Kardassakis of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP analyzed the appeals case that “reversed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of ProBuilders Specialty Insurance Company (“ProBuilders”) and held that the ‘other insurance’ clause in the ProBuilders policy did not relieve it of its duty to participate in the defense of its insured, Pacific Trades Construction & Development, Inc. ('Pacific Trades')." Read the full story... Another discussion of the ProBuilders appeal ruling occurred on the California Construction Law Blog, written by Yas Omidi of Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP. Omidi explained the appeal’s court decision: “In reversing the trial court’s decision, the appellate court characterized ProBuilder’s ‘other insurance’ clause as an ‘escape clause’—i.e., a clause that attempts to have coverage, paid for with the insured’s premiums, evaporate in the presence of other insurance.” Furthermore, she noted that “California public policy disfavors such clauses.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

December 20, 2012 — TRED EYERLY, INSURANCE LAW HAWAII
In Pioneer Tower Owners Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 12 NY3d 302 (2009), the New York Court of Appeals found an "earth movement" exclusion was ambiguous when applied to an excavation. The court now considered whether a similar exclusion, expressly made applicable to "man made" movement of earth, eliminated the ambiguity when loss was created by excavation. Bentoria Holdings, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2012 N.Y. LEXIS 3087 (N.Y. Oct. 25, 2012). Plaintiff's building suffered cracks due to an excavation being conducted on the lot next door. A claim was submitted to Travelers, plaintiff's insurer. Travelers rejected the claim, relying on the earth movement exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii.
Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

No Coverage for Repairs Made Before Suit Filed

August 22, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
After a hurricane damaged the building the insured was constructing, there was no coverage under the CGL policy for repairs the insured made in the absence of a suit being filed. Planet Construction J2911 LLC. v. Gemini Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105468 (W.D. La. June 13, 2022). Planet Construction was a general contractor hired to build a fitness club. On August 27, 2020, Hurricane Laura struck the area. After the storm, a pipe in the sprinkler system broke, allegedly due to faulty materials and workmanship by a subcontractor, S&S Sprinkler. Planet Construction sought coverage under its policy with Gemini as well as under S&S's policy with Zurich. Both insurers denied coverage and Planet Construction filed suit. 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

Tokyo Building Flaws May Open Pandora's Box for Asahi Kasei

October 28, 2015 — Kathleen Chu, Joji Mochida & Katsuyo Kuwako – Bloomberg
Japanese real estate investment trusts are joining apartment owners and regulators in pushing Asahi Kasei Corp. for answers on an apartment building sagging sideways on the outskirts of Tokyo, as concerns are mounting that it may not be an isolated case. REITs including Advance Residence Investment, Nippon Accommodation Fund Inc., Daiwa House Residential Investment Corp. and Japan Rental Housing Investment Inc. have all asked Asahi Kasei for details on what other buildings might be flawed, according to the trusts. Asahi Kasei disclosed on Thursday the names of prefectures where the company has undertaken work in the past 10 years on more than 3,000 buildings, after the land ministry requested the data. The sites include 342 schools, 257 medical and health-care facilities, 696 housing complexes and 217 office buildings, the firm said. Asahi Kasei, the subcontractor of the project, said a unit didn’t properly install foundation piles at an apartment building in Yokohama, and the division falsified data on the work. The scandal has sent Asahi Kasei’s shares down more than 21 percent since Oct. 13, when news of the flawed building first emerged. Shares of Sumitomo Mitsui Construction Co., the contractor, plunged 25 percent and those of Mitsui Fudosan Co., which sold units at the Yokohama project in 2006, have tumbled 5 percent since then. All three companies said that the impact of the incident on their earnings is not yet clear. Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg reporters Kathleen Chu, Joji Mochida and Katsuyo Kuwako Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Throws Wet Blanket On Prime Contractor's Attorneys' Fees Request In Prompt Payment Case

September 03, 2015 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & Abigail E. Lighthart – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Prompt payment penalty cases do not come around very often, but when they do, there is bound to be fireworks. In James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. v. West Bay Builders, Inc., et al. (No. C072169, filed 8/27/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District upheld the trial court's discretion to not award prevailing party attorneys' fees to the party who won a prompt payment dispute. California Business and Professions Code §7108.5 and Public Contract Code §§7107 and 10262 are the mechanisms for obtaining prompt payment relief in California. As shown by the outcome, it is possible to win and lose at the same time. West Bay Builders, Inc. (“West Bay”) was the prime contractor on a school construction project for Stockton Unified School District. West Bay entered into a subcontract agreement with James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. (“Harris”) on the project. During construction there were disagreements between West Bay and Harris regarding the contractual scope of work, and Harris performed work it believed was outside the contract, believing it would be paid for the additional work. After West Bay refused to pay for the additional work, Harris left the project, and West Bay hired another subcontractor to complete the work. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Abigail E. Lighthart, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Lighthart may be contacted at alighthart@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES