Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Register and Watch Partner John Toohey Present on the CLM Webinar Series!

October 11, 2021 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara is proud to announce that Partner John Toohey was invited to speak on a panel for the CLM Webinar Series alongside Attorney Rembold Hirschman, and Senior Claims Examiner Brett Reuter. John and his industry peers recently presented on the topic Handling Construction Defect Cases in Arbitration: The Good and the Bad. About the webinar: Unfortunately, many construction projects end in dispute and the parties frequently find themselves in the middle of uncharted territory – arbitration! Subscribe and watch as they explore the pitfalls, debunk the myths, and discuss the benefits of arbitration in construction disputes. About John Toohey: John H. Toohey is a Partner for Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP. Mr. Toohey is an A.V. Preeminent rated attorney with a practice focused on contract negotiation and litigation, complex product liability, and construction. He has successfully represented hundreds of clients in alternative dispute resolution and trial, including multiple cases to jury verdict. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

To Bee or Not to Bee - CA Court Finds Denial of Coverage Based on Exclusion was Premature Where Facts had not been Judicially Determined

November 28, 2018 — Philip B. Wilusz - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
While I typically discuss cases concerning pollution, today I will change a few letters around and discuss pollination. The case, Unigard Insurance Co. et al. v. George Perry and Sons Inc. et al., asks whether there is coverage for a lawsuit brought against a commercial farm that is alleged to have killed off bee colonies used for pollination. The farm, owned by George Perry & Sons Inc. (“Perry”), allegedly used a pesticide that killed off the bee colonies that Perry had hired from Gary Mattes (“Mattes”) pursuant to an oral agreement. The bees, operating well outside of their weight class, were hired to pollinate Perry’s crops of watermelons and pumpkins. Interestingly, the bees would be brought to the farm in either large hives or “nukes,” which are smaller versions of hives. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com

Ohio Court Refuses to Annualize Multi-Year Policies’ Per Occurrence Limits

June 19, 2023 — Patricia Santelle, Adam Berardi & Lynndon Groff - White and Williams LLP
White and Williams recently obtained summary judgment against an insured on behalf of an insurer and a guarantor, establishing that two multi-year insurance policies provide per occurrence limits on a per policy rather than a per year basis, which shielded potential exposure by over $100 million. The insured had previously sought and obtained coverage under two policies in connection with a single occurrence arising out of massive environmental contamination claims involving a large industrial site. The issue of whether the policies provide per occurrence limits on a policy term or annual basis was not resolved in this earlier litigation. The first policy was effective for three years and provides per occurrence limits of $40 million. The second policy was effective for up to three years and provides per occurrence limits of $15 million. Reprinted courtesy of Patricia Santelle, White and Williams LLP, Adam Berardi, White and Williams LLP and Lynndon Groff, White and Williams LLP Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Berardi may be contacted at berardia@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Breach of Contract Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect Claim

March 19, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined the policy's breach of contract exclusion precluded coverage for a claim against the general contractor insured for construction defects. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. McAtamncy, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 497 (N. D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2024). McAtamney, a general contractor dong business as Kilrea Construction, was hired by Jeffrey Horowitz for a home-renovation project. After completion of the project, Horowitz discovered defects in the work. He filed a complaint alleging that Kilrea breached obligations to construct and complete the work in an expeditious and workmanlike manner, free from any faults and defects. He brought claims for breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, negligence, neglignet supervision, and declaratory relief. Kilrea's insurer, Mt. Hawley, agreed to defend, but reserved the right to later deny coverage for any uncovered claims. The breach of contract exclusion provided there was no duty to defend a claim for property damage arising from breach of an express or implied contract or warranty. 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

Why You May Not Want a Mandatory Mediation Clause in Your Construction Contract

October 26, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I know, you are likely surprised by the title of this post. You’ve read Construction Law Musings for a while now and know that as a Virginia Supreme Court certified mediator, I have advocated mediation as a great way to resolve your construction disputes short of the expensive and time consuming litigation process. Knowing all of this, you as a reader of this blog (thanks by the way) probably wonder why I think that a mandatory mediation clause may not be the best thing for your construction contracts. I can understand your possible confusion (particularly in light of this post from @sethsmiley). Please don’t take the headline as my suddenly taking a new view of mediation. Short of simply resolving the dispute between the parties to the construction contract, mediation still remains number one on my list of construction dispute resolution mechanisms. I still believe that it is useful even when a resolution is not met after a good faith attempt by both sides to come to a business agreement. However, I also believe that mediation works best when entered into voluntarily by the parties. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Changes and Extra Work – Is There a Limit?

October 09, 2018 — Joseph R. Young - Smith Currie
Design and construction changes can be a challenge for everyone involved in a construction project. Designers and contractors endeavor to deliver a project that meets the owner’s needs, budget, and aesthetic considerations. As a project comes to fruition, the project frequently changes, and the parties must address and resolve the financial considerations of those changes and implement the changes at the project level. Often times the most critical aspect of a contractor’s financial success or failure of a construction project is its ability to manage changes. Contractors are sometimes faced with changes that are beyond the reasonable expectation of the original undertaking and have significant planning, scheduling, and cost implications that may not be considered or addressed in the contract’s changes clause. Changes of this magnitude may be considered “cardinal changes” and provide the contractor with recourse beyond restrictions imposed by the contract’s changes clause. But cardinal change is a risky basis for a contractor to refuse to perform additional or changed work. Even major changes can probably be more safely handled within the terms of the contract’s changes clause. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joseph R. Young, Smith Currie
Mr. Young may be contacted at jryoung@smithcurrie.com

Portions of Policyholder's Expert's Opinions Excluded

November 13, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court granted, in part, the insurer's motion to exclude portions of expert testimony. Tundra M. Holdings, LLC v. Markel Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139952 (D. Alaska Aug. 10, 2023). Plaintiff alleged a building it owned suffered damages consisting of building roof failure due to snow load. Plaintiff submitted a claim to Markel for its loss. Plaintiff hired an engineering firm to conduct an inspection. The recommendation was to install snow guards and that 28 rafters be replaced with new beams. The evaluation did not state that the recommendation was required by law or ordinance. Nor did the evaluation make mention of replacing the metal roof on the building or anything about the water system or sprinkler system. Plaintiff then obtained an estimate of $687,500 for roof repair/replacement, store front repair, a sprinkler system installer and a water system upgrade. 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

Federal Public Works Construction Collection Remedies: The Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

July 30, 2015 — William L. Porter – The Porter Law Group Bulletin
Federal public work construction projects are unique in that there are no Stop Payment Notice or Mechanics Lien remedies available. Furthermore, although a remedy is available by proceeding against the original contractor’s payment bond under a federal law known as the “Miller Act” and its corresponding Federal Regulations (40 USCS 3131 et seq. and 48 CFR 28.101-1 et seq.), this remedy is not available to all subcontractors or suppliers. In addition, there are circumstances where a different form of security can be substituted for the payment bond (40 USCS 3131(b)(2)). Among those who generally cannot sue on the Miller Act Payment Bond are third-tier subcontractors and suppliers to suppliers. (See J.W. Bateson Company v. Board of Trustees, 434 U.S. 586 (1978)). As a general rule, every subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who deals directly with the prime contractor may bring a lawsuit against the bond company providing the Miller Act Payment Bond. Further, every subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who has a direct contractual relationship with a first tier subcontractor may bring such an action. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, The Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES