Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Congratulations 2019 DE, MA, NJ, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

December 09, 2019 — White and Williams LLP
Fifteen White and Williams lawyers have been named by Super Lawyers as a Delaware, New Jersey or Pennsylvania "Super Lawyer" while eight received "Rising Star" designations. Each lawyer who received the distinction competed in a rigorous selection process which took into consideration peer recognition and professional achievement. The lawyers named to this year's Super Lawyer list represent a multitude of practices throughout the firm. Super Lawyers 2019 John Balaguer, PI Defense: Med Mal David Chaffin, Business Litigation Kevin Cottone, PI Defense: Med Mal Steven Coury, Real Estate: Business John Eagan, Tax: Business Randy Friedberg, Intellectual Property Bridget La Rosa, Estate Planning & Probate Christopher Leise, Civil Litigation: Defense Randy Maniloff, Insurance Coverage David Marion, Business Litigation John McCarrick, Insurance Coverage Peter Mooney, Business Litigation Michael Olsan, Insurance Coverage John Orlando, General Litigation Wesley Payne, Insurance Coverage Daryn Rush, Insurance Coverage Anthony Salvino, Workers’ Comp Patricia Santelle, Insurance Coverage Jay Shapiro, Business Litigation Heidi Sorvino, Bankruptcy: Business Craig Stewart, Business Litigation Andrew Susko, Civil Litigation: Defense Robert Wright, Insurance Coverage Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

Crossrail Audit Blames Busted Budget and Schedule on Mismanagement

August 13, 2019 — Peter Reina - Engineering News-Record
In a new report on London’s Crossrail, the U.K. National Audit Office says the beleaguered transportation project is around two years late and nearly 20% over budget because of poor management. The NAO, charged by Parliament with monitoring public spending, pointed to ill-conceived “aspirational” plans that proved to be unfit for the technologically challenging and vast program when things went wrong. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Peter Reina, ENR

State And Local Bid Protests: Sunk Costs and the Meaning of a “Win”

July 11, 2022 — Amy Anderson - ConsensusDocs
Across the United States, state and local agencies often use competitive bidding to award contracts for various types of work. Generally speaking, a bid protest is when an unsuccessful bidder challenges the award by the state or local agency to another competitive bidder. Procurement at this level is entirely distinct from federal procurement. The details of any bid protest will be specific to the locality. However, a question that very often comes up when a state or local agency uses competitive bidding: what happens when I lose the bid? More specifically, if I should not have lost because my bid was the lowest or best value, can I make the state or local agency award the bid to me? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Amy Anderson, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Anderson may be contacted at aanderson@joneswalker.com

EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules

February 10, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On November 21, 2019, EPA released a pre-publication copy of its Reconsideration of the revised Risk Management Program (RMP) Rules. In an accompanying statement, the agency noted that it has taken steps to “modify and improve” the existing rule to remove burdensome, costly and unnecessary requirements while maintaining appropriate protection (against accidental chemical releases) and ensuring responders have access to all of the necessary safety information. This action was taken in response to EPA’s January 13, 2017 revisions that significantly expanded the chemical release prevention provisions the existing RMP rules in the wake of the disastrous chemical plant explosion in West, Texas. The Reconsideration will take effect upon its publication in the Federal Register. Background As recounted by the D. C. Circuit in its August 2018 decision in the case of Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, in 1990, the Congress amended the Clean Air Act to force the regulation of hazardous air pollutants (see 42 USC Section 7412). An initial list of these hazardous air pollutants was also published, at Section 7412 (b). Section 112(r) (codified at 42 USC Section 7412 (r)), authorized EPA to develop a regulatory program to prevent or minimize the consequences of a release of a listed chemical from a covered stationary source. EPA was directed to propose and promulgate release prevention, detection, and correction requirements applicable to stationary sources (such as plants) that store or manage these regulated substances in amounts determined to be above regulated threshold quantities. EPA promulgated these rules in 1996 (see 61 FR 31668). The rules, located at 40 CFR Part 68, contain several separate subparts devoted to hazard assessments, prevention programs, emergency response, accidental release prevention, the development and registration of a Risk Management Plan, and making certain information regarding the release publicly available. EPA notes that over 12.000 RMP plans have been filed with the agency. In January 2017, in response to the catastrophe in West, EPA issued substantial amendments to these rules, covering accident prevention (expanding post-accident investigations, more rigorous safety audits, and enhanced safety training), revised emergency response requirements, and enhanced public information disclosure requirements. (See 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017).) However, the new administration at EPA, following the submission of several petitions for reconsideration of these revised rules, issued a “Delay Rule” on June 14, 2017, which would have extended the effective date of the January 2107 rules until February 19, 2019. On August 17, 2018, the Delay Rule was rejected and vacated by the D.C. Circuit in the aforementioned Air Alliance case (see 906 F. 3d 1049 (DC Circuit 2018)), which had the effect of making the hotly contested January 2017 RMP revisions immediately effective. 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

The Big Three: The 9th Circuit Joins The 6th Circuit and 7th Circuit in Holding That Sanctions For Bad-Faith Litigation Tactics Can Only Be Awarded Against Individual Lawyers and Not Law Firms

September 03, 2015 — Christopher B. Lloyd & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Law v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2015 S.O.S. 13–56099 – filed August 27, 2015), the Ninth Circuit joined the shortlist of Circuit Courts to hold that sanctions for bad-faith litigation tactics under 28 U.S.C. section 1927 can only be sought against individual attorneys and not law firms. Section 1927 authorizes sanctions against “[a]ny attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States … who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously….” On behalf of the client, an attorney with Kaass Law filed a complaint against ten different defendants, including Wells Fargo Bank, which moved to dismiss under F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(6). Rather than responding to the motion to dismiss, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the initial complaint; Wells Fargo Bank filed a notice of non-opposition. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher B. Lloyd, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr.Lloyd may be contacted at clloyd@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Calls for CFPB Investigation into Tenant Screening Businesses

December 13, 2021 — Brian H. Montgomery - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, has written to newly confirmed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Director Rohit Chopra, asking him to review companies in the tenant screening industry for possible Fair Credit Reporting Act violations and other violations of U.S. laws. The CFPB, for its part, has already published a bulletin alerting Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRAs) and other furnishers of consumer information that, as federal, state and local pandemic-related housing protections expire, the Bureau will be giving greater enforcement focus to these businesses’ compliance with accuracy and dispute obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Regulation V. While it is still unclear whether Director Chopra will direct the Bureau to investigate specific businesses flagged by Chairman Brown, the tenant screening industry will likely face increased scrutiny in the coming months, which may impact their service offerings and cause interruptions for landlords relying on these businesses and services. There are approximately 2,000 tenant screening companies across the United States. These companies are used by landlords to better identify and perform background checks on prospective tenants. These reports typically provide a prospective tenant’s rental and eviction histories, credit score, debt-to-income ratio, and outstanding credit obligations, among other financial metrics. The reports also usually include a criminal background check, including searches of sex offender registries and other public records searches. Many tenant screening companies then use this information to provide an estimate of the risk that each tenant presents, calculated through proprietary algorithmic formulas. These reports are usually available to landlords at a cost ranging from approximately $5 to $55 per report, usually passed through to the prospective tenant through application fees. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian H. Montgomery, Pillsbury
Mr. Montgomery may be contacted at brian.montgomery@pillsburylaw.com

More Regulations for Federal Contractors

October 08, 2014 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has been busy. In the last several weeks, the OFCCP has proposed regulations that will require contractors and subcontractors to provide summary compensation data and another rule prohibiting federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against employees or applicants who inquire about, discuss, or disclose their own compensation or the compensation of another employee or applicant. Equal Pay Report The OFCCP has proposed Summary Compensation regulations which would require federal contractors and subcontractors with more than 100 employees to “provide summary data on the compensation paid to employees by sex, race, ethnicity, specified job categories, and other relevant data points.” Covered employers would have to submit three types of information: 1. the total number of workers within a specific EEO-1 job category by race, ethnicity and sex; Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net

Homeowner Survives Motion to Dismiss Depreciation Claims

September 23, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's motion to dismiss claims for improper claims handling when considering implementation of depreciation was denied. Morrison v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co, et al., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115664 (S. D. W. Va. July 1, 2024). Plaintiff's home suffered flood damage. The house was insured by Indian Harbor a surplus lines carrier that offered specialized and high risk property policies in West Virginia. Surplus lines policies were procured in West Virginia through a "surplus lines licensee." Here, Neptune Flood Inc. was the surplus lines licensee broker for Indian Harbor. Peninsula Insurance Bureau, Inc. was an administrator and loss adjuster involved in the claim. After the flood, Plaintiff notified defendants of the damage and immediately cleaned and repaired the house. Plaintiff asserted that Neptune was given notice of the loss and one of its agents made recommendations regarding the coverage available and conveyed the information to Peninsula and Indian Harbour. Plaintiff claimed that defendants misrepresented his policy coverage and made incorrect adjustments for depreciation based on Neptune's statements and recommendations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES