Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

EPA Announces that January 2017 Revised RMP Rules are Now Effective

February 06, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On December 3, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Federal Register notice advising the regulated community that EPA’s controversial Clean Air Act (CAA) stationary source Risk Management Program (RMP) rules are effective as of December 3, 2018 – the Final Rule: Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act (83 FR 62268). The initial package of the RMP rules was promulgated in 1996, but a series of chemical explosions prompted the development of new rules, whose process safety, third party auditing, emergency response, preparedness and information sharing provisions were designed to confront these challenges. 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

1st District Joins 2nd District Court of Appeals and Holds that One-Year SOL Applies to Disgorgement Claims

June 14, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
We’re beginning to see a trend. This past year, the 2nd District Court of Appeals, in Eisenberg Village of the Los Angeles Jewish Home for the Aging v. Suffolk Construction Company, 53 Cal.App.5th 1201 (2020), held for the first time that a one (1) year statute of limitations period beginning upon substantial completion of a project applies to disgorgement claims under Business and Professions Code section 7031. In San Francisco CDC LLC v. Webcor Construction L.P., the 1st District Court of Appeals became the second Court of Appeals in the state to hold that a one (1) year statute of limitations beginning upon completion or cessation of work on a project applies to disgorgement claims under Business and Professions Code section 7031. The San Francisco CDC LLC Case The Defect Action In September 2005, San Francisco CDC LLC entered into a $144 million construction contract with Webcor Construction, Inc. doing business as Webcor Builders to build the InterContinental Hotel in San Francisco, California. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Coverage Rejected Under Owned Property and Alienated Property Exclusions

June 06, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly

The insured’s request for a defense when sued in a construction defect action was denied under the owned property exclusion and the alienated property exclusion in1777 Lafayette Partners v. Golden Gate Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48562 (N.D. Cal. April 29, 2011).

In 1999, Lafayette Partners purchased an abandoned walnut processing factory to convert into living and working units. The property was developed into a rental property from 2000-2001, and thereafter rented. In May 2003, Lafayette Partners entered into a sales agreement with Wolff Enterprises LLC. The sale closed in February 2005. Wolff then converted the rental units into condominiums.

In December 2007, the Walnut Factory Owners Association sued Wolff for construction defects. In Lafayette Partners was added to the suit in 2009. The suit alleged a variety of defective conditions, including the roofs, exteriors, windows, electrical , plumbing, and mechanical components and systems.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Formal Opinion No. 2020-203: How A Lawyer Is to Handle Access to Client Confidential Information and Anticipation of Potential Security Issues

December 07, 2020 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Recently, the California Bar Association (“CBA”) published Formal Opinion No. 2020-203[1] concerning a lawyer’s ethical obligations with respect to unauthorized access to electronically stored client information. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic greatly accelerated the growing trend of storing and maintaining data and information online so that employees and clients can access the data from anywhere in the world at any time. Now, in today’s working world, the reality is nearly all information and data is stored and shared digitally online for ease of access, use, and dissemination. Unfortunately, a major draw-back of this switch to a cyber paradigm is serious exposure to data breaches as a result of hacking, inadvertence, or theft. Formal Opinion No. 2020-203 outlines how a lawyer is to handle access to client confidential information and anticipation of potential security issues. This article will briefly cover the key aspects addressed in Formal Opinion No. 2020-203. What is the duty owed by a lawyer to his or her client regarding the use of technology? At the outset, the CBA reminds lawyers of the ongoing duty of competence (Rule 1.1) and the duty to safeguard clients’ confidences and secrets (Rule 1.6; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068(e)) which impose the requirement that a lawyer must have a basic understanding of the risks posed when using a given technology and (if necessary) obtain help from appropriate experts to assess those risks and take reasonable steps to prevent data breaches. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Condo Buyers Seek to Void Sale over Construction Defect Lawsuit

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
A Michigan couple seeks to void their purchase of a condo in Texas after discovering that the complex was undergoing a construction defect lawsuit. ABQ Journal reports that Charles M. Lea and Olga Y. Ziabrikova said that they would not have purchased the condo if they had known the association was already alleging construction defects. The condo association discovered the defects “by at least late 2010,” according to the suit. The couple bought their condo in August 2011 and heard of the defects only in March 2012. The couple notes that no one involved with the sale informed them of the construction defect complaints. The community association’s lawsuit states that problems have lead to $2.5 million in damages. The developer, Vegas Verde Condo Partners, have filed a general denial of the construction problems. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Skipping Depositions does not Constitute Failure to Cooperate in New York

March 09, 2020 — Ryan G. Nelson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Insurance policies typically impose, on the insured, a duty to cooperate with the insurer during investigation and litigation of a claim. Non-cooperation can be grounds for denying coverage. This begs the question: what constitutes non-cooperation? Recently, a New York appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision that failure by an employee of the insured to show up for three court-ordered depositions did not rise to the level of “willful and avowed obstruction” and therefore, the insurer could not deny coverage on the basis of non-cooperation. See Foddrell v. Utica First Insurance Co., 178 A.D.3d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). In so holding, the Foddrell court applied the Thrasher test: “To effectively deny coverage based upon lack of cooperation, an insurance carrier must demonstrate (1) that it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) that the efforts employed by the insured were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) that the attitude of the insured, after his or her cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction.” Id.; see Thrasher v. U. S. Liab. Ins. Co., 19 N.Y.2d 159, 167 (1967). Thomas Foddrell’s suit against Utica First Insurance Company (“Utica First”) stemmed from his personal injury suit against Janey & Rana Construction Corporation (“J&R” (Utica First’s insured). During that lawsuit, J&R’s principal, Gardeep Singh, failed to appear for two court-ordered depositions. After his failure to appear at those depositions, Utica First sent an investigator to inform Singh that he was scheduled for a third deposition. Singh responded to the investigator that he would speak with J&R’s attorneys about the matter. Ultimately, Singh did not appear for the third court-ordered deposition. In response to Singh’s repeated failure to appear for the depositions, Utica First sent Singh a letter advising him that because of his lack of cooperation, Utica would no longer agree to indemnify J&R. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan G. Nelson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Nelson may be contacted at rgn@sdvlaw.com

Contractor Sentenced to 7 Years for “Hail Damage” Fraud

November 13, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The hailstorm might have spared homes in New Jersey, but the contractor didn’t. Marcin Gradziel entered a guilty plea when he was accused of filing fraudulent insurance claims for homes in New Jersey. In order to fool the inspectors from the insurance agency, after homeowners agreed to their pitch, Mr. Gradziel would damage their homes. After admitting this in court, Mr. Gradziel has now been sentenced to seven years in prison. His former employers, Precision Building, has gone out of business after paying restitution to the defrauded insurers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

De-escalating The Impact of Price Escalation

August 10, 2021 — Brian C. Padove - ConsensusDocs
What happens when construction material prices abruptly rise by 15%, 35%, 50%? Moreover, what happens to a construction project when such volatility occurs? While there is no definite answer, delays in procuring such materials and associated cost overruns will likely impact the construction project. The last 15 months contractors have had to work through extraordinary construction material price increases, such as a 90% price increase for lumber from April 2020 to April 2021. While there is no statistic quantifying the impact these increases have had on the construction industry, the increases surely have had an influence, whether it has been through lost profits, delays, or damage to contractors’ otherwise strong reputation for timely performance. Considerations Prior To Contract Execution The first way to mitigate price escalation is identifying materials most susceptible to price volatility during the bidding process and then having an open discussion with upstream parties regarding the potential price volatility. Additionally, the bid may also include either (1) an allowance for the materials providing additional funds, if necessary, should the material price increase, or (2) a shortened timeframe in which the bid is open, which would lessen the time in which a price shift may occur. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian C. Padove, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP
Mr. Padove may be contacted at bpadove@watttieder.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES