FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Architect Not Responsible for Injuries to Guests

September 01, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Texas Court of Appeals has ruled, with one dissent, that the architectural firm that designed a home was not responsible to the injuries caused to guests when a balcony collapsed. Judge David Puryear wrote the majority opinion in Black + Vernooy Architects v. Smith.

Black + Vernooy designed a vacation home for Robert and Kathy Maxfield in 2000. The Maxfields hired a general contractor to build the home. The general contractor hired a subcontractor to build a balcony; however, the subcontractor did not follow the architect’s design in building the balcony.

A year after the house was completed; the Maxfields were visited by Lou Ann Smith and Karen Gravely. The balcony collapsed under the two women. Ms. Gravely suffered a broken finger, a crushed toe, and bruises. Ms. Smith was rendered a paraplegic as a result of the fall. They sued the Maxfields, the general contractor, and the architects for negligence. The Maxfields and the general contractor settled. A jury found that the architects held 10% of the responsibility. The architects appealed the judgment of the district court.

The Appeals Court reversed this judgment, noting that “there has been no allegation that the Architects negligently designed the balcony or that the Architects actually created the defects at issue.” Further, “the Smiths allege that the defect was caused by the construction practices of the contractor and subcontractor when the balcony was not built in accordance with the design plans of the Architects.”

The court found that even though the architects had a duty “to endeavor to guard against defects and deficiencies in the construction of the home and to generally ascertain whether the home was being built in compliance with the construction plans,” this duty did not extend to third parties.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Court of Appeal Shines Light on Collusive Settlement Agreements

October 21, 2015 — Kristian B. Moriarty & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Diamond v. Reshko, (filed 8/20/2015, No. A139251) the California Court of Appeal, First District, held that a defendant was entitled to introduce evidence at trial reflecting amounts paid by co-defendants in settlement of a plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff, Christine Diamond, was injured during an automobile accident that occurred while she was a passenger in a taxi driven by Amir Mansouri. Christine, and her husband Andrew, filed suit against Mr. Mansouri, the Yellow Cab Collective (“Yellow Cab”), and the driver of the vehicle that collided with the taxi, Serge Reshko. Before trial, Mansouri and the Yellow Cab Collective settled with Plaintiffs, but agreed to appear and participate as defendants at the jury trial of the action. Mansouri and Yellow Cab paid a total of $400,000 to Plaintiffs in settlement. Reshko filed a pre-trial motion seeking an order permitting Reshko to admit evidence of the settlement between Plaintiffs and the other defendants. The trial court refused to rule on the motion before trial. Ultimately, evidence of the settlement between Plaintiffs, Mansouri and Yellow Cab was excluded during trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs in the total amount of $745,778, finding Mansouri 40 percent at fault, and Reshko 60 percent at fault. The Trial Court entered judgment against Reshko in the sum of $406,698. Reshko appealed the judgment. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that evidence of the settlement should have been admitted at trial because the settling defendant’s position should be revealed to the court and jury to avoid committing a fraud on the court, and in order to permit the trier of fact to properly weigh the settling defendant’s testimony. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

You Can Now Build a Multi-Million Dollar Home via Your iPad

January 07, 2015 — Sara Pepitone – Bloomberg
There are apps for real estate sales, apps for paint color, apps for arranging furniture, and apps for making the best use of natural light. But until now, there was no app for that most fundamental process of homesteading: creating a new one from scratch. In the coming weeks Al Hamra Real Estate Development will unveil its all-inclusive Home Builder app. All you need is an iPad and five million UAE Dirham ($1.36 million), to start. Swipe and spend has never been so elite. Designed by A++ Architecture Design and Communication, Home Builder starts with property acquisition and ends with finishes and furnishings. Well, to be precise, it ends with a form sent to a sales person to calculate a price to purchase. This means less time and fewer people and permits in your way, plus a more gratifying (literal) hands-on experience in the process. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sara Pepitone, Bloomberg

---

Angela Cooner Appointed Vice-Chair of Arizona’s Inaugural Board of Legal Specialization Construction Defect Law Advisory Commission

June 20, 2022 — Angela Cooner - Lewis Brisbois
Phoenix, Ariz. (May 17, 2022) - Phoenix Partner Angela Cooner has been appointed as the vice-chair of the State Bar of Arizona’s inaugural Board of Legal Specialization Construction Defect Law Advisory Commission. The commission was created pursuant to the Arizona Supreme Court’s recent administrative order recognizing construction defect law as a new area of specialization. The commission will, among other things, create the application, examination, and interview process that Arizona attorneys will be required to complete to earn the construction defect law specialized certification. Ms. Cooner will serve a two-year term that will end on January 31, 2024. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Angela Cooner, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Cooner may be contacted at Angela.Cooner@lewisbrisbois.com

---

White and Williams LLP Acquires 6 Attorney Firm

August 29, 2022 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams LLP has announced the acquisition of a six-attorney law firm nationally known for their work in the surety and construction space. Located in Towson, MD, Baltimore County, the attorneys of Pike & Gilliss LLC will join White and Williams, marking the opening of the firm’s 11th location and extending the firm’s presence to Maryland, Washington DC and Virginia. Attorneys joining White and Williams include David Gilliss, who will serve as Managing Partner of the Towson office, Patrick Pike and Eric Korphage as partners, Joel Williams as Counsel, and Anthony Kikendall and Robert Kline as associates. “We are excited to make this longtime informal partnership official by joining forces,” said Gilliss. “Attorneys from White and Williams and Pike & Gilliss have had clients in common for over a decade and we often collaborate. This official coming together creates one of the leading surety practices in the country, offering clients a broader and more cohesive experience and extensive legal expertise.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

---

VOSH Jumps Into the Employee Misclassification Pool

July 30, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
The proper classification of workers by construction companies has been on the radar of the Department of Labor for both the US and Virginia governments for quite a while. While most of the misclassification is innocent and not done to create issues, there have been enough instances of purposeful misclassification of certain workers as independent contractors (thus avoiding workers comp and other payroll expenses) that innocent contractors have born the brunt of these issues through increased payroll costs over those that misclassify (in the form of necessarily higher bids, higher overhead, etc.). As an additional deterrent to improper classification of workers, the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry has issued guidelines for what will occur in Virginia Department of Safety and Health (VOSH) cases. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Boston Tower Project to Create 450 Jobs

November 18, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Continuing the development of Boston’s Theater District, Millennium Partners broke ground for the building of Hayward Place, a 15-story residential tower with street-level shops. The project is expected to take two years to complete and will employ about 450 construction workers.

Thomas Menino, the mayor of Boston said that the “ground breaking of Hayward Place is another sign of economic growth and forward progress on the revitalization of this area.” The project will be built by Suffolk Construction. John Fish, their CEO, said they were “fortunate as a contractor to be the beneficiary of this.”

The report in the Boston Herald notes that a few blocks away, the site of the former Filenes department store is still “an empty eyesore.” Menino joked, “anyone want to bid for it?” He promised that site would also be developed.

Read the full story…

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

---

Claimants’ Demand for Superfluous Wording In Release Does Not Excuse Insurer’s Failure to Accept Policy Limit Offer Within Time Specified

September 15, 2016 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Barickman v. Mercury Casualty Co. (No. B260833, filed 7/25/16, ord. pub. 8/15/16) a California appeals court affirmed a $3 million bad faith award against Mercury Casualty Co. based upon its failure to accept a policy limit demand within the time provided, finding that wording inserted by the claimants’ counsel into the release did not affect the insured’s rights such that the refusal to agree to the wording was unreasonable and in bad faith, exposing the insurer to liability for the insured’s stipulated judgment. 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

---