Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

City Wonders Who’s to Blame for Defective Wall

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A wall along a beach trail in Treasure Island, Florida is cracking, and opinions are divided over it. One city commissioner, Alan Bildz, said “it looks like somebody was doing their first concrete job.” An engineer from the design firm described it as a “cosmetic issue.” Bildz was overruled on his suggestion that the wall be torn down and rebuilt. In later sections of the wall, expansion joints seem to have remedied the problem. But while the architect has offered to pay for filling the cracks with epoxy and polyurethane caulk, there’s still the question of adding expansion joints to the project. City Commissioner Phil Collins noted that the city has allocated more than $50,000 to add expansion joints, yet he feels the city should not be responsible for the expense, noting that the design could be considered defective, and under the terms of the contract, “the contractor shall bear the cost.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

City Covered From Lawsuits Filed After Hurricane-Damaged Dwellings Demolished

January 15, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding that a duty to defend was owed St. Bernard Parish after it was sued for condemning and demolishing housing destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Lexington Ins. Co. v. St. Bernard Parish Gov't, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24292 (5th Cir. Dec. 6, 2013). St. Bernard's policies with Lexington provided coverage for "property damage" and "personal and advertising injury." The policies included a $10,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate limit, subject to a $250,000 retained limit. Lexington denied coverage and filed for a declaratory judgment that the policies' $250,000 retained limit applied separately to each alleged demolition or property damage asserted in the underlying actions. Under this theory, no defense would be owed because no property had a value exceeding $250,000. The District Court found that only one retained limit applied. 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

Should I Stay or Should I Go? The Supreme Court Says “Stay”

June 10, 2024 — Brendan J. Witry - The Dispute Resolver
In the construction industry, arbitration is a frequently agreed-upon and utilized dispute resolution method. The Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”), 9 U.S.C. 1, et seq., provides the underpinning and framework for how courts should handle litigation in connection with arbitration agreements. Where a party asserts that a claim brought in court should be subject to arbitration, Section 3 of the FAA provides that the action should be stayed. However, some courts have entertained a party’s request to dismiss a suit where the claim is subject to an arbitration agreement, creating a circuit split in the federal appeals courts. In Smith v. Spizzirri, 2024 WL 2193872, issued on May 16, 2024, the Supreme Court held that, absent some other defect (such as the lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction), Section 3 of the FAA requires a court which finds a claim is subject to an arbitration must stay the lawsuit during the arbitration proceedings rather than dismissing the action.[1] In so doing, the Court addressed a question that for years it left unanswered. While most Circuits held, prior to Smith, that Section 3 requires a court to stay the litigation pending an arbitral award; the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits each held that a court could dismiss an action in lieu of staying. In Smith, both parties acknowledged the underlying claims were arbitrable, but when the district court compelled arbitration, the court dismissed the action rather than staying the court proceedings. The Ninth Circuit (relying on its prior precedent) affirmed, with two judges noting that the Ninth Circuit’s approach was incorrect. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brendan J. Witry, Laurie & Brennan LLP
Mr. Witry may be contacted at bwitry@lauriebrennan.com

Double-Wide World Cup Seats Available to 6-Foot, 221-Pound Fans

June 18, 2014 — Tariq Panja – Bloomberg
Some of the double-wide seats that Brazilian law guarantees for obese World Cup fans are being occupied by people who don’t need that much extra space, and FIFA said it can’t do anything to prevent that from happening. Soccer’s governing body said it is using World Health Organization and official Brazil Ministry of Health guidelines on who can be classified as obese. Those with a body mass index, or BMI, of 30 or higher can purchase a special-needs ticket at half price and get one of the special seats. Someone who is 6 feet tall and weighs 221 pounds (1.8 meters, 100 kilograms) would qualify. “There are cases where a person doesn’t look obese but meets the guidelines,” Federico Addiechi, head of corporate hospitality, said after a briefing yesterday at Rio de Janeiro’s Maracana stadium, where the World Cup’s July 13 final will be held. “We cannot decide you are not obese if the law says you are obese.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tariq Panja, Bloomberg
Mr. Panja may be contacted at tpanja@bloomberg.net

Manhattan Gets First Crowdfunded Condos

September 03, 2015 — David M. Levitt & Oshrat Carmiel – Bloomberg
New York’s first real estate project financed significantly though crowdfunding is set to open, a step forward for a nascent investing model that has yet to prove itself in commercial property. AKA United Nations, an extended-stay hotel-condominium on East 46th Street near Second Avenue, will start taking guests Sept. 10. Sales of the suites have already begun. Of the $95 million it cost to buy and fix up the existing hotel, $12 million was raised from online pledges. It’s “the first ever crowdfunded building in New York coming to completion, from A to Z,” said Rodrigo Nino, chief executive officer of Prodigy Network, which is gut-renovating the building with partners. Until now, “everything has been about promises.” Reprinted courtesy of David M. Levitt, Bloomberg and Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Client Alert: Design Immunity Affirmative Defense Not Available to Public Entities Absent Evidence of Pre-Accident Discretionary Approval of the Plan or Design

April 15, 2014 — R. Bryan Martin & Melinda M. Carrido – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On April 8, 2014, in Martinez v. County of Ventura, Case No. B24476, the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal reversed the jury's defense verdict for the County of Ventura, holding that the County's evidence in support of its Design Immunity defense to a public property dangerous condition claim was insufficient as a matter of law. Plaintiff filed suit against the County of Ventura (the "County") after sustaining paraplegic injuries when his motorcycle struck an asphalt berm abutting a raised drain (the top-hat drain system) on a road in the County. The drain system consisted of a heavy steel cover on three legs elevated eight to ten inches off the ground, with a sloped asphalt berm to channel water into the drain. Plaintiff alleged that the top-hat drain system constituted a dangerous condition of public property pursuant to California Government Code section 835. Under this Section, a public entity is liable for "injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury sustained, and the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition a sufficient time before the injury to have taken preventative measures." The jury found the top-hat drain system constituted a dangerous condition of public property. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Melinda M. Carrido, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Carrido may be contacted at mcarrido@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New York City Dept. of Buildings Explores Drones for Facade Inspections

December 13, 2021 — Jeff Rubenstone - Engineering News-Record
Drones have only seen limited use in New York City for construction documentation and facade inspections due to restrictive local ordinances. But that may be changing with the release of a new report from the New York City Dept. of Buildings, which sees future potential for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), or drones, to be used in building facade inspections. Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, Engineering News-Record Mr. Rubenstein may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New York Office Secures Appellate Win in Labor Law 240(1) Fall in Basement Accident Case

March 20, 2023 — Nicholas P. Hurzeler & Gregory S. Katz - Lewis Brisbois
New York, N.Y. (March 14, 2023) – New York Appellate Partner Nicholas P. Hurzeler and Managing Partner Gregory S. Katz recently prevailed when the New York Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the dismissal of a Labor Law 240(1) claim involving an accident that occurred in the basement of a house under construction. Balfe v. Graham, ___ AD3d ___ (2d Dept. 2023), decided March 8, 2023. In this matter, the plaintiff was installing ductwork in the basement of a house that had been stripped down to its foundation when he stepped backwards into an open hole that had been dug out of a concrete floor to accommodate the installation of an ejector pump. The lower court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim based on Labor Law 240(1), and he appealed. The plaintiff argued that he fell into an unprotected opening that should have been covered or barricaded. He further claimed the accident qualifies as a typical “falling worker” case within the scope of Labor Law 240(1), citing the depth of the hole needed to accommodate the ejector pump, and the size of the pump. Under the case law, a worker who falls into an uncovered opening on a construction site will typically be covered by Labor Law 240(1). Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas P. Hurzeler, Lewis Brisbois and Gregory S. Katz, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Katz may be contacted at Greg.Katz@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Hurzeler may be contacted at Nicholas.Hurzeler@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES