Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Legal Fallout Begins Over Delayed Edmonton Bridges

June 22, 2016 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
The project teams for Edmonton’s two problem bridge-replacement projects have put most of their woes behind them—if trips to civil court and possible late-completion penalties are excluded. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted with questions or comments at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

First Look at Long List of AEC Firms Receiving PPP Loans

July 20, 2020 — Tom Ichniowski & Scott Blair - Engineering News-Record
Thousands of construction and design firm from all parts of the U.S. appear on lists of companies that have received federal Paycheck Protection Program forgivable loans, according to federal documents just made public. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record and Scott Blair, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Mr. Blair may be contacted at blairs@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

LEED Certified Courthouse Square Negotiating With Insurers, Mulling Over Demolition

June 06, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

Apparently, Courthouse Square is still unresolved. The County hasnow hired an attorney to handle its insurance claim against Affiliated FM. Is there a lawsuit coming?

Right now, no lawsuit is expected. According to officials, the insurer has been acting in good faith. But, its been quite a while since Salem officials learned that the Courthouse Square building had significant concrete issues that would result in probable demolition of the LEED certified building.

If you have yet to hear about Courthouse Square, let me fill you in briefly. The Salem building was substantially completed in 2000 and LEED certified by the US Green Building Council in 2002. The project cost more than $30 Million to complete and the building was revered for its innovation as a crowning achievement for city leaders.

But, structural problems in the building’s core were discovered as early as 2002, writes Chris Cheatham of Green Building Law Update. Final tests earlier in the year, determined that the building had to be vacated. The building has been clear since July 2010.

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

Allegations Versus “True Facts”: Which Govern the Duty to Defend? Bonus! A Georgia Court Clears Up What the Meaning of “Is” Is

December 11, 2023 — Rachel E. Hudgins & Syed S. Ahmad - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Courts scrutinize a complaint’s factual allegations to decide whether the allegations trigger a duty to defend. [1] If the facts unambiguously exclude coverage, there is no duty to defend. [2] But what if the factual allegations fall within a policy exclusion, but the allegations are untrue or questionable? What if the true facts would mean the exclusion doesn’t apply? In that case, many courts have found that the insurer should base its decision on the policyholder’s version of the “true facts.” [3] An insurer can’t rely on the complaint’s allegations to deny coverage when the facts that the insurer knows or can ascertain show that the claim is covered. [4] A recent case, United Minerals & Properties Inc. v. Phoenix Insurance Co., No. 4:23-cv-00050 (N.D. Ga.), illustrates these policy interpretation principles. Reprinted courtesy of Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com Mr. Ahmad may be contacted at sahmad@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Clarifies Pennsylvania’s Strict Liability Standard

January 14, 2015 — William Doerler and Edward Jaeger, Jr. – White and Williams LLP
In Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 6474923 (Pa. Nov. 19, 2014), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania discussed the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s products liability law and, overturning prior precedent, clarified the law. In particular, the Court, overturned Azzarello v. Black Brothers Company, 480 Pa. 547, 391 A.2d 1020 (1978), clarified the role of the judge and the jury in products liability cases and settled the question of whether Pennsylvania would adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability §§ 1, et. seq. (Third Restatement) as the standard for deciding Pennsylvania products liability cases. The Tincher decision makes clear that Pennsylvania will continue to apply § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (Second Restatement) in products liability cases and that jurors, not the court, will decide the question of whether a product is in a defective condition. Plaintiffs may prove that a product is defective using either the consumer expectations test or the risk-utility test. Background The Tincher case arose out a fire that occurred at the home of Terrance and Judith Tincher on June 20, 2007. The Tinchers alleged that the fire started when a lightning strike near their home caused a small puncture in corrugated steel tubing (CSST) carrying natural gas to a fireplace located in their home. The defendant, Omega Flex, Inc. (Omega Flex) manufactured the CSST. Reprinted courtesy of William Doerler, White and Willams LLP and Edward Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Congratulations to San Diego Partner Alex Giannetto and Senior Associate Michael Ibach on Settling a Case 3 Weeks Into a 5-Week Trial!

April 15, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Partner Alex Giannetto and Senior Associate Michael Ibach of BWB&O’s San Diego office started a trial in San Diego set to last at least five weeks. Plaintiffs alleged causes of action of negligence, trespass and nuisance against BWB&O’s client, arguing the owner/property manager did not properly handle alleged overwatering of the front yard, allegedly resulting in a landslide impacting 8 homes on a City slope in Carlsbad. Cross-Complainant City alleged independent negligence to fix the slope it owned and controlled as well as various indemnity-based causes of action against BWB&O’s client. Plaintiffs claimed over $24 million in damages, while Cross-Complainant placed sole blame for the incident on BWB&O’s client around $6 million. Heading into trial, it was made clear that neither Plaintiffs nor Cross-Complainant would accept anything less than 7-figures to settle BWB&O’s client out of the case. In the first week of trial, BWB&O was able to leverage motions in limine, opening statements, and cross-examinations to secure a dismissal of three of the four causes of action alleged by Plaintiff that were associated with pain & suffering. In the second week of trial, BWB&O secured a dismissal of Cross-Complainant’s negligence cause of action paving the way for a settlement with Plaintiffs. Leveraging the threat of a non-suit when Plaintiffs rested, BWB&O secured resolution of Plaintiffs’ complaint for a fraction of what had previously been sought. Finally, BWB&O was able to secure a dismissal of the remaining indemnity-based causes of action in the cross-complaint and fully extract the client from the matter. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Will Not Address Trigger for DEP Environmental Cleanup Action at This Time

August 14, 2018 — Gregory Capps - White and Williams LLP
On July 18, 2018, in Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company v. Johnson Matthey, Inc., et al., No. 24 MAP 2017 (Pa. July 18, 2018), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court quashed the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association’s (PMA) appeal seeking review of a ruling denying its motion for summary judgment for an order that coverage for the cleanup of a toxic waste site is limited to the policy in effect when property damage was first discovered. In short, the court found the lower court’s ruling only narrowed the dispute between the parties and is, therefore, interlocutory and not appealable at this time. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gregory Capps, White & Williams LLP
Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com

Economic Loss Rule Bars Claims Against Manufacturer

November 02, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The economic loss rule lives to bar a claim against a product manufacturer in a real estate transaction. In a products liability action, there needs to be personal injury or property damage, other than to the property itself, in order to recover economic damages. Otherwise, the economic loss rule will bar the recovery of such economic losses when the economic losses deal to the product itself. This is important to keep in mind in any product liability action against a manufacturer. In a recent case, 2711 Hollywood Beach Condominium Assoc’n, Inc., v. TRG Holiday, Ltd., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2179a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), a condominium association purchased the condominium from the developer. Subsequently, it noticed leaks with the fire suppression system in the condominium and sued multiple parties for damages for repairs due to the leaks and the replacement of the fire suppression system. One of the parties sued in negligence and strict liability was a manufacturer of pipe fittings used in the fire suppression system. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment based on the economic loss rule and relying on the 1993 Florida Supreme Court opinion in Casa Clara Condominium Assoc’n v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 620 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 1993), holding “the economic loss rule limited a defendant’s tort liability for allegedly defective products to injuries caused to persons or damage caused to property other than the defective product itself.” 2711 Hollywood Beach Conominium Assoc’n, supra. The trial court agreed with the manufacturer and granted summary judgment. On appeal, the Third District affirmed based on the economic loss rule:

The Association bargained for, purchased and received a building; [the manufactuer’s] fittings were only a component of the FSS [fire suppression system], incorporated into the building. Applying the rule set forth in Casa Clara, the Association purchased a completed building from the developer. [The manufactuer’s] fittings were “an integral part of the finished product and, thus, did not injure ‘other’ property.” Injury to the building itself is not injury to “other” property because the product purchased by the Association was the building. See Casa Clara, 620 So. 2d at 1247. The economic loss rule therefore bars the Association’s recovery as to [the manufacturer] to the extent that it sought damages to replace the FSS [fire suppression system] and repair damage to the building.

2711 Hollywood Beach Conominium Assoc’n, supra (internal citations omitted).

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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES