Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

New Jersey Law Firm Announces $4 Million Settlement from Construction Site Accident

November 11, 2024 — Greenberg Minasian, LLC
WEST ORANGE, N.J., Nov. 07, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Greenberg Minasian, LLC, a personal injury law firm located in Essex County, New Jersey, has announced a $4 million settlement stemming from a roofer who suffered serious injuries after a construction site fall. Veteran trial attorney Mitchell Goldstein represented the injured client, who suffered multiple fractures and injuries, permanently affecting his ability to work. In 2018, Robert Smith, who was 61 at the time, fell backward through or over a temporary guard rail at the American Dream Mall in East Rutherford, NJ. The 30-foot fall caused him to suffer serious injuries to his pubis, sacrum, clavicle, and humerus, leading to multiple surgeries and a hip replacement. On behalf of his client, Mr. Goldstein brought suit against the mall developer and construction company, successfully arguing that the temporary guardrails were improperly constructed and insufficiently elevated according to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines. The case was settled just two days before trial, marking a significant victory for the plaintiff and his family. Despite the defense's attempt to argue that Mr. Smith was responsible for his fall, Goldstein was able to refute their claims, asserting that the temporary guardrail's improper construction directly led to the accident. About Greenberg Minasian LLC Based in West Orange, Greenberg Minasian represents clients who have been seriously injured as the result of negligence by others. The firm handles cases anywhere in New Jersey including West Orange, Jersey City, Newark, Essex County and all surrounding areas. The firm continues to achieve the highest awards for its clients and families. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

How to Lose Your Contractor’s License in 90 Days (or Less): California and Louisiana

November 15, 2021 — Rafael Boza - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Having your Contractor’s License up and running to perform work when needed, where needed, is an indispensable compliance matter that contractors face every year. However, this indispensable process may also be cumbersome and time consuming. Knowing the regulations applicable to your business in each state and what to do, how to do it, and when to do it, is of critical importance to maintain compliance and your ability to work in different states. In this post we will do a high-level review of reporting obligations in California and Louisiana. California’s Contractors’ State License Law, Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 7000 et seq., requires licensees to report various information to the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) “within 90 days” of the effective date or event. Louisiana State Licensing Laws and Regulations, R.S. §§ 37:24 et seq. and La. Admin. Code tit. 46, XXIX, §§ 101 et seq. also require similar reporting to the Louisiana State Licensing Board for Contractors (LSLBC), sometimes “within 15 days” of the event. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rafael Boza, Pillsbury
Mr. Boza may be contacted at rafael.boza@pillsburylaw.com

Traub Lieberman Partners Ryan Jones and Scot Samis Obtain Affirmation of Final Summary Judgment

February 28, 2022 — C. Ryan Jones & Scot E. Samis - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partners Ryan Jones and Scot Samis recently obtained affirmation of final summary judgment in favor of a windstorm and general insurance provider (“Insurer”) in the Florida First District Court of Appeal. The Appellant, a restoration service provider (“Restoration Service”), provided emergency mitigation services in the wake of hurricane damage to a residential home that was covered by an insurance policy issued by the Insurer. The Restoration Service invoiced the Insurer and, following an investigation, the Insurer paid a portion of the invoiced amount and invoked the policy’s appraisal clause to resolve the dispute over the difference. The Restoration Service brought suit against the Insurer, arguing that the appraisal process did not apply to mitigation services. The Insurer countered that it was entitled to resolve the claim by appraisal and, following arguments, the Court determined that the appraisal provision applied to mitigation services. Reprinted courtesy of C. Ryan Jones, Traub Lieberman and Scot E. Samis, Traub Lieberman Mr. Jones may be contacted at rjones@tlsslaw.com Mr. Samis may be contacted at ssamis@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Yet Another Reminder that Tort and Contract Don’t Mix

January 25, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have stated on numerous occasions here at Musings that in Virginia, contract claims and tort claims (read fraud) don’t mix. A recent case from the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia presents another example of this principle. In Itility LLC v. The Staffing Resource Group, Judge Ellis of the Alexandria Division, considered ITility’s claims of fraud and breach of contract against SRG and one of its officers based upon SRG’s alleged violation of its duties under a teaming agreement. The claim by ITility was that TSRG provided false and misleading resumes and thus damaged ITility. SRG filed a Motion to Dismiss and the Court was therefore required to resolve the following issues: (1) whether plaintiff’s fraud claim is barred by Virginia’s “source of duty” rule; (2) whether plaintiff’s claim for tortious interference with a business expectancy is barred by SRG’s participation in the business expectancy, and (3) whether the teaming agreement between the parties bars plaintiff’s claims for consequential and punitive damages. Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Third Circuit Court of Appeals Concludes “Soup to Nuts” Policy Does Not Include Faulty Workmanship Coverage

December 11, 2018 — Timothy Carroll - White and Williams LLP
Earlier this month, in Frederick Mutual Insurance Company v. Hall, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit concluded that coverage for faulty workmanship claims is “simply not the kind of coverage insurance agents and insurance companies expect to provide” to construction industry professionals “unless the insured explicitly requests such coverage.” 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31666, at *9 (3d Cir. Nov. 8, 2018). In Hall, a stone masonry contractor was sued by its customer for causing over $350,000 in property damage resulting from “substandard and defective work” performed on the customer’s residence. The insurer sought a declaration that it owed neither a defense nor indemnity for those damages because, under Pennsylvania law, the policy did not cover property damage caused by faulty workmanship. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com

Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion to Reject Claim for Construction Defects Upheld

August 15, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Third Circuit upheld the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the insurer on a claim seeking coverage for construction defects. Lenick Constr. v. Selective Way Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15197 (3d Cir. June 6, 2018). Westrum was the general contractor for a 92 unit development, and it subcontracted with Lenick to perform rough and finish carpentry and to install paneling, windows, and doors provided by the developer. After the project was completed, it was discovered that some units experienced water infiltration, leaks and cracked drywall. The condominium development sued Westrum, alleging contract and warranty claims. Westrum impleaded Lenick, asserting claims for breach of contract and indemnification. Lenick sought a defense from its insurer, Selective. Selective defended under a reservation of rights. 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

Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Problems with Common Law

December 02, 2015 — William Kennedy – White and Williams LLP
At its core, the concept of tort law is simple: you pay for the damages you negligently cause. In reality, tort law can sometimes require a party to pay far more than just its share of causal damages. Tort law can even require a party to pay when it was not actually negligent, but rather is related to the actually-negligent actor. The vagaries of tort law suggest that the allocation of the “risk of loss” is a vital detail in any contract. Without effective contractual provisions, parties to a contract may find that common law tort principles yield harsh or unexpected results. Properly written contractual provisions can define which party bears the risk of which losses. Both the party receiving the financial protection (the Indemnitee) and the party providing the protection (the Indemnitor) have an interest in obtaining insurance to cover the risk that is being borne. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William Kennedy, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Kennedy may be contacted at kennedyw@whiteandwilliams.com

Court Dismisses Cross Claims Against Utility Based on Construction Anti-Indemnity Statute

August 14, 2018 — David R. Cook - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
When a plane crashed and several passengers and crew died or were injured, their representatives sued several defendants, including a nearby plant owner, Milliken & Company (“Plant Owner”), based on claims that transmission lines on Plant Owner’s property were too close to the runways, were too high, and encroached on the airport easements. Plant Owner cross claimed against utility owner, Georgia Power Company (“Utility”). Plant Owner’s claim was based on an easement it granted to Utility, which required Utility to indemnify it for any claims arising out of Utility’s construction or maintenance of the transmission lines. In defense, Utility argued that the easement’s indemnity provision violated Georgia’s construction anti-indemnity statute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES