Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Design & Construction Case Expands Florida’s Slavin Doctrine

January 21, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Amanda Baggett of Rogers Towers, Florida’s “Fourth District Court of Appeal appears to have expanded the Slavin doctrine in the context of design professional liability” in the case McIntosh v. Progressive Design and Engineering, Inc. (Jan. 7, 2015). McIntosh, a personal injury case, involved whether the design and construction of an intersection with multiple traffic signals in close proximity created confusion for drivers. Baggett stated that McIntosh expanded the Slavin doctrine in two ways: “first, the ruling eliminates the requirement that the ultimate owner of a project accept the project before the Slavin doctrine may be invoked. Second, the decision applies the Slavin doctrine to completed and accepted design plans without regard to the completion of the project for which they were prepared.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Illinois Supreme Court Limits Reach of Implied Warranty Claims Against Contractors

April 10, 2019 — Thomas Cronin - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
In a recent decision, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a purchaser of a newly constructed home could not assert a claim for breach of the implied warranty of habitability against a subcontractor where the subcontractor had no contractual relationship with the purchaser. Sienna Court Condo. Ass’n v. Champion Aluminum Corp., 2018 IL 122022, ¶ 1. The decision overruled Minton v. The Richards Group of Chicago, which held that a purchaser who “has no recourse to the builder-vendor and has sustained loss due to the faulty and latent defect in their new home caused by the subcontractor” could assert a claim of a breach of the warranty of habitability against the subcontractor. 116 Ill. App. 3d 852, 855 (1983). In Sienna Court Condo. Ass’n, the plaintiff alleged that the condo building had several latent defects which made individual units and common areas unfit for habitation. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 3. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that privity should not be a factor in determining whether a claim for a breach of the warranty of habitability can be asserted. Id. at ¶ 19. The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that claims for a breach warranty of habitability should not be governed by contract law but should instead be governed by tort law analogous to application of strict liability. Id. The Court reasoned that the economic loss rule, as articulated in Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d 69, 91 (1982), refuted the plaintiff’s argument that the implied warranty of habitability should be covered by tort law. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 20. Under the economic loss rule, a plaintiff “cannot recover for solely economic loss under the tort theories of strict liability, negligence, and innocent misrepresentation.” National Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d at 91. The Court explained that the rule prevented plaintiffs from turning a contractual claim into a tort claim. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 21. The Court further noted that contractual privity is required for a claim of economic loss, and an economic loss claim is not limited to strict liability claims. Id. Because the plaintiff’s claim was solely for an economic loss, it was a contractual claim in nature; therefore, the Court concluded that “the implied warranty of habitability cannot be characterized as a tort.” Id. at ¶ 22. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Thomas Cronin, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Cronin may be contacted at tcronin@grsm.com

Construction Defect Leads to Death of Worker

January 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The family of a Florida man has received $2.4 million in damages as a result of his death. Victor Lizarraga was killed when a steel column fell due to the anchor bolts being improperly secured. The general contractor on the project, R. L. Haines, told subcontractors that the epoxy had sufficient time to cure. An OSHA investigation determined that the epoxy was not used properly. Mr. Lizarraga worked for a subcontractor on the project. Mr. Lizarraga and his coworkers were hired to erect steel columns. The epoxy failed, sending a 1,750-pound column down onto Mr. Lizarraga. According to the lawsuit, "due to the sudden and unexpected nature of this incident Mr. Lizarraga had no ability, opportunity or time to get out of the way of the falling column." Other parties in the lawsuit settled with the family. R. L. Haines was the only defendant to go to a jury trial. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Examination of the Product Does Not Stop a Pennsylvania Court From Applying the Malfunction Theory

June 28, 2021 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
Pennsylvania recognizes the malfunction theory in product liability cases. This theory allows a plaintiff to circumstantially prove that a product is defective by showing evidence of a malfunction and eliminating abnormal use or reasonable, secondary causes for the malfunction. The malfunction theory is available to plaintiffs as an alternative to proving a traditional strict product liability case in those circumstances where direct evidence of a product defect is not found. In Pa. Nat’l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Sam’s East, Inc., 727 MDA 2020, 2021 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 752, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether the plaintiffs could avail themselves to the malfunction theory if the plaintiffs’ expert was able to examine the product. The Sam’s East, Inc. case arose from a February 2015 fire at the residence of Gerald and Michelle Thompson (the Thompsons). The fire caused injuries to the Thompsons, as well as significant damage to their residence. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company (Insurer) provided homeowners insurance coverage for the property and made payments to the Thompsons as a result of the fire. Insurer retained a fire investigator to investigate the origin and cause of the fire. The fire investigator determined that the fire originated at an electric space heater that was purchased from defendant Sam’s East, Inc. (Sam’s East) in December 2011. Insurer and the Thompsons filed a lawsuit against Sam’s East in early 2017 for their respective damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Arbitration: For Whom the Statute of Limitations Does Not Toll in Pennsylvania

June 03, 2019 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Morse v. Fisher Asset Management, LLC, 2019 Pa. Super. 78, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania considered whether the plaintiff’s action was stayed when the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint after sustaining the defendants’ preliminary objections seeking enforcement of an arbitration clause in the contract at issue. The Superior Court—distinguishing between a defendant who files a motion to compel arbitration and a defendant who files preliminary objections based on an arbitration clause—held that, in the latter scenario, if the defendant’s preliminary objections are sustained, the statute of limitations is not tolled. This case establishes that, in Pennsylvania, plaintiffs seeking to defeat a challenge to a lawsuit based on a purported agreement to arbitrate need to pay close attention to the type of motion the defendant files to defeat the plaintiff’s lawsuit. In Morse, the plaintiff entered into a contract with Fisher Asset Management (Fisher) in 2008 for investment-advisor services. The contract included a provision stating that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of the agreement between the parties shall be determined by arbitration. In June 2009, the plaintiff filed a complaint against Fisher and two of its employees in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligence, and other claims. The defendants filed preliminary objections to the complaint seeking dismissal on grounds that the contract between the plaintiff and Fisher required that the dispute be determined by arbitration. The court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff did not appeal the court’s ruling. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Court Affirms Duty to Defend Additional Insured Contractor

December 05, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the insurer must defend. Main St. Am. Assurance Co. v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5507 (N.Y. App. Div., Oct. 7, 2022). XL Construction Services, LLC was the contractor on a construction project. Timothy J. O'Connor was insured when performing drywall finishing as a self-employee subcontractor on the project. As part of a written indemnification and insurance agreement between the parties, O'Connor was obligated to obtain insurance for the benefit of XL Construction. O'Connor was insured by Merchants Mutual Insurance Company under a policy containing an additional insureds endorsement that provided coverage to a party where required by a written agreement, but "only with respect to liability for 'bodily injury' . . . caused in whole or in part, by . . . [O'Connor's] acts or omissions." The trial court found there was a duty to defend and entered judgment that Merchants Mutual was obligated to provided a defense to XL Construction. 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

Courthouse Reporter Series: The Travails of Statutory Construction...Defining “Labor” under the Miller Act

August 01, 2023 — Brendan J. Witry - The Dispute Resolver
In a recent case—United States ex rel. Dickson v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland (“Dickson”)—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently re-examined and defined what work qualifies as “labor” under the Miller Act. United States ex rel. Dickson v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, No. 21-160, 67 F.4th 182 (4th Cir. April 26, 2023) (slip op.). Unlike private projects, unpaid subcontractors cannot encumber the federal government’s property with mechanics liens. Instead, the Miller Act provides a remedy for subcontractors in the form of a payment bond on all federal public works contracts exceeding $100,000. 40 U.S.C. § 3131(b). In the Dickson case, Claimant Elliot Dickson served as a subcontractor to Forney Enterprises (“Forney”), with whom the Department of Defense (the “DOD”) contracted to renovate several staircases and the fire suppression systems at the Pentagon. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brendan J. Witry, Conway & Mrowiec Attorneys LLLP
Mr. Witry may be contacted at bjw@cmcontractors.com

Congratulations 2020 DE, MA, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

November 16, 2020 — White and Williams LLP
Sixteen White and Williams lawyers have been named by Super Lawyers as a Delaware, Massachusetts, New York or Pennsylvania "Super Lawyer" while eleven received "Rising Star" designations. Lawyers are selected through a process that takes into consideration peer recognition and professional achievement. The lawyers named to this year’s list represent a multitude of practices throughout the firm. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES