Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Virginia Decision Emphasizes Importance of Naming All Necessary Parties

June 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Nate Budde on the Construction Payment Blog, discussed the potential of mechanics liens, and the pitfalls that occur when not all necessary parties are named. Budde analyzed the case Johnson Controls Inc. v. Norair Eng’g Corp. that involved a “claimant’s failure to name all the necessary parties in his claim against a bond,” resulting “in the claimant losing his claim against the bond, and with it, an opportunity to get paid.” Budde concluded, “Unfortunately, as was the case here, when the bond claim is not handled correctly procedurally, a party can be left with no recourse for payment. It’s important to understand which of the parties involved should be named in both mechanics lien claims and bond claims.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Toolbox Talk Series Recap - The Mediator's Proposal

January 21, 2025 — Douglas J. Mackin - The Dispute Resolver
In our final edition of the year of Division 1's Toolbox Talk Series on December 19, 2024, Matthew Argue and Gene Witkin discussed the use of the Mediator’s Proposal to bridge any final gaps to settlement between parties to a mediation. For those unfamiliar, a Mediator’s Proposal is a settlement proposal that the mediator makes to all parties to the dispute simultaneously. Each party then advises the mediators in confidence whether they accept or reject the proposal. The Mediator will communicate to all the parties that the Mediator’s Proposal is accepted only if all parties accept. Argue and Witkin emphasized that the Mediator’s Proposal is not a shortcut and should not be used simply to split the difference. Instead, it is a tool available to the mediator to push the parties to resolution after they have had robust negotiations, understand the strengths and weaknesses of the positions of each side, and have made progress towards at least getting within range of one another. A successful Mediator’s Proposal depends on the mediator (and the parties) having sufficient information to make a credible recommendation and creating an environment where all parties will consider the Mediator’s Proposal in good faith. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas J. Mackin, Cozen O’Connor
Mr. Mackin may be contacted at dmackin@cozen.com

“Positive Limiting Barriers” Are An Open and Obvious Condition, Relieving Owner of Duty to Warn

June 13, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On June 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decided the case of Potvin v. Speedway, Inc., a personal injury case subject to the laws of Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, environmental rules require the installation of “positive limiting barriers” at gasoline service stations to contain gasoline spills of up to 5 gallons. At a self-service station now owned by Speedway, Inc., the plaintiff, a passenger in a car being serviced, exited the car but tripped on these barriers and was injured. She sued Speedway in state court, and the case was removed to federal court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

California Courts Call a “Time Out” During COVID-19 –New Emergency Court Rules on Civil Litigation

May 04, 2020 — Tara C. Dudum - Newmeyer Dillion
“We are at this point truly with no guidance in history, law, or precedent. To say that there is no playbook is a gross understatement of the situation.” -Chief Justice and Chair of the California Judicial Council, Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Seeking to sustain essential court services while balancing weighty considerations, including litigants’ due process rights, access to justice, and stringent health and safety orders, the California Judicial Council has adopted Emergency Rules in response to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). While many of the Emergency Rules focus on criminal and juvenile dependency matters, this update highlights the Emergency Rules immediately impacting civil litigation in California state courts. The following Emergency Rules remain in effect until 90 days after the Governor lifts the state of emergency or the rule is amended or repealed by the Judicial Council: Tolling of Statutes of Limitation in Civil Actions Effective April 6, 2020, the statutes of limitation (the time period in which to bring a claim) for all civil causes of action is tolled until such time as the rule is no longer in effect. The impact of this rule is that it provides plaintiffs with more time to bring claims and extends the time period that defendants may face legal action for alleged violations of the law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tara C. Dudum, Newmeyer Dillion
Ms. Dudum may be contacted at tara.dudum@ndlf.com

California Case Adds Difficulties for Contractors & Material Suppliers

August 20, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Garret Murai in his California Law Blog declared that “things just got a lot tougher for contractors and material suppliers in the Golden State.” In his blog, Murai analyzed the recent case Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. v. Eastern Municipal Water District, Case No. E054618 (July 23, 2014), in which “the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District found that a subcontractor’s public works payment bond claim was time barred because its stop payment notice was served ‘before’ a notice of completion was recorded.” Murai explained the importance of the ruling and how it changed the status quo: “Whereas before, it was commonly understood that you could serve a stop payment notice ‘during’ construction (after all, that was the point wasn’t it, to stop construction funds before they are paid out), now you may have only have a 30 day window (probably less) to serve a stop notice within 30 days after a notice of completion or notice of cessation is recorded.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex

June 10, 2015 — Kristen Lee Price and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego, et al. (No. D063992, filed 5/28/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a controversial plan to eliminate vehicles from various plazas in historic Balboa Park. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal considered a question of first impression involving the interpretation of San Diego Municipal Code section 126.0504. Balboa Park, designated a National Historic Landmark in 1940, is a large urban park in the center of San Diego. The City of San Diego (“City”) recently approved a proposed plan (“Project”) to eliminate vehicles from the plazas within the Balboa Park complex and to return the plazas to purely pedestrian zones. Subsequently, a community group named Save Our Heritage Organisation (“SOHO”) filed a petition for a writ of mandate alleging, among other things, the City erroneously approved the Project. SOHO contended Municipal Code section 126.0504 mandated two key findings be made before the Project could be approved: (1) that the intended purpose of the property would not be adversely affected; and (2) without the proposed project, the property would not be put to a “reasonable beneficial use.” SOHO argued that although the City made the requisite findings, those findings lacked substantial evidentiary support. The trial court agreed with SOHO and directed the City to rescind the site development permit. The City argued on appeal that Municipal Code section 126.0504 vested it with “discretion to make a qualitative determination of whether an existing use of the property, even if deemed beneficial, is also a reasonable use of that property under all of the facts and circumstances applicable to the particular property in question.” The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed. Reprinted courtesy of Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

10 Haight Lawyers Recognized in Best Lawyers in America© 2023 and The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2023

August 22, 2022 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Four Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys were selected for Best Lawyers in America© 2023. Congratulations to:

Bruce Cleeland – Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Peter Dubrawski – Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Denis Moriarty – Insurance law
Ted Penny – Workers’ Compensation Law – Claimants

Six Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys were selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2023. Congratulations to:

Courtney Arbucci – Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Frances Brower – Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Kyle DiNicola – Transportation Law
Arezoo Jamshidi – Appellate Practice; Transportation Law
Kristian Moriarty – Transportation Law
Bethsaida Obra-White – Construction Law; Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

Patent or Latent: An Important Question in Construction Defects

October 25, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Pieter M. O’Leary, writing for the site AVVO offers the advice that whether a construction defect is patent or latent could influence whether or not it’s covered in a construction defect claim. He notes that a “patent defect” is “a construction defect that is ‘readily observable or evident,’” while a “latent defect” is “a construction defect that is present but not readily detectable even with reasonable care.” While this may sound like a simple distinction, he notes that “distinguishing between the two can often be difficult and sometimes highly contested by the various parties in a lawsuit.” The first question is “whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect.” The question arises because “if a defect is hidden and not detectable (latent defect), a longer time period exists for the claimant to file a claim.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES