Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Contractor’s Coverage For Additional Insured Established by Unilateral Contract

November 18, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

The contractor was covered as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s policy even though the parties had never actually signed an agreement to add the contractor to the policy. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20081 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2011).

The policies held by Bellevue Master, the general contractor, required it to be an additional insured under any subcontractor’s liability policy. Northwest Tower Crane Services was a subcontractor. Bellevue Master LLC, faxed a message that Northwest could continue to be a subcontractor on the project if it complied with Bellevue Master’s insurance requirements. Northwest contacted its insurance broker and requested an insurance certificate be issued to Bellevue Master so that it would be an additional insured under Northwest’s policy.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

Business and Professions Code Section 7031, Demurrers, and Just How Much You Can Dance

February 14, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Fights between owners and contractors under Business and Professions Code section 7031 can get nasty and detailed. An owner’s remedy under Section 7031, as courts have stated, can be “harsh[ ],” “draconian” and even “unjust” and damages can be significant. Panterra GP, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2022 WL 289216 (2022), a case decided this past month, is no different. It even involved a disagreement between the very justices deciding the case. The Panterra GP Case Panterra GP, Inc. was a licensed general contractor. Rosedale Bakersfield Retail VI, LLC and Movie Grill Concepts XX, LLC intended to hire Panterra GP to perform renovation work at the Studio Movie Grill in Bakersfield, California, but drafted a construction contract mistakenly listing Panterra Development Ltd., LLP as the contractor on the project. Panterra GP was the general partner of Panterra Development. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Giant Gas Pipeline Owner, Contractor in $900M Payment Battle

January 22, 2024 — David Godkin, Debra K. Rubin
A Canadian partnership including energy developer TC Energy that is building the $10.6-billion Coastal GasLink pipeline, and a key project contractor, are disputing more than $900 million in project costs in court and in upcoming arbitration. The 670-kilometer line in British Columbia that announced mechanical completion last year is set to carry liquefied natural gas to the LNG Canada export terminal under construction on the province’s Pacific Coast—the country’s first such facility. Reprinted courtesy of David Godkin, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Guidance for Structural Fire Engineering Making Its Debut

February 02, 2017 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
The International Code Council has approved—as expected—the updated structural building-design standard, written by the American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute, for inclusion in the 2018 edition of the ICC’s model International Building Code. ICC’s validation committee certified “ASCE/SEI 7-16: Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures,” and ICC’s board of directors confirmed it late last month, says Mike Pfeiffer, ICC’s senior vice president, technical services. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, ENR
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

Daiwa House to Invest 150 Billion Yen in U.S. Rental Housing

March 07, 2014 — Kathleen Chu – Bloomberg
Daiwa House Industry Co. (1925), Japan’s biggest homebuilder by market value, plans to invest 150 billion yen ($1.48 billion) in U.S. rental housing, three times more than it had aimed to allocate to overseas investments, to boost revenue. Daiwa House will acquire and develop leasing properties in Texas and allocate the funds over the next three years, the Osaka-based company said in an e-mailed statement today. The homebuilder targets 50 billion yen of revenue in the U.S. by the year ending March 2019, it said. Japan’s shrinking population has prompted the country’s homebuilders such as Daiwa House to seek new revenue sources. Texas is the most that Daiwa House is investing overseas for rental housing and compares with the 50 billion yen the company had announced for investments abroad in its mid-term plan in November. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kathleen Chu, Bloomberg
Ms. Chu may be contacted at kchu2@bloomberg.net

A Riveting (or at Least Insightful) Explanation of the Privette Doctrine

May 02, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
“The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine” – Plutarch And grind they do . . . slowly. For long time readers of the California Construction Law Blog you may recall a case we reported on over three years ago in 2018 – Sandoval v. Qualcomm Incorporated – a rather sad case about a severely injured employee of an electrical subcontractor with an even more surprisingly ending. In Sandoval, the 4th District Court of Appeals affirmed a $7 million judgment against project owner Qualcomm Incorporated in which a jury found that Qualcomm was liable under the Privette doctrine for injuries sustained by the employee who was severely burned over one third of his body by an “arc flash” from a live circuit breaker. The Court of Appeals, in a surprising decision, upheld the verdict holding that Qualcomm was liable even through: (1) Qualcomm had informed the electrical subcontractor that certain live circuit breakers were energized; (2) Qualcomm had not authorized the lower-tiered contractor to remove a panel that resulted in the arc flash; and (3) employees of Qualcomm were not in the room when the accident happened. Fast forward three years to September 2021. Qualcomm attorneys petition the California Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision. And the Supreme Court granted review. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

EPA and the Corps of Engineers Repeal the 2015 “Waters of the United States” Rule

January 13, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The pre-publication version of the final rule to be promulgated by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to repeal the 2015 redefinition of the Clean Water Act’s term “Waters of the United States” which is the linchpin of these agencies’ regulatory power under the CWA, was made available on September 12, 2019. The rule should be published in the Federal Register in the next few weeks, and it will be effective 60 days thereafter. Many challenges are expected to be filed in the federal courts. The 2015 rule was very controversial, and petitions challenging the rule were filed in many federal district courts, several courts of appeal, and finally in the Supreme Court (see NAM v. Department of Defense), which held that all initial challenges must be filed in the federal district courts. The upshot of these challenges is that, at this time, the 2015 rule has been enjoined in more than half the states while the other states are bound by the 2015 rule, a situation which is frustrating for everyone. In addition to repealing the 2015 rule, the agencies also restored the pre-2015 definition had had been in place since 1986. As a result, the pre-2015 definition of waters of the U.S. will again govern the application of the following rules: (a) the ACOE’s definition of “waters of the U.S.” at 33 CFR Section 328.3; (b) EPA’s general Oil Discharge rule at 40 CFR Section 110; (c) the SPCC rules at 40 CFR Part 112; (d) EPA’s designation of hazardous substances at 40 CFR Part 116; (e) EPA’s hazardous substance reportable quantity rule at 40 CFR Part 117; (f) the NPDES permitting rules at 40 CFR Part 122; (g) the guidelines for dredged or fill disposal sites at 40 CFR Part 230; (g) Exempt activities not requiring a CWA 404 permit (guidelines for 404 disposal sites at 40 CFR Part 232); (h) the National Contingency Plan rules at 40 CFR Part 300; (i) the designation of reportable quantities of hazardous substances at 40 CFR Part 302; and (j) EPA’s Effluent Guidelines standards at 40 CFR Part 401. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

OSHA Issues Guidance on Mitigating, Preventing Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace

February 22, 2021 — Amy R. Patton & Blake A. Dillion - Payne & Fears
On January 29, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) issued new employer guidance on mitigating and preventing the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace. This guidance is intended to help employers and workers outside the healthcare setting to identify risks of being exposed to and of contracting COVID-19 and to determine any appropriate control measures to implement. While this guidance is largely duplicative of prior OSHA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) guidance and recommendations, it contains a few new and updated recommendations that employers should note: Face Coverings OSHA recognizes that face coverings, either cloth face coverings or surgical masks, are simple barriers that help prevent the spread of COVID-19, and are beneficial for the wearer as well as others. OSHA recommends that employers should provide all workers with face coverings, unless their work task requires a respirator. These face coverings should be provided at no cost and should be made of at least two layers of tightly woven breathable fabric, and should not have exhalation valves or vents. Employers should also require any other individuals at the workplace (i.e., visitors, customers, non-employees) to wear a face covering unless they are under the age of 2 or are actively consuming food or beverages on site. Wearing a face covering does not eliminate the need for physical distancing of at least six feet apart. Employers must discuss the possibility of “reasonable accommodations” for any workers who are unable to wear or have difficulty wearing certain types of face coverings due to a disability. In workplaces with employees who are deaf or have hearing deficits, employers should consider acquiring masks with clear coverings over the mouth. Reprinted courtesy of Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES