Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Board of Directors Guidance When Addressing Emergency Circumstances Occasioned by the COVID-19 Pandemic

May 11, 2020 — Marc Casarino, Lori Smith & Gwenn Barney - White and Williams LLP
The COVID-19 pandemic has sent massive shockwaves throughout the global economy. This crises requires business leaders to confront a host of deleterious effects on an emergency basis – the likes of which many companies have never experienced. Boards of directors must remain cognizant of their oversight responsibilities in these trying times. This post offers guidance to directors of Delaware companies for addressing emergency circumstances occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic. Board Oversight – Lessons from Marchand V. Barnhill Directors should consider the lessons learned from the recent Delaware Supreme Court case Marchand v. Barnhill, a ruling we addressed in a previous blog post, when considering board oversight during the COVID-19 pandemic. Marchand centered on a lawsuit brought by shareholders in an ice cream manufacturing company against the company’s board of directors. The shareholders claimed that the directors violated their duty of loyalty[1] to the company when they failed to provide sufficient oversight and compliance-monitoring during a listeria outbreak that led the company to recall all products, temporarily cease product production at all plants and lay off more than one-third of the company’s workforce. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Marc Casarino, Lori Smith and Gwenn Barney Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Barney may be contacted at Barneyg@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

More In-Depth Details on the Davis-Bacon Act Overhaul

November 06, 2023 — Seth C. Wiseman & Angela M. Richie - Construction Executive
The U.S. Department of Labor’s finalization of a rule updating the Davis-Bacon Act, the federal law that governs how prevailing wages for federal construction projects can be determined, will have a significant impact on contractors and workers alike in the construction industry. The new rule, in effect, adopts the 30% rule, meaning that the prevailing wages must be equal to the wage paid to at least 30% of workers of a particular classification in a particular area. The new rule also implements a new anti-retaliation provision, specifically protecting construction workers who raise concerns about payment practices from adverse employment actions. The timing of this new rule is particularly significant for contractors, as it will likely raise the cost of labor for contractors at a time when the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the CHIPS Act are providing additional funding for federal projects across the country. Thus, it is important for all parties in the construction industry to understand the updated rule in order to evaluate the short-term impacts on their respective projects and long-term impact on their respective businesses. Reprinted courtesy of Seth C. Wiseman & Angela M. Richie, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Wiseman may be contacted at swiseman@grsm.com Ms. Richie may be contacted at arichie@grsm.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Legal Battle Kicks Off to Minimize Baltimore Bridge Liabilities

May 06, 2024 — Brendan Murray - Bloomberg
The owner of the ship that destroyed Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, causing the indefinite closure of the port a week ago, is seeking to limit its liability to about $44 million. According to reporting by my Bloomberg News colleagues citing legal experts, the company — Grace Ocean — could face hundreds of millions of dollars in damage claims. On Monday it filed a petition jointly with Synergy Marine, which was operating the Singapore-flagged container ship Dali. They claim the collapse of the bridge was “not due to any fault, neglect, or want of care” of the companies and that they shouldn’t be held liable for any loss or damage from the disaster. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brendan Murray, Bloomberg

The Death of Retail and Legal Issues

June 15, 2017 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
The National Review recently published an article about the wide ranging economic and social impacts of the death of traditional mid-market shopping malls. The article is not overtly political and at time waxes nostalgic about the prototypical 1980’s shopping mall. However, the article highlights real problems facing the owners of these malls and other traditional shopping centers. As expected, the economic issues have spurred legal and litigation issues for landlords. One of the issues I have been dealing with is what are a big box tenant’s obligations after a lease expires. Many of the big box tenants that are now vacating malls and shopping centers have been long term tenants. Sometimes, their leases go back decades. In the meantime, the mall may have changed hands. The original lease signed with a second or third removed owner and no doubt amended several times might be long forgotten. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Required Contract Provisions for Construction Contracts in California

October 08, 2014 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
One question I get fairly often when drafting or reviewing construction contracts is what provisions, if any, are required in construction contracts in California. This is, of course, different than what should be included in a construction contract which is a post for another day. So, here you go: Provisions Required in All Construction Contracts There’s only one requirement applicable to all construction contracts in California. And, that is, that you must include your California contractor’s license number if you are performing or bidding on work requiring a license. California Business and Professions Code section 7030.5 requires that licensed contractors include their license number in “(a) all construction contracts; (b) subcontracts and calls for bid; and (c) all forms advertising, as prescribed by the register of contractors, used by such person.” 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

Affirmed: Nationwide Acted in Bad Faith by Failing to Settle Within Limits

July 19, 2017 — Bethany Barrese – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed that Nationwide acted in bad faith by refusing to settle a claim against its insured for the policy limits, exposing the policyholder to an excess verdict.1 The case arose out of a 2005 automobile accident where Seung Park, who was insured by Nationwide, struck and killed another driver, Stacey Camacho. Shortly after the accident, Ms. Camacho’s estate issued a time-limited demand for the full limits of the policy Nationwide issued to Mr. Park, $100,000, to settle the case. After the deadline to respond to the demand expired, Nationwide rejected the demand and made a counteroffer. A settlement could not be reached and a wrongful death suit was filed against Mr. Park, resulting in a massive jury verdict of $5.83 million. Following the jury verdict, Mr. Park assigned his rights against Nationwide to Ms. Camacho’s estate, which then filed claims for negligence and bad faith failure to settle against Nationwide. The case was tried to a jury, which found in favor of the estate. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bethany Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com

U.K. Developer Pledges Building Safety in Wake of Grenfell

April 19, 2022 — Ryan Hesketh - Bloomberg
Crest Nicholson Plc intends to sign the building safety pledge set up in the aftermath of the Grenfell fire in 2017 to improve standards that may cost the U.K. developer as much as 120 million pounds ($157 million). The company’s best estimate of further liability as a result of the pledge would be 80 million pounds to 120 million pounds, according to a statement Tuesday. Since 2019, Crest Nicholson has recorded 47.8 million pounds of net charges from obligations imposed after the fire at Grenfell Tower in London in which flammable cladding materials contributed to the deaths of 72 people. The Secretary of State for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities announced in January the government’s intention to increase the legal obligation on developers to fix potentially dangerous buildings. Since then, Crest Nicholson has engaged in “intensive dialogue” with the government about the new guidelines, resulting in the decision to sign the pledge, the firm said in the statement. The new restrictions will be enacted in law through proposed amendments to the Building Safety Bill that is currently passing through parliament. Crest Nicholson is currently considering whether any further regulatory approvals are required in respect of the proposed laws, according to the statement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan Hesketh, Bloomberg

A Recap of the Supreme Court’s 2019 Summer Slate

September 16, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
As usual, the last month of the Supreme Court’s term generated significant rulings on all manner of cases, possibly presaging the new directions the Court will be taking in administrative and regulatory law. Here’s a brief roundup: An Offshore Dispute, Resolve – Parker Drilling Management v. Newton On June 10, 2019, the Court held, in a unanimous ruling, that, under federal law, California wage and hour laws do not apply to offshore operations conducted on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Newton, the plaintiff, worked on drilling platforms off the coast of California, and alleged that he was not paid for his “standby time” which is contrary to California law if not federal law. He filed a class action in state court, which was removed to federal court, where it was dismissed on the basis of a 1969 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which held that state law applies on the OCS only to the extent that it is necessary to use state law to fill a significant gap or void in federal law, and this is not the case here. On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, that court disagreed with the Fifth Circuit, and ruled that state law is applicable on the OCS whenever it applies to the matter at hand. The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Thomas, conceded that “this is a close question of statutory interpretation,” but in the end the Court agreed with the argument that if there was not a gap to fill, that ended the dispute over which law applies on the Outer continental Shelf. This ruling, recognizing the preeminent role that federal law plays on the OCS, may affect the resolution of other offshore disputes affecting other federal statutes. Preemption Prevention – Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren. et al. On June 17, 2019 the Court decided important cases involving federal preemption and First Amendment issues. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Atomic Energy Act does not preempt a Virginia law that “flatly prohibits uranium mining in Virginia”—or more precisely—mining on non-federal land in Virginia. Virginia Uranium planned to mine raw uranium from a site near Coles, Virginia, but acknowledging that Virginia law forbade such an operation, challenged the state law on federal preemption grounds, arguing that the Atomic Energy Act, as implemented by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, preempts the ability of the state to regulate this activity. However, the majority, in an opinion written by Justice Gorsuch, notes that the “best reading of the AEA does not require us to hold the state law before us preempted,” and that the1983 precedent that Virginia Uranium cites, Pacific Gas & Electric Company v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, can easily be distinguished. Justice Gorsuch rejected arguments that the intent of the Virginia legislators in passing the state law should be consulted, that the Court’s ruling should normally be governed by the exact text of the statute at hand. However, both the concurring and dissenting opinions suggest that the what the legislators intended to do is important in a preemption context. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES