Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Michigan Claims Engineers’ Errors Prolonged Corrosion

June 30, 2016 — Richard Korman & Erin Richey – Engineering News-Record
Only a few months ago, Michigan’s state agencies stood at the center of a circle of blame for the Flint water crisis. A special advisory task force had condemned the state’s use of an emergency manager to make key decisions about the city, including, in 2014, the money-saving switch of the water source from Lake Huron to the Flint River and the state Dept. of Environmental Quality’s slow response to citizen reports of smelly, discolored water. On June 22, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette started working to expand the circle via a new lawsuit in a Genesee County state court, accusing engineers Veolia N.A. and Houston-based Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam (LAN) and its parent company, Leo A Daly Co., of professional negligence. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record and Erin Richey, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Hospital Inspection to Include Check for Construction Defects

October 08, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Temecula Valley Hospital is almost ready to be opened. One last step is an inspection from the California Department of Public Health’s Licensing and Certification Division. The inspection will take place over three to five days and will include not only building defects, but will also seek to identify problems that could compromise patient care. Any problems identified by the inspectors will have to be remedied before the hospital can open. Darlene Wetton, the CEO/president of the hospital said that the hospital worked with both the state and contractors to assure that the construction met the state standards. Currently, the city of Temecula does not have a hospital. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California’s High Speed Rail Project. Are We Done With the Drama?

October 22, 2014 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Proponents of California’s high-speed rail project cleared a major hurdle this past week when the California Supreme Court declined to review a California Court of Appeals ruling which held that the state’s funding plan did not violate Proposition 1A, the voter-approved initiative passed in 2008, which provided initial funding for the project. For those like me who have been following the fits and starts of California’s high-speed rail project, it may be hard to remember how it all got started, and how we got to where we are. California's High-Speed Rail Project California’s high-speed rail project involves the construction of a high-speed passenger rail system running from Northern California to Southern California. The $68 billion system, expected to begin operation in 2029, will initially run from San Francisco to the Los Angeles basin in under 3 hours with train speeds capable of over 200 miles per hour. The system will eventually extend from Sacramento to San Diego covering a distance of approximately 800 miles with up to 24 stations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

Discussion of the Discovery Rule and Tolling Statute of Limitations

February 26, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Attorney Clay Olson analyzed a recent South Carolina appeals case that “discussed the threshold for ‘notice’ as it pertains to statute(s) of limitations in construction defect cases. At the root of this action was a 2003 forensic report obtained by the HOA which was not acted upon until 2009.” Olson presented the background of the case as well as the case progression. Olson concluded, “It is well settled that an expert’s findings, when presented to a claimant, trigger the statute of limitations as to the specific defective conditions and locale where defects are present. This case is interesting in its treatment of the initial report as a trigger of all defects in not only the main building which was subject of the 2003 report, but additional structures.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer's Daubert Challenge to Insured's Expert Partially Successful

November 03, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer was partially successful in challenging two of the insureds' experts in a bad faith case. Estate of Arroyo v. Infinity Indem. Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115669 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 29, 2016). The Estate sought to qualify two experts, Lewis N. Jack and James P. Schratz. They were to opine on Infinity's handling of the Estate's insurance claims and the extent of damages warranted in the case. Jack was to testify on Infinity's duties to the insured, its investigation of the case, its reliance on Infinity's agents, and his belief that Infinity could have settled the case. Schratz's opinions mostly concerned Infinity's handling of its investigation. 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

Texas Considers a Quartet of Construction Bills

April 03, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Among the issues the Texas legislature is taking up is a measure that would require builders to buy back homes if they could not fix defects after three tries, but the law would only apply if the homeowner was a veteran. Some supporters of the bill, however, think it should be applied to all homeowners. Additionally, the state is also considering a measure that would adopt a new definition of “construction defect” and require contractors who bought homes back to disclose all construction defects and how they were remediated. Another measure would require builders to provide construction documents, including blueprints, to buyers of new homes. A final measure would create a standardized contract for the sale of new homes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

An Insurance Policy Isn’t Ambiguous Just Because You Want It to Be

December 20, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to insurance contracts, there is a rule of law that states, “where interpretation is required by ambiguity in insurance contracts[,] the insured will be favored.” Pride Clean Restoration, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2584a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (citation and quotation omitted). Stated another way: ambiguities in insurance contracts will be interpreted in favor of the insured and against the insurer. With this rule of law in mind, insureds oftentimes try to argue ambiguity even when there is not one. This was the situation in Pride Clean Construction. In this case, the property insurance policy contained a mold exclusion that stated the policy did NOT insure for “a. loss caused by mold, mildew, fungus, spores or other microorganism of any type, nature, or description including but not limited to any substance whose presence poses an actual or potential threat to human health; or b. the cost or expense of monitoring, testing, removal, encapsulation, abatement, treatment or handling of mold, mildew, fungus, spores or other microorganism as referred to in a) above.” Not only did the policy not insure for loss caused by mold, it went further to state it was NOT insuring for any mold testing or abatement. 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

Liability Cap Does Not Exclude Defense Costs for Loss Related to Deep Water Horizon

May 01, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Texas Supreme Court found that Lloyd's endorsement imposing a cap on liability for a joint venture did not exclude coverage for defense costs. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Houston Cas. Co. et al., 2019 Texas LEXIS 53 (Texas Jan. 25 2019j. Pursuant to a joint venture agreement, Anadarko held a 25% ownership interest in the Macondo Well in the Gulf of Mexico. When the well blew out, numerous third parties filed claims against BP entities and Anadarko. Many of the claims were consolidated into a multi-district litigation (MDL). The MDL court granted a declaratory judgment finding BP and Anadarko jointly and severally liable. BP and Anadarko reached a settlement in which Anadarko agreed to transfer its 25% ownership interest to BP and pay BP $4 billion. In exchange, BP agreed to release any claims it had against Anadarko and to indemnify Anadarko against all other liabilities arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident. BP did not agree, however, to cover Anadarko's defense costs. Anadarko had a policy through Lloyd's. The policy provided excess-liability coverage limited to $150 million per occurrence. Lloyd's paid Anadarko $37.5 million (25% of the $150 million limit) based upon Anadarko 25% ownership in the joint venture. Anadarko argued that Lloyd's still owed all of Anadarko's defense expenses, up to the $150 million limit. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES