FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

---

In Massachusetts, the Statute of Repose Applies to Consumer Protection Claims Against Building Contractors

January 28, 2019 — Shannon M. Warren - The Subrogation Strategist
In Bridgwood v. A.J. Wood Construction, Inc., 105 N.E.3d 224 (Mass. 2018), the Supreme Court of Massachusetts determined that the statute of repose barred the plaintiff’s consumer protection claims commenced more than six years after the occurrence of the event that gave rise to the claims. In Bridgwood, the homeowner filed suit against the contractors who had performed renovations 15 years earlier. The homeowner asserted that concealed faulty electrical work caused a fire 11 years after the work was completed. The complaint alleged that the contractors, by violating Mass. Gen. Laws. Chapter 142A §17(10), committed an unfair and deceptive act pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 93A. Section 17(10) prohibits contractors from violating building laws and specifically states that a violation of Section 17(10) constitutes an unfair and deceptive act as defined by Chapter 93A. Chapter 93A is regarded as one of the most stringent consumer protection statutory schemes in the nation, and allows litigants to seek remedies such as treble damages and attorney fees. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams
Ms. Warren may be contacted at warrens@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Coverage For Advertising Injury Barred by Prior Publication Exclusion

July 01, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ninth Circuit held that a claim for advertising injury was properly denied under the prior publication exclusion. Street Surfing, LLC v. Great Am. E&S Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10737 (9th Cir. June 10, 2014). Street Surfing began selling a two-wheeled, inline skateboard called the "Wave" in December 2004. By 2007, Street Surfing also sold and advertised accessories for the Wave, such as "Lime Green Street Surfing Wheels for The Wave," and the "New Ultimate Street Surfer Wheel Set." Rhyn Noll, who owned the registered trademark "Streetsurfer," sued Street Surfing in June 2008, claiming trademark infringement, unfair competition and unfair trade practices. Street Surfing had known that Noll owned the "Streetsurfer" trademark since early 2005. In September 2008, Street Surfing submitted a claim for coverage to Great American and tendered Noll's complaint. 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

---

Construction Workers Unearth Bones

June 28, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

While digging for a new steam line at Eastern Michigan University, workers unearthed some old bones. Experts have yet to determine if the bones are human or animal, however Walter Kraft, the EMU vice president of communications, noted that a handle also unearthed might have come from a casket. Cindy Heflin, reporting in AnnArbor.com notes that until 1900 a Catholic cemetery was located in the area. Although the bodies were relocated, these may have been left behind.

Read the full story…

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

---

Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound to Arbitration Award

December 29, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Here is an interesting case binding a Miller Act payment bond surety to an arbitration award against its prime contractor (bond principal) that it received sufficient notice of. Notice is the operative word. The surety could have participated in the arbitration, elected not to, and when its prime contractor (bond principal) lost the arbitration, it was NOT given another bite out of the apple to litigate facts already been decided. In BRC Uluslararasi Taahut VE Ticaret A.S. v. Lexon Ins. Co., 2020 WL 6801933 (D. Maryland 2020), a prime contractor was hired by the federal government to make security upgrades and interior renovations to a United States embassy in the Czech Republic. The prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform all of the installed contract work. The prime contractor terminated the subcontractor for default during the course of construction. The subcontractor demanded arbitration in accordance with the subcontract claiming it was wrongfully terminated. The subcontractor also filed a lawsuit asserting a Miller Act payment bond claim against the prime contractor’s surety (as well as a breach of contract action against the prime contractor). The subcontractor made clear it intended to pursue its claims in arbitration and hold the payment bond surety jointly and severally liable. The parties agreed to stay the lawsuit since the facts were identical to those being arbitrated. The arbitration went forward and an award was entered in favor of the subcontractor and against the prime contractor for approximately $2.3 Million. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Under Privette Doctrine, A Landowner Delegates All Responsibility For Workplace Safety to its Independent Contractor, and therefore Owes No Duty to Remedy or Adopt Measures to Protect Against Known Hazards

September 29, 2021 — Krsto Mijanovic, Jeffrey C. Schmid & John M. Wilkerson - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
In Gonzalez v. Mathis (2021 WL 3671594) (“Gonzalez”), the Supreme Court of California held that a landowner generally owes no duty to an independent contractor or its workers to remedy or adopt other measures to protect them against known hazards on the premises. The Court applied the Privette doctrine which establishes a presumption that a landowner generally delegates all responsibility for workplace safety to its independent contractor. (See generally Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689; SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 590.) As such, the independent contractor is responsible for ensuring that the work can be performed safely despite a known hazard on the worksite, even where the contractor and its workers are unable to take any reasonable safety precautions to avoid or protect themselves from the known hazard. In Gonzalez, the landowner, Mathis, had hired an independent contractor, Gonzalez, to clean a skylight on his roof. To access the skylight, Gonzalez needed to utilize a narrow path between the edge of the roof and a parapet wall. While walking along this path, Gonzalez slipped and fell to the ground, sustaining serious injuries. Gonzalez alleged this accident was caused by several dangerous conditions on the roof, including a slippery surface, a lack of tie-off points to attach a safety harness, and a lack of a guardrail. Gonzalez was aware of all of these hazards prior to the accident. Reprinted courtesy of Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, Jeffrey C. Schmid, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and John M. Wilkerson, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Schmid may be contacted at jschmid@hbblaw.com Mr. Wilkerson may be contacted at jwilkerson@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Uniform Rules Governing New York’s Supreme and County Courts Get An Overhaul

February 08, 2021 — Andrew I. Hamelsky, Jenifer A. Scarcella & Monica Doss - White and Williams LLP
By Administrative Order effective February 1, 2021, New York’s Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court will incorporate a number of changes to the general part that reflect many of New York’s Commercial Division Rules, in an effort to streamline court processes. The general part rule changes are a step forward for improving the efficiency, modernization and cost-effectiveness of the New York Courts, and will require practitioners to be more conscientious of court appearances and deadlines. Judges will likely be strict on adherence to the new Uniform Rules. Some notable changes to the rules are highlighted below. Court Appearances and Scheduling Orders Uniform Rule 202.1 has been revised to require that counsel who appear before the court must be familiar with the case they are appearing for, and be fully prepared and authorized to discuss and resolve the issues that are the subject of the appearance. Reprinted courtesy of Andrew I. Hamelsky, White and Williams LLP, Jenifer A. Scarcella, White and Williams LLP and Monica Doss, White and Williams LLP Mr. Hamelsky may be contacted at hamelskya@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Scarcella may be contacted at scarcellaj@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Doss may be contacted at dossm@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

No Duty to Indemnify Where No Duty to Defend

February 08, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Montana Supreme Court held that because there was no duty to defend the insureds' intentional acts, the insurer had no duty to defend. Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Wessel, 2020 Mont. LEXIS 2617 (Mont. Dec. 22, 2020). The insureds' property was accessed by Turk Road. Turk Road was also used by the neighbors to access their land. The insureds asked for permission to snowmobile across the neighbors' property. Permission was denied because the property was in a conservation easement which prohibited motorised used. The insureds' thereafter retaliated by not allowing the neighbors to use Turk Road. The neighbors then purchased an easement from another landowners to construct a new driveway which did not traverse the insureds' property. The insureds built snow berms and gates, felled trees, and created other obstacles to prevent the neighbors from using the new driveway. Physical threats were also made by the insureds. 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

---