Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2023 Mountain States Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

August 07, 2023 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
BWB&O is excited to announce Las Vegas Partners Devin Gifford and Madeline Arcellana have been selected in the 2023 Mountain States Super Lawyers list as Rising Stars for their work in Civil Litigation. To read Super Lawyers’ digital publication, please click here. SELECTED AS RISING STARS Devin Gifford: 2023 Madeline Arcellana: 2023 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

The Condominium Warranty Against Structural Defects in the District of Columbia

September 07, 2017 — Nicholas D. Cowie - Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law Blog
The District of Columbia Condominium Act contains a statutory warranty that protects condominium associations and their unit owner members from structural defects in newly constructed and newly converted condominiums. The warranty is backed by a condominium developer’s bond, letter of credit, or other form of security from which monies can be drawn upon if the developer fails to make warranty repairs. This article discusses how the warranty against structural defect works and how to make claims against the developer’s security to fund warranty repairs. THE CONDOMINIUM WARRANTY AGAINST STRUCTURAL DEFECTS Condominium developers in Washington DC are required by statute to warrant against structural defects in the condominium common elements and each condominium unit. District of Columbia Condominium Act (“DC Condo Act”) 42-1903.16(b). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.
Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

Snooze You Lose? Enforcement of Notice and Timing Provisions

November 11, 2024 — Cornelius F. "Lee" Banta, Jr. - ConsensusDocs
Deadlines are an inescapable part of the construction industry. Bid deadlines. Submittal deadlines. Material delivery deadlines. Substantial completion. Final completion. And so, inevitably, fighting about deadlines becomes a necessary byproduct. Was the deadline really a deadline? Was the schedule slippage on the critical path? Should there be an equitable extension to the date of substantial completion? Given the amount of attention and concern conferred on deadlines, those drafting construction contracts naturally seek to clarify which deadlines really matter with the inclusion of notice and timing provisions. A contract’s change order and claims procedures are often a key friction point for those drafting and administering the contract. Should there be a requirement for prior written notice of a claim for cost/time relief? How much advance notice? Who should the request be sent to? Is a specific form of notice required? What are the consequences of failing to provide timely notice? A practitioner should pay careful attention to negotiating these terms on the front end, because rest assured, these contract provisions will garner scrutiny when a change order dispute boils over. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Cornelius F. "Lee" Banta, Jr., Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Banta may be contacted at lbanta@pecklaw.com

California to Build ‘Total Disaster City’ for Training

July 30, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
California is building a “world-class $56 million training facility in eastern Sacramento County that would pit fire crews against a variety of realistic, pressure-packed simulated disasters,” according to the Sacramento Bee. Construction has begun on the Emergency Response Training Center in Mather Field in Rancho Cordova. “The project is a joint effort between Henke’s fire department, the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and the Sacramento Fire Department,” reported the Sacramento Bee. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New Hampshire Applies Crete/Sutton Doctrine to Bar Subrogation Against College Dormitory Residents

May 17, 2021 — Kyle Rice - The Subrogation Specialist
Pursuant to the Sutton Doctrine, first announced in Sutton v. Jondahl, 532 P.2d 478 (Okla. Ct. App. 1975), some jurisdictions consider a tenant a coinsured of its landlord absent an express agreement to the contrary. In Ro v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2019-0620, 2021 N.H. LEXIS 34 (Mar. 10, 2021), the Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that the Sutton Doctrine, adopted by New Hampshire in Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Crete, 846 A.2d 521 (N.H. 2004), extends to resident students in a college dormitory. Thus, absent specific language to the contrary, a student is an implied coinsured under the fire insurance policy issued for his or her dormitory. In 2016, two students at Dartmouth College, Daniel Ro and Sebastian Lim, set up a charcoal grill on a platform outside of a fourth-floor window in the Morton Hall dormitory. The grill started a fire on the platform that ultimately spread to the roof of the dormitory. During fire suppression efforts, all four floors of the dormitory sustained significant water damage. Following the loss, the building’s insurer, Factory Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer), paid $4,544,313.55 to the Trustees of Dartmouth College for the damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Rice, White and Williams
Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricek@whiteandwilliams.com

Product Liability Alert: Evidence of Apportionment of Fault Admissible in Strict Products Liability Action

March 26, 2014 — R. Bryan Martin and Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (No. B239761, filed March 17, 2014), the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that a trial court must permit a defendant, in a products liability action, to present evidence of apportionment of fault among settling and non-settling entities. The case involved an automobile collision in which the plaintiff was struck from behind, causing the driver’s seat to recline and propel plaintiff into the back seat where she struck her head. Plaintiff was left quadriplegic as a result. Plaintiff brought suit against the driver who caused the accident, the Nissan entities who manufactured the car plaintiff was driving, Johnson Controls, Inc. (“Johnson”), Ikeda Engineering Corporation (“Ikeda”), Vintec Co. (“Vintec”), and Autoliv ASP, Inc., who designed and manufactured the driver’s seat of the vehicle plaintiff was driving, and against Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. who manufactured the recliner mechanism of plaintiff’s vehicle’s front seat. Ikeda participated in the design of the driver’s seat and Vintec manufactured the driver’s seat. Johnson manufactured the seat belt for the driver’s seat of plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with Nissan’s design. Prior to trial, plaintiff settled with the defendant driver, the Nissan defendants, the Autoliv defendants, and Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. Plaintiff elected to proceed to trial solely on a cause of action for strict products liability against Ikeda and Vintec. Pursuant to a stipulation, Johnson agreed it would be legally responsible for damages awarded to plaintiff at trial based upon the actions of Vintec or Ikeda. At trial, the court precluded Vintec and Ikeda from offering evidence that: (1) plaintiff would not have been injured if her vehicle’s seat belt was designed in a different manner by Nissan; (2) Nissan chose the manufacturer of the recliner mechanism and required defendants to use that manufacturer and that part in the seat; and (3) The other defendants had already reached settlements with plaintiff. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Hail Damage Requires Replacement of Even Undamaged Siding

February 05, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
In a dispute over the property policy's requirement that lost or damaged property be repaired or replaced, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the policy language called for replacement of undamaged siding panels to obtain a color match. Cedar Bluff Townhome Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 Minn. LEXIS 661 (Minn. Dec. 17, 2014). During a hail storm, all 20 of Cedar Bluff's buildings sustained some damage. The roofs on all of the buildings needed to be replaced, and at least one siding panel on each building sustained damage. Eleven of the 20 buildings had three or fewer damaged panels. At the time of the hail storm, the siding was approximately 11 years old, and the color of the panels had faded. Replacement panels were available, but not in the same color. Cedar Bluff submitted a claim under its business owners' policy to American Family. The policy obligated the insurer to pay for "direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises . . . caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss." "Covered Property" was broadly defined in the policy to include buildings at the premises. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Second Circuit Clarifies What Must Be Alleged to Establish “Joint Employer” Liability in the Context of Federal Employment Discrimination Claims

March 14, 2022 — Kevin J. O’Connor, Aaron C. Schlesinger & Lauren Rayner Davis - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
The “joint employer” doctrine has been used with increasing frequency by the plaintiffs’ bar to broaden the scope of target defendants in discrimination cases beyond those who would be traditionally regarded as the employer. This is true even in the construction industry, which has seen a rise in cases where general contractors or construction managers are being targeted when discrimination is alleged on a construction project, even when the GC or CM is far removed from the underlying events and had no control over the employees in question. Until now, the Courts in the federal circuit which includes New York City (the Second Circuit) have been left to decipher a patchwork of case law to ascertain the scope and extent of joint employer liability in discrimination cases. This week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Felder v. United States Tennis Association, et al., 19-1094, issued a comprehensive decision which provides a helpful summary of what must be pled and proven to broaden liability under the joint employer theory in discrimination cases. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. O’Connor, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Lauren Rayner Davis, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at koconnor@pecklaw.com Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Ms. Davis may be contacted at ldavis@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES