FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Kiewit and Two Ex-Managers Face Canada Jobsite Fatality Criminal Trial

October 12, 2020 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
Canada appears set to try a rare criminal case against a major company—U.S. contractor Kiewit Corp.—for a workplace fatality stemming from a more than decade-old accident on a remote British Columbia hydroelectric project that killed a 24-year-old field employee. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex

June 10, 2015 — Kristen Lee Price and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego, et al. (No. D063992, filed 5/28/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a controversial plan to eliminate vehicles from various plazas in historic Balboa Park. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal considered a question of first impression involving the interpretation of San Diego Municipal Code section 126.0504. Balboa Park, designated a National Historic Landmark in 1940, is a large urban park in the center of San Diego. The City of San Diego (“City”) recently approved a proposed plan (“Project”) to eliminate vehicles from the plazas within the Balboa Park complex and to return the plazas to purely pedestrian zones. Subsequently, a community group named Save Our Heritage Organisation (“SOHO”) filed a petition for a writ of mandate alleging, among other things, the City erroneously approved the Project. SOHO contended Municipal Code section 126.0504 mandated two key findings be made before the Project could be approved: (1) that the intended purpose of the property would not be adversely affected; and (2) without the proposed project, the property would not be put to a “reasonable beneficial use.” SOHO argued that although the City made the requisite findings, those findings lacked substantial evidentiary support. The trial court agreed with SOHO and directed the City to rescind the site development permit. The City argued on appeal that Municipal Code section 126.0504 vested it with “discretion to make a qualitative determination of whether an existing use of the property, even if deemed beneficial, is also a reasonable use of that property under all of the facts and circumstances applicable to the particular property in question.” The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed. Reprinted courtesy of Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

An Era of Legends

May 03, 2018 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In 2010, West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar added a new award: The Legend of an Era. West Coast Casualty recognizes “those in the construction defect community who inspire, contribute, advocate and influence others for the benefit and betterment of this community, making it a better place.” They define Legend as “One that inspires or achieves legendary fame based upon ones own achievement(s) which promises to be enduring” and Era, as “A fixed point of time from which a series of years is reckoned and an order of things prevail.” This annual award is presented at the West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions

September 10, 2014 — William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers Blog
Great news for California subcontractors and suppliers! “Type I” Indemnity provisions in California construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013 are not enforceable. This change in the law prevents owners and general contractors from shifting enormous exposure and costs of litigation downstream to the little guy, namely subcontractors and suppliers. In October 2011, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 474 into law, which represented a major legislative victory for subcontractors and suppliers. The new law also imposed exacting limitations on contractors that attempt to require their subcontractors and suppliers to cover their defense fees and costs in litigation. New Law Prevents Indemnity or Cost of Defense for Active Negligence Under a "Type I" indemnity provision, the downstream subcontractor agrees to indemnify the owner or contractor, even against liability caused by the upstream owner/contractor's own "active negligence." A “Type I” indemnity provision in general contractors’ subcontracts often require their subcontractors to defend and indemnify them from liability regardless of whether the general contractor is partially at fault. Subcontractors and suppliers historically have complained that they have little bargaining power when entering into these contracts and these types of provisions can result in ruinous liability for those in the construction industry that are most vulnerable-subcontractors and suppliers. Before this change, the law allowed a general contractor who is 99 percent at fault for an injury or damage to shift the entire risk to a subcontractor who is only one percent at-fault or a subcontractor who is not at fault at all, but tangentially involved in the claim. Subcontractors and suppliers joined forces and lobbied the legislature. The legislature and Governor Brown agreed. Under the new law, such "Type I" indemnity provisions will no longer be enforceable. SB 474 adds Civil Code section 2782.05 that precludes indemnity where the party to be indemnified is "actively negligent" and makes void and unenforceable these types of clauses. Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Colorado SB 15-177 UPDATE: Senate Business, Labor, & Technology Committee Refers Construction Defect Reform Bill to Full Senate

April 01, 2015 — Derek J. Lindenschmidt – Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
On March 18th, following a lengthy hearing with testimony and questioning for and against Senate Bill 15-177, the Senate Business, Labor & Technology Committee voted 6 to 2 to refer the bill, with new amendments, to the full Senate. While the main points of the bill remain strongly intact (check here for Senate Bill 177’s particulars), bill sponsors Senators Scheffler and Ulibarri offered four amendments, designed to bring additional compromise and clarity to the bill. The committee ultimately adopted these amendments, described below. Amendment 16 removed a prior prohibition in the bill that would have prevented attorneys from assisting in the preparation of the notice required to be provided to all homeowners before the commencement of a construction defect claim. Amendment 19 complemented 16 by providing further clarification regarding the contents and specificities required in said notice, including a disclosure of projected attorneys’ fees, costs, duration, and financial impact of pursuing construction defect claims. Amendment 17 permitted homeowners to approve the pursuit of construction defect claims through written consent. Lastly, Amendment 18 provided clarification regarding the bill’s requirement that mediators and arbitrators be selected and approved through mutual agreement of the parties. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Derek J. Lindenschmidt, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Lindenschmidt may be contacted at lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com

---

Another Municipality Takes Action to Address the Lack of Condominiums Being Built in its Jurisdiction

March 12, 2015 — Heather M. Anderson – Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Whether you are in the market to downsize or are looking to be a first time home buyer, you have likely noticed that your housing options in Colorado have become extremely limited over the course of the last several years. If you are a contractor and have worked on multi-family projects in the recent past, you know why the housing options are limited in the State of Colorado. In the past two years, there have been studies commissioned and articles published in local periodicals investigating the extreme slowdown seen in the construction of owner-occupied multi-family housing, namely condominiums and townhomes. Those of us involved in and with the construction industry are intimately familiar with the lengthy, complicated, and incredibly expensive construction defect litigation that has plagued multi-family construction in the State of Colorado and brought it to a virtual halt. And now, local municipalities and elected officials are starting to take notice. Most recently, the City of Lone Tree passed Ordinance No. 15-01, to become effective on April 1, 2015. According to the City of Lone Tree, Ordinance No. 15-01 is “aimed at encouraging the development of owner-occupied, multi-family residential projects through the adoption of regulations designed to balance the risk and exposure to builders and developers of such projects, while still protecting homeowners from legitimate construction defect claims.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heather M. Anderson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Anderson may be contacted at Anderson@hhmrlaw.com

---

Is Construction Defect Litigation a Cause for Lack of Condos in Minneapolis?

September 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Peter Callaghan writing for the Minn Post, while multi-family residential real estate is “hot” right now, most developers are building apartments rather than condos. Four developers spoke on the topic during Minneapolis City Council Member Lisa Goodman’s monthly “Lunch with Lisa” program. The developers stated that financing is more difficult for condos than it is for apartments, and millennials and baby boomers seem to prefer renting over buying. However, some developers stated that “the 10-year liability exposure for construction defects” was another reason to avoid condo building. However, not all developers avoid condo building in Minneapolis. Jim Stanton, owner of Shamrock Development, said that he still is building condos. Stanton declared that he “has a good relationship with his lender,” and “he hasn’t been sued a lot and has never had a suit reach court.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York’s Highest Court Reverses Lower Court Ruling That Imposed Erroneous Timeliness Requirement For Disclaimers of Coverage

June 18, 2014 — Robert F. Walsh and Paul A. Briganti – White and Williams LLP
On June 10, 2014, the New York Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) issued a unanimous decision in KeySpan Gas East Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. (No. 110, June 10, 2014), reversing a lower court decision which had erroneously imposed on insurers a duty to disclaim coverage for property damage claims as soon as possible or risk waiving their coverage defenses. White and Williams represented one of the insurance company defendants in the action. The case involved an action against three excess insurers for insurance coverage for underlying environmental claims arising from Manufactured Gas Plant sites. Upon receiving notice of the underlying claims, the three insurers reserved their rights to deny coverage on various grounds, including late notice of an occurrence, pending an investigation. The insurers ultimately denied coverage on the basis of late notice several years later based on information developed in discovery in the litigation. The policyholder/plaintiff KeySpan argued that the insurers had unreasonably delayed in issuing their disclaimers and that there was a triable issue of fact on whether such a delay amounted to a waiver of the late notice defense. Reprinted courtesy of Robert F. Walsh, White and Williams LLP and Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP Mr. Walsh may be contacted at walshr@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---