FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Most Common OSHA Violations Highlight Ongoing Risks

July 27, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
In the 12 months from October 2018 through September 2019, the most recent period reported by OSHA,[1] the workplace safety agency cited the following standards[2] more than any other in the 28 states which do not have OSHA-approved state plans, including Colorado:

1. 1926.501 – Duty to have fall protection – included in 459 citations, resulting in $2,475,596 in penalties ($5,393/citation);
2. 1926.451 – General requirements for scaffolds – included in 265 citations, resulting in $834,324 in penalties ($3,148/citation);
3. 1926.1053 – Requirements for ladders including job-made ladders – included in 164 citations, resulting in $354,853 in penalties ($2,163/citation);
4. 1926.503 – Training requirements related to fall protection - included in 114 citations, resulting in $156,076 in penalties ($1,369/citation);
5. 1926.405 - Wiring methods, components, and equipment for general use – included in 93 citations, resulting in $150,821 in penalties ($1,621/citation);
6. 1926.20 - General safety and health provisions – included in 85 citations, resulting in $328,491 in penalties ($3,864/citation);
7. 1926.1052 – Requirements for stairways – included in 79 citations, resulting in $155,651 in penalties ($1,970/citation);
8. 1926.102 – Requirements for eye and face protection - included in 67 citations, resulting in $165,595 in penalties ($2,471/citation);
9. 1926.403 – General requirements for electrical conductors and equipment – included in 63 citations, resulting in $146,050 in penalties ($2,318/citation), and;
10. 1926.100 – Requirements for head protection – included in 55 citations, resulting in $127,274 in penalties ($2,314/citation).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

GOP, States, Industry Challenge EPA Project Water Impact Rule

January 02, 2024 — Pam McFarland - Engineering News-Record
Days after the Biden administration rule reinstated state authority under the U.S. Clean Water Act to delay or deny construction permits on projects with water quality impacts, attorneys general from 11 Republican-led states, along with the American Petroleum Association, National Hydropower Association and Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, filed suit in federal court. Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

To Bee or Not to Bee - CA Court Finds Denial of Coverage Based on Exclusion was Premature Where Facts had not been Judicially Determined

November 28, 2018 — Philip B. Wilusz - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
While I typically discuss cases concerning pollution, today I will change a few letters around and discuss pollination. The case, Unigard Insurance Co. et al. v. George Perry and Sons Inc. et al., asks whether there is coverage for a lawsuit brought against a commercial farm that is alleged to have killed off bee colonies used for pollination. The farm, owned by George Perry & Sons Inc. (“Perry”), allegedly used a pesticide that killed off the bee colonies that Perry had hired from Gary Mattes (“Mattes”) pursuant to an oral agreement. The bees, operating well outside of their weight class, were hired to pollinate Perry’s crops of watermelons and pumpkins. Interestingly, the bees would be brought to the farm in either large hives or “nukes,” which are smaller versions of hives. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com

---

The Association of Southern California Defense Counsel (ASCDC) and the Construction Defect Claims Managers Association (CDMA) Annual Construction Defect Seminar

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Association of Southern California Defense Counsel (ASCDC) and the Construction Defect Claims Managers Association (CDMA) Jointly Present the 2013 Construction Defect Seminar and Holiday Party to be Held Thursday, December 5, at the Hilton Hotel, Costa Mesa Professional development activities will include panel discussions including “What Happened to Simple HOA Actions – Litigating Commercial Projects,” a roundtable discussion by Ross Hart, Keith Koeller, Alex Robertson, Les Robertson, Todd Schweitzer, Wendy Wilcox, and Brian D. Kahn. A timely discussion of California’s “right to repair” laws “SB800 – Is It Still Worth Fighting For?,” will be presented by Nick Cammarota, Timothy Earl, Luke Ryan, Dave Simons, Dave Stern, John Terry, and Adrienne Cohen is also on the the agenda.. Additionally, Assemblyman Donald P. Wagner will serve as the event’s Special Guest Speaker. Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc. is pleased to return this year as an event sponsor. BHA will be exhibiting our latest inspection data collection system and forensic analysis platforms newly optimized for the new iOS 7. Visitors of the BHA exhibit booth can enter into our drawing for a 16 GB iPad Air with WiFi. Professional development activities will be followed by a holiday party and reception honoring the Orange County Judiciary. The reception will be hosted by Glenn Barger, Adrienne Cohen, and Brian Kahn. It will place from 5:30 p.m. through 7.00 p.m. For further information for the event, please visit http://www.ascdc.org/Events.asp. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Hazards of Carrier-Specific Manuscript Language: Ohio Casualty's Off-Premises Property Damage and Contractors' E&O Endorsements

October 05, 2020 — Theresa A. Guertin & Eric M. Clarkson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Risk transfer in the construction industry depends heavily on industry-standard insurance language. Insurance provisions in subcontracts typically reference ISO standard insurance terminology or endorsements in order to guarantee (or, at least, attempt to secure) coverage for upstream parties. The contract may require, for example, that a subcontractor maintains general liability insurance on a “current ISO occurrence form,” and name upstream parties as additional insureds, and both parties will have a general understanding of what that entails for purposes of risk transfer. Problems arise, however, when insurance companies stray from standard language, especially on issues that go to the heart of construction risk transfer. In some instances, provisions that track ISO language may contain subtle changes that seem to meet the contractual insurance requirements. Upon closer scrutiny, it could significantly change how a policy will respond to a given claim. Given the extent of potential liability arising from construction projects, if the insurance programs intended to back up risk transfer and indemnity agreements do not respond as expected, all the potentially liable parties may be left in the lurch. Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Eric M. Clarkson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at emc@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

A Loud Boom, But No Serious Injuries in World Trade Center Accident

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Wall Street Journal reports that nearly twenty tons of steel fell forty stories at the World Trade Center site on February 16. One person was checked by medical personnel. One person who works in the Financial District said it was “almost like thunder.” Frank Pensabene, one of the ironworkers on the site said that after “loud boom,” “all hell broke loose.” The steel beams and cables fell onto a flatbed truck, which was not occupied at the time.

Read the full story…

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

---

Uniform Rules Governing New York’s Supreme and County Courts Get An Overhaul

February 08, 2021 — Andrew I. Hamelsky, Jenifer A. Scarcella & Monica Doss - White and Williams LLP
By Administrative Order effective February 1, 2021, New York’s Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court will incorporate a number of changes to the general part that reflect many of New York’s Commercial Division Rules, in an effort to streamline court processes. The general part rule changes are a step forward for improving the efficiency, modernization and cost-effectiveness of the New York Courts, and will require practitioners to be more conscientious of court appearances and deadlines. Judges will likely be strict on adherence to the new Uniform Rules. Some notable changes to the rules are highlighted below. Court Appearances and Scheduling Orders Uniform Rule 202.1 has been revised to require that counsel who appear before the court must be familiar with the case they are appearing for, and be fully prepared and authorized to discuss and resolve the issues that are the subject of the appearance. Reprinted courtesy of Andrew I. Hamelsky, White and Williams LLP, Jenifer A. Scarcella, White and Williams LLP and Monica Doss, White and Williams LLP Mr. Hamelsky may be contacted at hamelskya@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Scarcella may be contacted at scarcellaj@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Doss may be contacted at dossm@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Revised Federal Rule Regarding Class-Wide Settlements

May 13, 2019 — Edward M. Koch & Michael Jervis - White and Williams LLP
The United States Supreme Court recently approved and adopted amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 concerning class action practice as proposed by the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. The amended rule went into effect on December 1, 2018. The amendments do not affect the core of the rule – the criteria for obtaining class certification. Instead, the changes are more subtle adjustments that update and modernize procedures and processes for notification to class members and obtaining approval of class settlements. Nonetheless, although the amendments are not breathtaking, there are important changes. The first set of amendments apply to Rule 23(e), governing the process of settlement of a class action. First, the amendment makes explicit that the subsection applies not just to already certified classes, but also “a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement.” The changes also add some discretion of the court concerning when notice of a proposed settlement and settlement class should be provided. As part of the settlement approval process, the parties now are expressly required to give the court “information sufficient to enable it to determine whether to give notice of the proposal to the class.” The giving of notice is justified only if that information is sufficient to allow the court to determine it is likely to approve the proposed settlement and certify the class. Once notice is approved, the new rule recognizes modern developments by allowing that notice may be by “United States mail, electronic means, or other appropriate means.” The rule thus recognizes that in many cases traditional mail notice may still be best; in others e-mail notification might be the best way to reach class members. Reprinted courtesy of Edward M. Koch, White and Williams LLP and Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---