Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Work to Solve the Mental Health Crisis in Construction

September 05, 2022 — Bruce Morton & Diane Andrea - Construction Executive
The suicide rate for construction is one of the highest among major industries. That statistic is from a 2018 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And it’s one major reason why the concern about mental health in the construction industry has grown. Research shows that as many as 90% of all people who die by suicide have a mental health condition. Depression is the most common cause, but other conditions such as substance use disorders may have an impact as well. What is causing mental health conditions in the construction industry? According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 97% of the U.S. construction industry is male—and men experience the highest rate of suicides. Yet, while the suicide rate for women in construction is lower than that for men in the construction industry, it appears to be much higher than the suicide rate for the general female population. Being “tough” and “strong” are highly valued; acknowledging mental health concerns—or even seeking help—may be considered a sign of weakness. There is often fear of shame and judgment for admitting you have a problem. In addition, the nature of construction industry jobs may affect mental health. Injuries may cause chronic pain, which can result in substance disorders like opioid use. Seasonal work can result in layoffs, which puts a strain on family relationships and finances. The job is high-stress and the work is deadline-driven. Employees work long hours, potentially resulting in fatigue. Sometimes work is away from home for extended periods. The pandemic has exacerbated every other problem while creating its own. Reprinted courtesy of Bruce Morton and Diane Andrea, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Morton may be contacted at bruce.morton@marshmma.com Ms. Andrea may be contacted at Diane.Andrea@MarshMMA.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

NY Estimating Consultant Settles $3.1M Government Project Fraud Case

November 23, 2020 — Eva Fedderly - Engineering News-Record
VJ Associates, a Hicksville, N.Y., estimating consultant, has agreed to pay $3.13 million in civil and criminal penalties to settle charges that the firm overbilled and falsified hours on multiple federal and state government-funded transportation and other contracts in New York and Massachusetts, the U.S. Attorney's office in Boston announced on Oct. 29. Reprinted courtesy of Eva Fedderly, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

#5 CDJ Topic: David Belasco v. Gary Loren Wells et al. (2015) B254525

December 30, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto, and David A. Napper analyzed the above mentioned Belasco case, in which “the Second District Court of Appeal made clear that settlement agreements containing waviers of unknown claims in connection with a construction of a property, absent fraud or misrepresentation, will be upheld.” Glucksman, et al. explained that “the homeowner plaintiff had made a claim against the builder pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 896 (“Right to Repair”) and settled for a cash payment and obtained a Release of all Claims including for all known and unknown claims. The court held that homeowner’s subsequent construction defect claim was barred pursuant to the terms and conditions of the earlier release.” Read the full story... In another article on the subject, Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and William L. Doerler of White and Williams LLP concluded, “The Court of Appeal’s holding establishes that, despite the prohibition against the release of unknown claims set forth in section 1524 and the protections provided to homeowners by the Right to Repair Act, California homeowners can, in fact, release or waive claims against homebuilders for future, latent construction defects. To release or waive such claims, the language of any settlement agreement should be unequivocal.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

L.A.’s Modest Solution to the ‘Missing Middle’ Housing Problem

May 24, 2021 — Kriston Capps - Bloomberg
Practical ideas aren’t often the stuff of architecture contests. Right off the bat, that set Los Angeles’s Low-Rise design challenge apart. A project led by the mayor’s office and the city’s chief design officer, Christopher Hawthorne, Low-Rise asked entrants to reimagine what an L.A. urban landscape with abundant housing could look like in the years to come. The organizers wanted the participating designers to think about their submissions the way they might approach a project for a local client or community. The results, which were unveiled this week, don’t look like future-forward science fiction, but rather doable local solutions to a thorny problem: the stubborn lack of affordable options across the city. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kriston Capps, Bloomberg

Quick Note: Mitigation of Damages in Contract Cases

October 02, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In an earlier article, I discussed an owner’s measure of damages when a contractor breaches the construction contract. This article discussed a case where the contractor elected to walk off a residential renovation job due to a payment dispute when he demanded more money and the owners did not bite. This case also discussed the commonly asserted defense known as mitigation of damages, i.e., the other party failed to properly mitigate their own damages. In the breach of contract setting, mitigation of damages refers to those damages the other side could have reasonably avoided had he undertaken certain (reasonable) measures. This is known as the doctrine of avoidable consequences. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment in Collapse Case Denied

November 10, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment seeking to establish it did not breach the policy when denying coverage for the collapse of basement walls. Belz v. Peerless Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118900 (D. Conn. Sept. 2, 2016). The Belzes purchased their home in 2001. Prior to the purchase, they were aware of notable cracking in the basement walls. An engineer was hired to inspect the cracking and determined the cracks did not threaten the structural integrity of the home. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Review your Additional Insured Endorsement

March 26, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In his blog, Construction Contractor Advisor, Craig Martin explained the importance of reviewing your additional insured endorsement. Martin pointed out that in Mississippi, the “Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in Woodward, LLC v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company, that a general contractor, named as an additional insured, did not have coverage for claims that a subcontractor performed faulty work.” The problem “was the language in the additional insured endorsement, which provided coverage for ongoing operations, not completed operations.” While Martin admitted that the case applies to Mississippi, he concluded that “the issue Midwestern readers should consider is the court’s conclusion that non-conformance with the plans, in essence a construction defect claim, arises from completed operations.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEC Approves New Securitization Risk Retention Rule with Broad Exception for Qualified Residential Mortgages

November 26, 2014 — Neil P. Casey & Lori S. Smith – White and Williams LLP
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and five other federal agencies recently approved a joint rule (the “Risk Retention Rule”) mandating that sponsors of certain types of securitizations retain a minimum level of credit risk exposure in those transactions and prohibiting such sponsors from transferring or hedging against that retained credit risk.[i]The final Risk Retention Rule will be effective one year after its publication in the Federal Register for securitizations of residential mortgages, and two years after publication for securitizations of all other asset types. The SEC vote was 3-2, with sharp dissents from Commissioners Gallagher and Piwowar concluding that the adopting agencies had missed a prime opportunity to rein in risky mortgage lending practices that had precipitated the 2008 financial crisis. Background Following the meltdown of the securitization markets in 2007 (particularly subprime residential mortgage-backed securities), and the resulting global financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank Act mandated that the U.S. federal banking, securities and housing agencies adopt and implement rules to require sponsors of most new securitizations to retain not less than five percent of the credit risk of any assets that the securitizer, through the issuance of an asset-backed security, transfers, sells or conveys to a third party. It was thought that requiring securitization sponsors to keep “skin in the game” would align the interests of the sponsors with the interests of investors and thereby incentivize the sponsors to ensure the quality of the assets underlying the securitization through appropriate due diligence and underwriting procedures when selecting assets for securitization. Although the Dodd-Frank Act explicitly exempted securitizations of certain types of mortgage loans called “qualified residential mortgages” (or “QRMs”) from this risk retention requirement, it invited the rulemaking agencies to define that key term, provided that their definition could be no broader than the definition of “qualified mortgage”adopted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act.[ii] In considering how to define QRM, the rulemaking agencies were directed by the Dodd-Frank Act to take into consideration “underwriting and product features that historical loan performance data indicate result in a lower risk of default.”[iii] Reprinted courtesy of Neil P. Casey, White and Williams LLP and Lori S. Smith, White and Williams LLP Mr. Casey may be contacted at caseyn@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES