FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Texas Supreme Court Declines to Waive Sovereign Immunity in Premises Defect Case

April 10, 2023 — Starr M. Forster - Lewis Brisbois
Houston, Texas (March 30, 2023) – The Supreme Court of Texas recently upheld a Thirteenth Court of Appeals’ judgment finding that the plaintiffs in a premises defect case brought against the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) had failed to raise a fact issue regarding the creation of a dangerous condition and, consequently, failed to establish waiver of the defendant’s sovereign immunity. Daniel K. Christ and Nicole D. Salinas v. Tex. DOT, et al., No. 21-0728, 66 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 306, 2023 Tex. LEXIS 128, at *1 (Feb 10, 2023). Background Plaintiffs Daniel Christ and his wife, Nicole Salinas (the Christs), were riding their motorcycle through a construction zone when they collided with a vehicle that crossed into their lane. TxDOT’s traffic control plan for the related construction project called for the placement of concrete barriers between opposing travel lanes; however, once construction on the project began, TxDOT’s contractor determined there was not enough space for the concrete barriers and revised the traffic control plan to substitute yellow stripes and buttons for the concrete barriers. TxDOT never approved the revised traffic control plan in writing; however, TxDOT’s contractor contended TxDOT orally approved of the change. The Christs sued the driver of the other vehicle, TxDOT, and TxDOT’s contractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Starr M. Forster, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Forster may be contacted at Starr.Forster@lewisbrisbois.com

---

COVID-19 and Mutual Responsibility Clauses

June 01, 2020 — Joseph M. Leone - ConsensusDocs
As everyone knows, there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty in the construction industry due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Schedules, productivity, safety processes, and seemingly everything else are being affected. In these difficult times, most contractors are making every effort to work together to solve the problems caused by COVID-19. But what happens when differences arise between project owners, contractors, and subcontractors as to the effect of COVID-19 on a project? One party may want to continue pushing the schedule, others may want to slow down, or, more likely, not be able to keep up with the original schedule because of some reason related to COVID-19. As between a prime contractor and a subcontractor, a mutual responsibility clause can provide some clarity or, unfortunately, depending on how the subcontract is written, confusion. Almost all subcontracts have a clause which flows down the prime contractor’s obligations on a project to the subcontractor as applicable to the subcontractor’s work. Known as “flow-down” clauses, this clause works in one direction; obligations of the prime contractor “flow-down” to the Subcontractor. A mutual responsibility clause, in essence, works in both directions. The subcontractor is required to perform its obligations consistent with the prime contractor’s obligations to the owner and the subcontractor is granted the same rights against the prime contractor which the prime contractor has against the owner. Obligations flow down and rights flow up. The rights and obligations flowing through the prime contractor include, the obligation to perform the work in accordance with the plans and specifications, the obligation to meet the schedule constraints in the prime agreement, and the right to extensions of time and change orders to the extent the prime contractor obtains the same. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joseph M. Leone, Drewry Simmons Vornehm, LLP
Mr. Leone may be contacted at jleone@dsvlaw.com

---

Alabama Appeals Court Rules Unexpected and Unintended Property Damage is an Occurrence

June 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v St. Catherine of Siena Parish, a U.S. appeals court affirmed "that unexpected and unintended property damage is an ‘occurrence,’” reported Construction Equipment Guide. The underlying case involved roof leaks after the replacement of two Parish roofs, which ultimately led to a trial where Parish was awarded $350,000 in compensatory damages for breach of contract. However, Penn National disputed any obligation to pay, stating that “a breach of contract claim was not an ‘occurrence’ under the policy and even if such claims were an occurrence, the contractual liability and/or ‘your work’ exclusions would bar recovery.” However, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama ruled “that there was coverage for the property damage caused by the leaks because an ‘accident’ meant an unintended and unforeseen injury and the allegedly faulty workmanship led to damage to other areas of the structure and thus damage beyond simply the cost to replace the defective roof.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Five Pointers for Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement in Texas

June 08, 2020 — Kristopher M. Stockberger - The Grindstone Lewis Brisbois' Labor & Employment Blog
1. The Devil’s in the Details Under Texas law, for a non-compete agreement to be enforceable, it must meet strict requirements as to timing, geography, and the type of conduct that it prohibits. While courts have enforced agreements for between one and two years, your situation could be subject to a shorter time period. If the geographical scope of the agreement is too broad or vague, that could render the agreement unenforceable. Also, the type of conduct prohibited by your agreement should be tied to the specifics of your business, because categorical barriers to other employment are often not enforced. If an employer knowingly instructs an employee to enter an overbroad non-compete agreement, the employer runs the risk of paying the employee’s attorneys’ fees. 2. Timing on the Front End If an employee has been with an employer for years and the employer suddenly decides to have her sign a non-compete without any other meaningful change in the employee’s role, then the agreement will probably not be enforceable, unless the employee receives “consideration.” In this context, consideration is something of value, other than money or benefits, which the law deems to warrant protection by a non-compete agreement. For example, allowing an employee to learn the secret formula to Coca-Cola or to gain access to an employer’s confidential financials constitutes legally sufficient consideration given to an employee in exchange for the employee’s promises in a non-compete agreement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kristopher M. Stockberger, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Stockberger may be contacted at Kris.Stockberger@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

June 18, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim. I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act. In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date. 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

---

CDJ’s #10 Topic of the Year: Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216.

December 31, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Richard H. Glucksman, Jon Turigliatto, and Kacey R. Riccomini of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger analyzed Transport and wrote, “The decision is an important tool for builders’ counsel because the builder’s reasonable expectations can alter the interpretation of ambiguous terms in policies issued to subcontractors. Essentially, the builder’s intent is relevant to the interpretation of policy terms because the subcontractor’s intent in requesting additional coverage depends on the agreement it made with the builder.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Named Insured’s Liability Found Irrelevant to Additional Insured’s Coverage Under a Landlords and Lessors Additional Insured Endorsement

November 16, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Truck Ins. Exchange v. AMCO Ins. Co. (No. B298798, filed 10/26/20), a California appeals court held that even though the named insured restaurant-lessee was found not liable for premises liability to injured restaurant patrons, the respective liability of the named and additional insured was irrelevant to the landlord-lessor’s coverage for injuries “arising out of” the lessee’s “use” of the premises under a landlords, managers or lessors of premises additional insured endorsement on the lessee’s general liability policy. In Truck v. AMCO, restaurant patrons were injured when a vehicle crashed into the restaurant while they were dining. The landlord was aware of a similar accident that happened several years before, but the current lessee operating the restaurant was not. The patrons sued the lessee, alleging negligence and premises liability for failing to take precautionary measures and safeguard the patrons. On learning of the prior incident, the patrons added the landlord, alleging that it should have protected the property from a recurrence by reinforcing the door and installing bollards by the street. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Determination That Title Insurer Did Not Act in Bad Faith Vacated and Remanded

March 30, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
In an important decision regarding bad faith and the application of the work product doctrine to work performed by an insurer's in-house counsel, the Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the Intermediate Court of Appeals's upholding the trial court's award of summary judgment to a title insurer on the issue of bad faith. Anastasi v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co., 2016 Haw. LEXIS 30 (Feb. 4. 2016). Llyod Anastasi loaned Alajos Nagy $2.4 million. The loan was secured by a mortgage on property. After Nagy executed the $2.4 million mortgage, a warranty deed was signed by Paul Stickney and purported to deed the property from Stickney to Nagy in exchange for $10 in consideration. Fidelity issued Anastasi a title insurance policy on the property in the amount of $2.4 million. The policy promised to provide a defense where a third party asserted a claims adverse to the interest of the insured. 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

---