FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Scaffolding Purchase Suggests No New Building for Board of Equalization

July 30, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Employees at California’s Board of Equalization spoke out against the Brown administration after the state purchased new scaffolding for the defect-riddled building, rather than finding a new facility, reported the Sacramento Bee. The existing scaffolding was leased for $10,000 per month, but the lease expired, prompting the purchase of new scaffolding for about $100,000. The board’s Chairman Jerome Horton stated “that while the change may make financial sense in the short term, it sends a signal that the Department of General Services intends to keep Equalization’s 2,200 or so employees in the troubled building,” according to the Sacramento Bee. Building problems include “toxic mold, defective elevators, leaking windows, corroded wastewater pipes, floods, and exterior glass panels that spontaneously break or pop off.” So far, $2.3 million has been paid “in connection with building-related employee injury claims” along with $60 million in repairs. However, an additional $115 million is estimated to completely fix the defects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Musk Backs Off Plan for Tunnel in Tony Los Angelenos' Backyard

December 19, 2018 — Sarah McBride & Edvard Pettersson - Bloomberg
Elon Musk’s futuristic tunneling company, Boring Co., is no longer embroiled in a lawsuit with the residents of West Los Angeles. A May lawsuit aimed at stopping the Boring Co.’s proposed tunnel under Sepulveda Boulevard has been settled, according to a notice filed at the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Neighbors in the Brentwood and Sunset Boulevard areas, near the proposed tunnel, had sued the City of Los Angeles over the Boring Co.’s plans to build a test tunnel without going through an environmental review process, as recommended in April by the city’s public works committee. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sarah McBride & Edvard Pettersson, Bloomberg

---

Corps Issues Draft EIS for Controversial Alaskan Copper Mine

March 27, 2019 — Pam Radtke Russell - Engineering News-Record
A proposed copper and gold mine in Alaska could impact up to 12,000 acres of wetlands as well as local fisheries but would help meet a worldwide demand for copper, according to the draft environmental impact statement on the Pebble Mine in the Bristol Bay area of Alaska. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pam Radtke Russell, ENR
Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com

---

Does a Landlord’s Violation of the Arizona Residential Landlord-Tenant Act Constitute Negligence Per Se?

September 21, 2020 — Kevin J. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, Ibarra v. Gastelum, 2020 WL 4218020 (7/23/20), the Court of Appeals addressed the question whether – in a tenant’s personal injury claim against the landlord – a landlord’s violation of the Arizona Landlord-Tenant Act constituted negligence per se. The tenant alleged he was injured by stubbing his toe on a crack in the floor. The tenant alleged that he had made repeated demands that the landlord repair the crack. The statute required the landlord to make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition. The tenant argued that a violation of the statute constituted negligence per se, meaning that the violation of the statute satisfied (as a matter of law) the first two elements of a negligence claim – duty and breach of duty. The tenant requested a negligence per se jury instruction. The trial court declined that request and refused to give the requested instruction. The tenant lost the jury trial and appealed. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

For Smart Home Technology, the Contract Is Key

June 07, 2021 — James W. McPhillips & Rachel Newell - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In our previous post we discussed the importance of conducting a thorough due diligence and procurement process with smart technology providers. Next up? The contract. The price of a procured product is always important, but equally important are other contractual terms that reflect the commercial agreement. Ultimately, the contract should answer the fundamental question of “What are you buying?” The product itself is not the only feature being purchased. A customer is also buying certainty, service performance, risk mitigation, flexibility, security, compliance, and other similar “intangible” items of value. The Price of Certainty As part of the price, the purchaser of smart technology is also buying certainty. What do we mean by that? Reprinted courtesy of James W. McPhillips, Pillsbury and Rachel Newell, Pillsbury Mr. McPhillips may be contacted at james.mcphillips@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Newell may be contacted at rachel.newell@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

March 17, 2011 — Shaun McParland Baldwin

The Court of Appeals of Indiana recently addressed the “Montrose” language added to the CGL ISO form in 2001 in the context of a construction defect claim where a fractured storm drain caused significant flooding a year after the drain was damaged. The insuring agreement requires that “bodily injury” or “property damage” be caused by an “occurrence” and that the “bodily injury” or “property damage” occur during the policy period. The Montrose language adds that the insurance applies only if, prior to the policy period, no insured knew that the “bodily injury” or “property damage” had occurred in whole or in part. Significantly, it also states that any “bodily injury“ or “property damage” which occurs during the policy period and was not, prior to the policy period known to have occurred, includes a continuation, change or resumption of that “bodily injury” or “property damage” after the end of the policy period.



In Grange Mutual Cas. Co. v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., No. 29D04-0706-PL-1112 (Ct. App. IN March 15, 2011), http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03151109ehf.pdf, Sullivan was the General Contractor for a school construction project. Its subcontractor, McCurdy, installed the storm drain pipes. One of the storm pipes was fractured in 2005 while McCurdy was doing its installation work. More than a year later, the school experienced significant water damage due to flooding. It was later discovered that the flooding was due to the fractured storm drain. Sullivan’s insurer paid $146,403 for the water damage. That insurer brought a subrogation claim against McCurdy and its two insurers: West Bend and Grange. West Bend had issued CGL coverage to McCurdy while the construction was ongoing , including the date in which the storm pipe was fractured. Grange issued CGL coverage to McCurdy at the time of the flooding. Those two carriers jointly settled the subrogation claim and then litigated which insurer actually owed coverage for the loss. Significantly, the loss that was paid included only damages from the flooding, not any damages for the cost of repairing the pipe.



Read the full story...



Reprinted courtesy of Shaun McParland Baldwin of Tressler LLP. Ms Baldwin can be contacted at sbaldwin@tresslerllp.com

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

---

Determining the Cause of the Loss from a Named Windstorm when there is Water Damage - New Jersey

March 23, 2020 — Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Water damage, while one of the leading causes of loss under a property policy, often results in some of the most complex claims due to the intersection of exclusions, sublimits, and complex wording within the policy. One particularly difficult issue is whether water damage caused by a storm surge is covered by the flood sublimit, or under the general policy or water limit. In New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s (“NJTC v. Lloyd’s”), the New Jersey Appeals Court found that the “flood” sublimit of the policy should not apply as the cause of the loss was a “named windstorm” and not a “flood.” In NJTC v Lloyd's the court was asked to determine whether a flood sublimit applied to losses sustained during Superstorm Sandy. The court found that although there was “flooding,” the water damage was more closely related to the “named windstorm”, and therefore, the $400 million policy limits should apply. The court focused its analysis on the definitions for “flood” and “named windstorm” and by applying the efficient proximate cause doctrine to determine which would apply. When reviewing the definitions within the property policies, the court determined that although the loss would qualify under the definition of “flood,” the policy also contained a definition for “named windstorm” which “more specifically encompasses the wind driven water or storm surge associated with a ‘named windstorm’”1. In addition, the policy did not specifically state that “storm surge” associated with a “named windstorm” should be considered a “flood” event and fall under the “flood” sublimit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Perry may be contacted at amp@sdvlaw.com

---

It’s Getting Harder and Harder to be a Concrete Supplier in California

December 04, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In 2015, the California state legislature passed AB 219, which amended the state’s prevailing wage law to add Labor Code section 1720.9, which requires the payment of prevailing wages to “ready-mixed concrete” drivers on state and local public works projects. Ready-mixed concrete suppliers filed suit in Allied Concrete and Supply Co. v. Baker (September 20, 2018) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the law on the ground that, because AB 219 singled out ready-mixed concrete drivers but not other drivers of materials on state and local public works projects, the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---