Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

The Show Must Go On: Shuttered Venues Operators Grant Provides Lifeline for Live Music and Theater Venues

March 29, 2021 — David Rao - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Although it’s been a tough twelve months for many live music venues, movie theaters, and performing arts organizations, help may finally be around the corner. On December 27, 2020, the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act was signed into law, creating a $15 billion fund for grants to shuttered venues to be administered by the Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”) Office of Disaster Assistance. The law states that Shuttered Venues Operator Grants (“SVOGs”) will be made available to the following entities and individuals:

Live venue operators or promoters;
Theatrical producers;
Live performing arts organization operators;
Relevant museum operators, zoos, and aquariums which meet specific criteria;
Movie theater operators;
Talent representatives; and
Each business entity owned by an eligible entity that also meets the eligibility requirements.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Rao, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Rao may be contacted at drao@swlaw.com

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Jessica Burtnett and Jessica Kull Obtain Dismissal of Claim Against Insurance Producer Based Upon Statute of Limitations

August 20, 2019 — Jessica Burtnett & Jessica N. Kull - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry attorneys Jessica Burtnett and Jessica Kull successfully obtained a dismissal with prejudice on behalf of their client after oral argument for a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull represented an insurance broker who was sued by one of its customers, a property management company, for failure to procure a correct policy of insurance that would have provided coverage for an underlying class action lawsuit asserting statutory violations. In their motion, Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the Plaintiff failed to file the lawsuit within the applicable two year statute of limitations outlined in the Illinois Insurance Producers Act 735 ILCS 5/13-214.4. Based on a recent ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court in the case of Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krop, 2018 IL 122556, ¶ 13, reh’g denied (Nov. 26, 2018), Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the statute of limitations began to accrue at the moment the allegedly non-conforming policy was delivered to the customer Plaintiff. In this case, Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the subject policy was purchased and received before it became effective on November 25, 2015. Thus, at the absolute latest, the statute of limitations expired two years later on November 25, 2017. Since the lawsuit was not filed until October 4, 2018, the Plaintiff was approximately 10 months too late to assert a valid claim. In response, the Plaintiff tried to factually distinguish the Krop case by arguing it involved a claim against a captive agent rather than a broker. Plaintiff further argued that a broker maintains a fiduciary duty to its clients and, therefore, the two year statute of limitations applied in Krop did not apply to a broker. Plaintiff also argued the Illinois Insurance Placement Liability Act was unconstitutional. Reprinted courtesy of Jessica Burtnett, Traub Lieberman and Jessica N. Kull, Traub Lieberman Ms. Burtnett may be contacted at jburtnett@tlsslaw.com Ms. Kull may be contacted at jkull@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Courts Will Not Rewrite Your Post-Loss Property Insurance Obligations

June 14, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In the preceding posting, I wrote about making sure you comply with your property insurance policy’s post-loss policy obligations. By failing to comply, you can render your policy ineffective meaning you are forfeiting otherwise valid insurance coverage, which was the situation discussed in the preceding posting. As an insured, you should never want this to occur! In another case, discussed here, the property insurance policy had a preferred contractor endorsement. This means that instead of paying the insured insurance proceeds, the insurer could perform the repairs with its preferred contractor. Typically, the insured will pay a discount on their premium for this preferred contractor endorsement. The insurer elected to move forward with the repairs based on the preferred contractor endorsement but the insured performed the repairs on his own and then sold the house. By doing this, the appellate court held the insured rendered his policy ineffective by breaching his own policy (and failing to allow this post-loss obligation to take place). The explicit terms of the policy allowed the insurer to perform the repairs instead of paying the insured insurance proceeds. The court could NOT rewrite the post-loss obligations in the policy by requiring the insurer to pay insurance proceeds when the insurer, per the preferred contractor endorsement, elected to perform the repairs. 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

California Mediation Confidentiality May Apply to Third Party “Participants” Retained to Provide Analysis

November 02, 2017 — Tony Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
California Evidence Code section 1119 governs the general admissibility of oral and written communications generated during the mediation process. Section 1119(a) provides that “[n]o evidence of anything said or any admission made for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation . . . is admissible or subject to discovery, and disclosure of the evidence shall not be compelled, in any . . . civil action . . . .” Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(a) (emphasis added). Similarly, section 1119(b) bars discovery or admission in evidence of any “writing . . . prepared for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation . . . .” Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(b) (emphasis added). Finally, section 1119(c) provides that “[a]ll communications, negotiations, or settlement discussions by and between participants in the course of a mediation . . . shall remain confidential.” Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(c) (emphasis added). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

Appeal of an Attorney Disqualification Order Results in Partial Automatic Stay of Trial Court Proceedings

October 11, 2017 — Howard M. Garfield & Renata L. Hoddinott - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In URS Corporation v. Atkinson/Walsh Joint Venture (No. G055271 filed September 26, 2017), Division Three of the Fourth Appellate District dealt with, for the first time, the question of whether an appeal of an attorney disqualification order results in an automatic stay of the trial proceedings and, if so, how far the automatic stay extends. The underlying action involved a construction dispute between a contractor and subcontractor. During the pendency of that action, one party’s counsel filed a motion to disqualify another party’s counsel based on an alleged misuse of mediation-privilege protected documents. The trial court granted the disqualification motion and the disqualified counsel promptly filed a notice of appeal. The trial court then denied an application to stay proceedings pending the appeal, rejecting the assertion that the appeal automatically stayed the underlying proceedings. Reprinted courtesy of Howard M. Garfield, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Garfield may be contacted at hgarfield@hbblaw.com Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Termination for Convenience Clauses: Maybe More Than Just Convenience

June 06, 2022 — Robert C. Shaia - ConsensusDocs
A contractor begins work on a project and everything is going well, until one day the owner informs the contractor that it is being terminated for convenience. Possibly, there is no discussion about alleged defects, reasons for the termination, or any damages the owner might seek against the contractor. In that moment, the contractor may be unaware of any perceived wrongdoing or problems with its work. The industry has typically accepted that, in this scenario, the owner implicitly waives the right to any remedies against the contractor, except those expressly set forth in the contract. Reasonable minds might assume that, if the owner believed it needed to seek further remedies, it would terminate the contractor for cause instead of convenience. And often overlooked during contract negotiations are the benefits of including an express “waiver of remedies” in the termination for convenience section. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert C. Shaia, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Shaia may be contacted at rshaia@watttieder.com

EPA Rejects Most of N.Y.’s $511 Million Tappan Zee Loan

September 17, 2014 — Freeman Klopott – Bloomberg
A $511 million loan approved by a New York environmental agency to help fund the construction of a new $4 billion Tappan Zee Bridge was rejected almost entirely by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The loan was intended to drive down borrowing costs for the replacement span being built across the Hudson River, with half of it being provided at zero interest. The agency, the Environmental Facilities Corp., approved the borrowing in June, saying it could use the funds from a program that targets clean-water projects. The EPA said today in a letter to state officials that building a new bridge doesn’t fit the intention of the program, which is backed by federal dollars. The agency, citing the U.S. Clean Water Act, said only $29.1 million could be allowed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Freeman Klopott, Bloomberg
Mr. Klopott may be contacted at fklopott@bloomberg.net

Top 10 Construction Contract Provisions – Changes and Claims

November 03, 2016 — James R. Lynch – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
This is the seventh post in our “Top 10 Construction Contract Provisions” series. Prior posts discussed Price and Payment, Liquidated Damages, Consequential Damages – Part I and Part II, Indemnity, Scope of Work, and Flow-Down Provisions. Today’s topic, Changes and Claims, is a contender for the top spot on our list, for both day-to-day impact on the job and importance in disputes. In fact, these provisions[i] are so variable and are involved in so many reported construction law decisions, that this post will not attempt to survey all their various forms, uses, or potential legal ramifications, but instead focuses on bottom line “best practices”—questions to consider as a general contractor, subcontractor, or owner when drafting, negotiating, or managing the Changes and Claims provisions of a contract. There is no “ideal” here, and the changes and claims procedures should be suited to the project, owner, contractor(s), likely issues, and other project-specific considerations. Key considerations include the following: 1. How prescriptive is the Change Order process? At one end of the spectrum, a Change Order provision may include requirements for written direction and request by the owner and formal response by the contractor, with pricing and specific supporting data or documentation, in addition to strict timelines for response, execution, and performance, precise methods to determine the resulting contract adjustment, limits on the type or extent of adjustment, or terms defining the effect of a signed Change Order, e.g. to what extent related claims or impacts might be extinguished. At the other end of the spectrum, the Change Order provision might simply recognize that the owner may direct changes, and the parties intend to document the directions and resulting compensation in a Change Order, with no further elaboration. There is no universal ideal on this spectrum. A highly defined and prescriptive process may be appropriate for a complex, high value, multi-stakeholder project on which significant changes are likely. The same process would be an inefficient waste of resources on a small and simple project where significant changes are unlikely and the parties would be unlikely to comply with more formal procedures. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James R. Lynch, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Lynch may be contacted at jlynch@ac-lawyers.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES