Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

MetLife Takes Majority Stake in New San Francisco Office Tower

October 21, 2015 — Hui-Yong Yu – Bloomberg
MetLife Inc. is taking a majority stake in a 43-story office tower being built next to San Francisco’s Transbay Transit Center, expanding the biggest U.S. life insurer’s holdings in one of the country’s most expensive office markets. MetLife formed a joint venture with Chicago-based John Buck Co. and Golub & Co. for the property, called Park Tower at Transbay, the companies said in a statement before the building’s groundbreaking Tuesday. The tower, which doesn’t yet have a tenant, is scheduled for completion in 2018. Financial terms of the venture weren’t disclosed. Fred Pieretti, a spokesman for MetLife, said the company will own a majority interest in the building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hui-Yong Yu, Bloomberg

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

Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes

September 01, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

This is the fourth installment of posts on Vision One v. Philadelphia Indemnity, a Washington Supreme Court case touching on Washington construction and insurance law. After Williams v. Athletic Field got so much coverage, I wished that I had provided a forum for argument on Builders Counsel. While we await that opinion from the Supreme Court, I decided to let a few good writers have at Vision One here on the blog. Last week, attorney Chris Carr weighed in. Today, insurance expert David Thayer returns to give his final impression. David provided an initial peak at the case earlier this year. Thanks to both Chris and David for contributing to the debate.

In August 2011 the Washington Supreme Court will rule on a pair of joined cases that involve critical insurance coverage issues. The outcome of the ruling will impact a large swath of policyholders in Washington State including builders, developers, and homeowners to name a few.

The cases are Vision One vs. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance and Sprague vs. Safeco. The Vision one case comes from Division Two of the Appellate Court which overturned a lower court decision in favor the plaintiff, Vision One. Division Two decided that the collapse of a concrete pour during the course of construction did not constitute a resulting loss due to faulty workmanship. They further went on to redefine efficient proximate cause in a way that is harmful to policyholders by broadening rather than narrowing the meaning of exclusionary language in Philadelphia’s Builders Risk Policy.

Read the full story…

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

MTA Debarment Update

December 02, 2019 — Steven M. Charney, Gregory H. Chertoff & Paul Monte - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Alliance for Fair and Equitable Contracting Today, Inc., a nonprofit formed by five trade associations, including the GCA, the BTEA and the NY Building Congress, has sued the Metropolitan Transportation Authority over rules that debar contractors for delays and cost overruns on MTA projects without regard to the reasons for the delays and cost overruns. As described in our prior client alert (see here), the current rules automatically debar firms that are determined to have gone over the MTA approved contract price or time by more than 10%. The rules do not consider mitigating circumstances. Delays and cost overruns are often caused by unforeseen conditions, design errors and omissions, and changes requested by the MTA. The MTA’s rules could lead contractors to absorb additional costs they shouldn’t be responsible for rather than face the risk of being debarred. As argued in Alliance’s action, “Debarment is the death penalty for a public works contractor, and not just in New York. A debarment by the MTA could result in debarment nationwide, given that public and private contractors throughout the country commonly inquire about bidders’ debarment history when considering project bids. The Debarment Statute and MTA Regulations thus effectively export an unreasonable law not only throughout New York State, but to all other states as well.” Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. attorneys Steven M. Charney, Gregory H. Chertoff and Paul Monte Mr. Charney may be contacted at scharney@pecklaw.com Mr. Chertoff may be contacted at gchertoff@pecklaw.com Mr. Monte may be contacted at pmonte@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Three White and Williams Lawyers Named Top Lawyers by Delaware Today

December 07, 2020 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams is pleased to announce that John Balaguer, Managing Partner of the Wilmington office, Partner Stephen Milewski and Counsel Dana Spring Monzo have been chosen by their peers as Delaware Today's 2020 "Top Lawyers." The annual list recognizes John, Steve and Dana in the practice area of Medical Malpractice for the Defense. John has over 30 years of experience defending complex tort cases and is recognized as one of the leading trial lawyers in the State of Delaware. Steve has over 15 years of experience as a trial lawyer specializing in healthcare law, particularly defending hospitals, doctors and healthcare providers in medical negligence cases. Dana's practice is focused on complex civil litigation, primarily medical malpractice. For more than a decade she has represented the interests of physicians, hospitals and healthcare providers in Delaware. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

Gone Fishing: Tenant’s Insurer Casts A Line Seeking To Subrogate Against The Landlord

October 17, 2022 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
In J&J Fish on Ctr. Str., Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-644-bhl, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16361, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (District Court) recognized that “[t]here will be no further fish fries on Center Street until someone pays to repair the collapsed floor at J&J Fish on Center Street, Inc. (J&J Fish).” The contenders were: 1) J&J Fish; 2) its’ insurer, Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (Insurer); and 3) J&J Fish’s landlord, Vision Land, LLC (Vision). Recognizing Insurer’s right to subrogate against Vision based on the terms of the parties’ lease, the District Court held Insurer owed J&J Fish coverage for the losses it sustained, but that Insurer could subrogate against Vision for anything it had to pay J&J Fish. In J&J Fish, Vision and J&J Fish signed a lease (Lease) for a building (the Building) located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Lease required Vision to “purchase and keep in full force and effect on the building(s) . . . insurance against fire and such other risks as may be included in all-risks policies . . .” Vision, however, never obtained any insurance on the Building. Pursuant to the Lease, Vision also agreed to “maintain and repair the structure including the slab floor and exterior walls of the Premises.” With respect to J&J Fish, the Lease required J&J Fish to maintain “Physical Damage insurance, including but not limited to fire . . . and all other risks of direct physical loss as insured . . . for the full replacement cost of all additions, improvements (including leasehold improvements) and alterations to the Premises.” J&J Fish purchased a commercial property and casualty insurance policy (the Policy) from Insurer. The Policy covered “additions, improvements . . . and alterations” as the Lease required. In addition, it insured the Building itself against “collapse,” subject to certain exceptions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

Lawsuit Gives Teeth to Massachusetts Pay Law

September 16, 2024 — Joseph Barra - Robinson+Cole
“The Massachusetts Legislature passed the state’s Prompt Pay Act 14 years ago to improve the downstream flow of money on most large-scale private construction projects. While the act established detailed protocols for administering applications for payment and other important construction phase processes, several questions about its interpretation and impact remained unanswered. Over the years, I watched as a significant portion of the Massachusetts design and construction community either ignored the law’s exacting requirements or were unaware of their applicability. The first indication of how the act would be interpreted came in 2022, when the state appeals court decided Tocci Building Corp. v. IRIV Partners LLC. In that case, the court strictly construed the act. It held that an owner (and its agent) who failed to promptly advise the project’s general contractor of specific factual and legal reasons why it was withholding payment, coupled with a failure to certify that funds were being withheld in good faith, violated the law—making the contractor liable for the unpaid funds. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joseph Barra, Robinson+Cole
Mr. Barra may be contacted at jbarra@rc.com

New Addition To New Jersey Court Rules Impacts More Than Trial Practice

November 16, 2020 — Thomas Regan & Karley Kamaris - Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
On September 1, 2020, New Jersey adopted a brand-new rule of procedure, Rule 4:25-8, which properly defines motions in limine. On its face, the new rule prohibits, broadly, filing motions in limine that may have a dispositive effect on the case. Most notably, the rule expressly eliminates the ability to move, on motion in limine, to bar expert testimony in matters in which such experts are required to sustain a party’s burden of proof. This effectively makes the summary judgment phase of litigation the last chance to bar experts from a jury trial or take any other dispositive action The new rule comes at a time in which the evidentiary standard for experts is shifting in New Jersey. In October 2018, the New Jersey Supreme Court reconciled the framework for analyzing the reliability of expert testimony under N.J.R.E. 702 and 703 in In re: Accutane Litigation. Significantly, New Jersey, a traditional Frye jurisdiction, incorporated certain federal Daubert factors for expert “use by our courts” but, overall, fell short of adopting the Daubert standard as a whole. In applying the relevant Daubert factors, the trial court in Accutane held that the subject experts’ methodologies were unsound due to the failure to apply fundamentals of the scientific method of the medical-evidence hierarchy. The decision resulted in the dismissal of over 3,000 claims. Reprinted courtesy of Thomas Regan, Lewis Brisbois and Karley Kamaris, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Regan may be contacted at Thomas.Regan@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Kamaris may be contacted at Karley.Kamaris@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES