FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Designers George Yabu and Glenn Pushelberg Discuss One57’s Ultra-Luxury Park Hyatt

July 30, 2014 — Jennifer Parker – Bloomberg
One57 might just be the hottest -- or at least the most expensive -- address in New York City. 

The $375 million skyscraper currently piercing its blue-glass presence into Manhattan's midtown skyline is home not only to 94 private condos (two of which have already sold for $90 million); it also hosts a brand new Park Hyatt hotel, which opens this August. 

 Eight years in the making, this Hyatt is the first ultra-luxury hotel New York has seen since the Mandarin Oriental opened in 2003. It's intended to be a New York icon. So, naturally, Hyatt hired two Canadian guys to design it. 

Meet George Yabu and Glenn Pushelberg, the dynamic couple who met as college students in Toronto in 1972, and decided to launch design firm YabuPushelberg. Now, they're earning millions per project to design luxury hotels, restaurants, and residences all over the world. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Parker, Bloomberg

---

U.S. Navy Sailors Sue Tokyo Utility Company Over Radiation Poisoning

April 09, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In a one billion dollar lawsuit, U.S. Navy sailors contend that they “suffered massive doses of radiation” from the Fukushima Dia-ichi nuclear power plant in Toyko, Japan while stationed on the USS Ronald Reagan, reported the Orange County Register. A tsunami (caused by a 9.0 earthquake) flooded the plant, “cutting off electrical power and disabling backup generators.” The USS Reagan was sent to provide aid, but the plant then “blew up” before they arrived. “Sailors on the flight deck said they felt a warm gust of air, followed by a sudden snow storm: radioactive steam,” according to the Orange County Register. “Freezing in the cold Pacific air. Blanketing their ship.” However, the Orange County Register posed the question, “Could the Reagan – one of the most advanced nuclear aircraft carriers in the U.S. fleet – really not know that it was being showered with massive doses of radiation?” TEPCO, the company being sued by the sailors, answered that it’s “wholly implausible.” 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

---

Tesla Finishes First Solar Roofs—Including Elon's House

August 02, 2017 — Tom Randall - Bloomberg
First the Model 3 electric car. Now the solar roof. In just one week, Tesla has challenged two distinct industries with radically new products. Tesla has completed its first solar roof installations, the company reported Wednesday as part of a second-quarter earnings report. Just like the first Model 3 customers, who took their keys last week, the first solar roof customers are Tesla employees. By selling to them first, Tesla says it hopes to work out any kinks in the sales and installation process before taking it to a wider public audience. “I have them on my house, JB has them on his house,” Musk said, referring to Tesla’s Chief Technology Officer J.B. Straubel. “This is version one. I think this roof is going to look really knock-out as we just keep iterating.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Randall, Bloomberg

---

Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?

March 16, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

A recent post to the Markusson, Green, Jarvis Blog reports on an important appeals decision which promises to impact construction defect litigation in Colorado.



The post provides analysis on the recovery of inconvenience damages. The focus of the piece is centered on Hildebrand v. New Vista Homes II, LLC, 08CA2645, 2010 WL 4492356 (Colo. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2010), wherein it was held that " the plain language of Construction Defect Action Reform Act permits recovery of damages for inconvenience, and that the trial court did not err by allowing inconvenience damages to go to the jury".



According to the MGJ Blog "The Hildebrand decision is important because it provides Construction Defect Plaintiffs with a foothold for collecting emotional damages. While several questions of law remain as to who or under exactly what circumstances a Plaintiff may recover these types of damages, the Hildebrand case has clearly set forth that emotional damages may be considered as part of actual damages pursuant to CDARA."



Read Full Story...

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

---

Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound to Arbitration Award

December 29, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Here is an interesting case binding a Miller Act payment bond surety to an arbitration award against its prime contractor (bond principal) that it received sufficient notice of. Notice is the operative word. The surety could have participated in the arbitration, elected not to, and when its prime contractor (bond principal) lost the arbitration, it was NOT given another bite out of the apple to litigate facts already been decided. In BRC Uluslararasi Taahut VE Ticaret A.S. v. Lexon Ins. Co., 2020 WL 6801933 (D. Maryland 2020), a prime contractor was hired by the federal government to make security upgrades and interior renovations to a United States embassy in the Czech Republic. The prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform all of the installed contract work. The prime contractor terminated the subcontractor for default during the course of construction. The subcontractor demanded arbitration in accordance with the subcontract claiming it was wrongfully terminated. The subcontractor also filed a lawsuit asserting a Miller Act payment bond claim against the prime contractor’s surety (as well as a breach of contract action against the prime contractor). The subcontractor made clear it intended to pursue its claims in arbitration and hold the payment bond surety jointly and severally liable. The parties agreed to stay the lawsuit since the facts were identical to those being arbitrated. The arbitration went forward and an award was entered in favor of the subcontractor and against the prime contractor for approximately $2.3 Million. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Wisconsin Court Enforces Breach of Contract Exclusion in E&O Policy

July 21, 2018 — TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In its recent decision in Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co. v. GHD Inc.,2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111827 (E.D. Wisc. July 5, 2018), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin had occasion to consider the application of a breach of contract exclusion in a professional liability policy. Crum’s insured, DVO, was sued in connection with its contract to construct a biogas converter mechanism. The underlying suit alleged a sole cause of action; namely, breach of contract based on DVO’s failure to have fulfilled its obligations to design the mechanism to specification. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP

---

Texas Supreme Court Cements Exception to “Eight-Corners” Rule Through Two Recent Rulings

March 06, 2022 — Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
The Texas “eight corners” rule precludes insurers from disclaiming a defense obligation based on facts not alleged in the underlying pleadings. Texas federal and appellate courts have been issuing rulings addressing exceptions to the eight corners rule and recently sought guidance from the Texas Supreme Court on whether Texas law recognizes such exceptions to the “eight corners” rule. The Texas Supreme Court has now spoken on the issue. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. BITCO Gen. Ins. Corp., 65 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 440 (2022). In Monroe, David Jones contracted with 5D Drilling & Pump Services in the summer of 2014 to drill a 3,600-foot commercial irrigation well on his farmland. In 2016, Jones sued 5D for breach of contract and negligence relating to 5D’s drilling operations on Jones’s property. Jones’s pleading was silent as to when the damage flowing from 5D’s alleged acts of misconduct occurred. BITCO and Monroe stipulated that 5D’s drill struck a bore hole during 5D’s drilling operations in or around November 2014. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

---