FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

OSHA’s Multi-Employer Citation Policy: What Employers on Construction Sites Need to Know

September 09, 2019 — Phillip C. Bauknight - Construction Executive
Multi-employer worksites are a frequent occurrence in the construction industry as employees from various companies often occupy the same site while a project is being completed. While the need for employees from different companies may be necessary to perform the various tasks required by a project, the presence of multiple employers, and their employees, on the same worksite can result in an increased risk of safety hazards. Companies performing construction work should be, and generally are, aware of OSHA’s ability to issue citations for workplace safety violations. What many companies may not know, however, is that OSHA’s ability to cite employers is not limited to workplace conditions that are unsafe only to that employer’s direct employees. Rather, OSHA also has the ability to cite an employer, and often does issue such citations, for conditions that could result in injury or death to another company’s employees. The policy which provides OSHA with this citation ability is CPL 02-00-124 and is called the Multi-Employer Citation Policy (the “Policy”). Under the language of the Policy, OSHA has the ability to cite multiple employers for violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act for the same hazardous workplace condition. Critically, responsibilities under the Policy do not depend on the employer’s job title but are determined by the employer’s role. Reprinted courtesy of Phillip C. Bauknight, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Bauknight may be contacted at pbauknight@fisherphillips.com

---

Two Years, Too Late: Time-Barred Hurricane Loss is Timely Reminder to Insureds

November 01, 2021 — Michael S. Levine & Yaniel Abreu - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
It happens every year. A clearly covered loss occurs and for one reason or another, the policyholder delays in notifying its insurer of the loss. Usually, the cause for the delay is innocent. It may even appear to be justified, such as where the insured prioritizes steps to save its property, inventory or assist dependent customers. But no matter the reason, insurers can be hard-lined in their refusal to accept an untimely claim. This is especially true in states that presume prejudice to the insurer, or where the insurer need not show prejudice at all. In LMP Holdings, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., (Case No. 20-24099-CIV) (S.D. Fla.), a twenty‑seven month delay in notifying the insurer of damage from Hurricane Irma proved fatal to the claim. LMP owns a building in Miami, Florida insured under an all-risk commercial property policy issued by Scottsdale. On September 10, 2017, Hurricane Irma struck South Florida and caused extensive damage to LMP’s building, including punctures to the roof and water damage. LMP identified the damage shortly after the storm. Then, in 2018, LMP identified other storm-caused damage, including a water stain on the ceiling. It again identified additional storm damage in 2019. LMP submitted a claim to its insurer on December 10, 2019—about twenty-seven months after it first noticed the damage. Scottsdale agreed to inspect the property but reserved its rights to deny coverage based on late notice. On July 10, 2020, Scottsdale denied coverage for the damage to the property. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Future Environmental Rulemaking Proceedings Listed in the Spring 2019 Unified Federal Agenda

July 15, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The latest federal regulatory agenda has been released, which, among other matters, lists proposed and projected environmental regulatory proceedings being considered by different departments and agencies. Here are some selected items. EPA 1. The Water Office

• EPA plans to issue in December 2019 a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to consider making a regulatory determination as a prelude to listing as drinking water contaminants PFOA and PFOS pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
• EPA (along with the Corps of Engineers) plans to issue an NPRM in December 2019 that will propose to revise and update its 2008 mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs, with a final rule scheduled for September 2020.
• An NPRM to revise the 2015 effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category will be released in June 2019.
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

---

Serial ADA Lawsuits Targeting Small Business Owners

February 04, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Jennifer Wadsworth reports in the San Jose Inside that small business owners in the South Bay area of California have been targeted for ADA Compliance lawsuits. Specifically, John Ho, “a wheelchair-bound paraplegic from the Southern California town of Rosemead” has hit close to “80 businesses in San Jose and more throughout South Bay” with ADA complaints. Another resident, Cecil Shaw has also “filed hundreds of lawsuits in federal court through a San Jose-based law firm alleging similar violations.” According to Wadsworth, these lawsuits have “become a multimillion-dollar industry.” Communities are often hit with “a hundred or more” lawsuits at a time: “Law firms team up with disabled clients to inspect businesses for compliance issues, and then sue in droves, expecting half or more defendants to settle out of court.” Niccandro Barrita, owner of one of four La Victoria Mexican Restaurants in South Bay, lost an ADA lawsuit. “I thought because when the building was remodeled in 1996 and the city waived the lift requirement that I was in the clear. But that wasn’t the case,” he told San Jose Inside. Barrita claims to have paid $900,000 in attorney fees. His advice to other owners is to be proactive: “Don’t rely on someone to point out a deficiency to you. Find out for yourself if you’re compliant.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of


---

Insurance Policy Provides No Coverage For Slab Collapse in Vision One

August 17, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog


This post will examine whether Division Two of the Washington Court of Appeals properly reversed and remanded several lower court decisions in the case of Vision One LLC v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance. In short, and from the perspective of an appellate attorney, the court of appeals got the decision right. Given the rules of contract interpretation and causation in tort claims, there was really no other way the court could have ruled. I understand that from a contractor’s perspective and insurance perspective, the decision seems odd. But from a purely legal standpoint, the decision is well-reasoned and well-supported. Let me explain.



Background



First, here are the facts in a nutshell. Vision One is a construction company that undertook to construct a condo complex in Tacoma. Vision then contracted with D&D Concrete to pour a concrete slab for a section of the foundation. To shore the concrete slab, D&D further contracted Berg Equipment to provide necessary equipment to stabilize the structure. Well, something down the line went wrong. The shoring failed and the slab collapsed, causing a great deal of damage.

Read the full story…



Read the court’s decision…



Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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


---

Venue for Suing Public Payment Bond

June 15, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Public payment bonds (excluding FDOT payment bonds) are governed under Florida statute s. 255.05. As it pertains to venue—the location to sue a public payment bond–the statute provides in relevant portion: (5) In addition to the provisions of chapter 47, any action authorized under this section may be brought in the county in which the public building or public work is being construction or repaired. *** (1)(e) Any provision in a payment bond…which restricts venue of any proceeding relating to such bond…is unenforceable. Now, what happens if a subcontractor sues only a payment bond but its subcontract with the general contractor contains a mandatory venue provision? For example, what if the general contractor is located in Lee County and the subcontract contains a venue provision for Lee County, the project is located in Collier County, the subcontractor is located in Miami-Dade County, and the surety issues bonds in Miami-Dade County? Does venue have to be in Lee County per the mandatory venue provision? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

---

Sensors for Smarter Construction – Interview with Laura Kassovic of MbientLab

November 17, 2016 — Aarni Heiskanen – AEC Business
I had the pleasure of interviewing Laura Kassovic, CEO and Co-founder at MbientLab Inc. We discuss how wearable technology and smart sensors can help on the construction site. MbientLab is a technology company headquartered in San Francisco, California. It was started about four years ago by a team of engineers who are experts in sensors and machine learning. MbientLab develops wearable technology and also does manufacturing in the USA and Asia. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aarni@aepartners.fi

---

Construction Firm Sues City and Engineers over Reservoir Project

October 28, 2011 — CDJ STAFF


The city of Fremont, Ohio and Arcadis have been sued by Trucco Construction. Trucco had been hired by the city to build a reservoir designed by Arcadis, the News-Messenger reports. Peter Welin, attorney for Trucco, said that he found “startling evidence of the company’s negligence” when he deposed Arcadis engineers. “This project could never be built the way they bid it.”

Their suit alleges that Arcadis and the city were aware that the site was not conducive to construction and also that Arcadis failed to be a neutral party in discussions between Trucco and the city regarding compensation.

Sam Wamper, an attorney for Fremont, said he was going to file a motion which would include “quite an interesting story,” but declined to elaborate.

Read the full story...

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


---