Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Georgia Passes Solar CUVA Bill

April 20, 2017 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Georgia House Bill 238 authorizes the withdrawal of property from a conservation use covenant for purposes of developing a solar generation plant. Before the law was passed, subject to certain limited exceptions, properties under a conservation use covenant generally could not be developed without breaching the covenant. The new law permits the removal of a portion of the property to be used for solar development without breaching the covenant for the rest of the property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

No Coverage for Additional Insured

December 17, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Two insurers disputed who was responsible for coverage the additional insured contractor. Endurance Am. Spec. Ins. Co. v. Century Sur. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19194 (2nd Cir. Nov. 4, 2015). The district court granted summary judgment to Endurance, finding there was coverage for the additional insured general contractor after being sued by an employee of a subcontractor. Century's policy included an Action Over Exclusion clause, which excluded insurance coverage for injury to certain employees as follows: Exclusions: . . . e. Employer's Liability "Bodily injury" to: (1) an "employee" of the named insured arising out of and in the course of:

(a) Employment by the named insured; or
(b) Performing duties related to the conduct of the named insured's business.

The named insured was Pinnacle Construction & Renovation Corp. 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

My Employees Could Have COVID-19. What Now?

March 23, 2020 — Amy R. Patton, Leila S. Narvid, Matthew C. Lewis, Robert Tadashi Matsuishi & Sarah J. Odia - Payne & Fears
Updated Guidance as of March 19, 2020. You are concerned about potentially sick employees in the workplace. One employee is off work sick for a couple of days, and then wants to return to work. Another plans to return to work after a week of travel. Another appears to be sick at work. They are coughing, sneezing, and appear to be short of breath. You are concerned they may have COVID-19. What can you do? You're not the only one concerned -- your other employees are, too. Your public-facing employees want to wear masks to protect themselves. One employee tells you he doesn’t want to touch anything that others in the office have touched. What are your obligations to these employees? Below, we address questions relating to keeping employees safe from COVID-19 in the workplace without violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or employee privacy laws. Can I require an employee returning from days away from work due to illness to report the symptoms the employee was experiencing that kept him/her out of work? Short answer: yes, so long as the questions are limited to whether the employee has had flu-like symptoms. Though the ADA prohibits asking employees questions related to an employee disability, COVID-19 (like the seasonal flu) likely does not rise to the level of a disability, so asking an employee about flu-like (or COVID-19-like) symptoms is unlikely to elicit information related to a disability. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has taken the position that an employer may ask if an employee is experiencing flu-like symptoms if the employee reports being ill during a pandemic. Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears attorneys Amy R. Patton, Leila S. Narvid, Matthew C. Lewis, Robert Tadashi Matsuishi and Sarah J. Odia Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Ms. Narvid may be contacted at ln@paynefears.com Mr. Matthew may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com Mr. Robert may be contacted at rtm@paynefears.com Ms. Odia may be contacted at sjo@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Fair Share Act Does Not Preempt Common Law When Apportioning Liability

March 09, 2020 — Mark T. Caloyer & Joelle Nelson - Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
On February 19, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a long awaited opinion in the matter of Roverano v. John Crane, Inc., No. 26 EAP 2018, No. 27 EAP 2018 (Pa. 2020). The Court’s opinion is a must-read for anyone involved in asbestos litigation in Pennsylvania. In Roverano, the Court ruled that Pennsylvania’s Fair Share Act (42 Pa.C.S. § 7102) does not preempt Pennsylvania common law favoring per capita apportionment of liability to strict liability defendants. In addition, the Court ruled that bankruptcy trusts, that are either joined as third-party defendants or that have entered into a release with the plaintiff, may be included on the verdict sheet for purposes of liability. In this case, Mr. Roverano sued 30 defendants in strict liability and Defendant Crane filed a joinder complaint against Johns-Manville Personal Injury Trust. The case proceeded to trial against eight defendants in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. At trial, some of the defendants filed motions in limine seeking a ruling that the Fair Share Act applied to asbestos cases. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that asbestos exposure cannot be quantified, and held that that it would apportion liability on a per capita basis consistent with the Court’s opinion in Baker v. AC&S, 755 A.2d 664 (Pa. 2000). Reprinted courtesy of Mark T. Caloyer, Lewis Brisbois and Joelle Nelson, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Caloyer may be contacted at Mark.Caloyer@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Nelson may be contacted at Joelle.Nelson@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Illinois Town Sues over Construction Defects at Police Station

October 08, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Chicago suburb of Northlake has filed a lawsuit against the designers and builders of its police station, claiming that the building leaks due to design and construction flaws. The building was finished in 2009 and flooded in 2010, 2011, and 2013. Northlake mayor Jeffrey Sherwin said that “a building that’s flooded three times in three years is kind of extreme.” In addition to requiring the replacement of carpet and drywall, the flooding disrupted police service and damaged both police and personal property. Mr. Sherwin noted that the city has tried to settle with the architects and contractors, but no settlement had been Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Shoring of Ceiling Does Not Constitute Collapse Under Policy's Definition

November 12, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Despite the need to shore up the ceiling, the building was not in a state of collapse under the language of the policy. Ravinia Vouge Cleaners v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123594 (N.D. Ill. July 24, 2019). Ravinia Cleaners held a property policy issued by Travelers for the building from which it operated its dry-cleaning business. On February 2, 2015, there was heavy snowfall. On February 4, Ravinia reported to Travelers a leak coming from the ceiling. A temporary "shoring " was placed on the ceiling. Ravinia reported to Travelers that there was damage to the roof on February 25, 2015. Travelers hired an engineer who observed a buckling truss and roof displacing downward. The inspector recommended that the building be vacated and not occupied until adequate shoring was in place. Travelers denied coverage because the building was in a state of imminent collapse which was caused by the weight of ice and snow, and defective construction of the truss system. The policy excluded damage relating to a "collapse of a building." Collapse was defined by the policy as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building," such that the building could not be occupied for its intended purpose. There were exceptions to the exclusion, however, if the cause of the collapse was: (1) weight of snow; or (2) use of defective materials or methods in construction if the collapse occurred after construction. The policy also excluded damage from a building being in a state of imminent collapse unless the damage was caused by: (1) weight of snow; or (2) use of defective materials or methods in construction if the collapse occurred during 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

Mitsui Fudosan Said to Consider Rebuilding Tilted Apartments

October 28, 2015 — Katsuyo Kuwako – Bloomberg
Mitsui Fudosan Co., Japan’s biggest developer, is considering rebuilding an apartment complex in Yokohama after one of the four buildings started to tilt, according to a person familiar with the situation. Kiyotaka Fujibayashi, president and chief executive officer of Mitsui Fudosan Residential Co., on Thursday explained the plans to residents, according to the person, who asked not to be named because the information is private. Another option the company is studying is buying back the apartments from the residents at a price higher than what they had paid, the person said. The project was sold in 2006. Mitsui Fudosan is the latest developer to come under scrutiny for defects at residential projects in the Tokyo area. Mitsubishi Estate Co., Japan’s biggest developer by market value, said last year it would rebuild a residential complex in the upscale Aoyama neighborhood after finding faults. Also last year, Sekisui House Ltd. said it would reconstruct a residential complex that was being built by Taisei Corp. after finding some columns were missing reinforcing metals. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Katsuyo Kuwako, Bloomberg

TOLLING AGREEMENTS: Construction Defect Lawyers use them to preserve Association Warranty Claims during Construction Defect Negotiations with Developers

March 07, 2014 — Nicholas D. Cowie – Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law Blog
If properly drafted, a tolling agreement stops, or “tolls,” the running of the statue of limitations and other time periods aplicable to an association’s legal claims while it attempts to negotiate the repair of and/or monetary compensation for construction deficiencies with the developer and other responsible parties. In short, it is a “time -out” that allows and association to preserve its legal claim so it can focus on settling its claims rather than pursing them in court. Too often, condominium associations and homeowner associations (“HOA”) unknowingly allow their legal claims for construction defects to expire during lengthy negotiations with developers and builders. If negotiations fail, the association may turn to a construction defect attorney for legal representation only to find their construction defect legal claims are time barred because the statute of limitations or other legal time period has expired. This article explains how condominium associations and HOAs can avoid this scenario by the use of tolling agreements to preserve their legal claims while engaged in potentially lengthy negotiations with developers to correct construction defects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law Blog
Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES