Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Can You Really Be Liable For a Product You Didn’t Make? In New Jersey, the Answer is Yes

December 14, 2020 — James Burger & Robert Devine - White and Williams LLP
New Jersey has recently expanded liability for product distributors and manufacturers to products that the distributor/manufacturer did not make or sell. This alert discusses this new law and steps that distributors and manufacturers may consider to reduce their potential liability. In Whelan v. Armstrong International, Inc., the New Jersey Supreme Court held that distributors and manufacturers can be strictly liable for injuries caused by replacement parts added after the point of sale which had not been manufactured or sold by any of the defendants in the case. In Whelan, the defendants’ products had originally been sold with asbestos-containing parts. Mr. Whelan, the plaintiff, argued that asbestos-containing replacement parts were required to repair and maintain the products. The court found that because the products were designed with asbestos-containing parts, “[d]efendants had a duty to provide warnings given the foreseeability that third parties would be the source of asbestos-containing replacement components.” (Emphasis added). This reasoning, based on “foreseeability,” should give pause to all product distributors and manufacturers—even those who do not make or sell products that contain asbestos. Certainly distributors and manufacturers of products with asbestos-containing parts must take heed that they may now be liable for replacement parts that they neither manufactured nor sold. This alone is a significant holding that expands potential liability. Reprinted courtesy of James Burger, White and Williams LLP and Robert Devine, White and Williams LLP Mr. Burger may be contacted at burgerj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

As Recovery Continues, Home Improvement Stores Make Sales

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Need another sign of the housing recovery? Lowe’s stock price is up. Bloomberg News reports that the home-improvement retailer rose by 88 cents a share in the last quarter. Analysts had predicted gains of 79 cents a share, and the same quarter last year saw profits of 64 cents a share. The increase in profits come from more purchases and higher spending per purchase. While Lowe’s negotiated some better prices with vendors and dropped some items that weren’t selling, none of the profits came from staff reduction; the retailer actually increased staffing. Home Depot, the largest such chain (Lowe’s is number 2), also saw profits that exceeded analysts’ projections. They, too, have decided to focus on assisting customers. Their increase in profits was attributed to greater spending by contractors and homeowners. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Slavin Doctrine and Defense from Patent Defects

June 13, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The Slavin doctrine is an affirmative defense primarily geared to the personal injury context designed to protect contractors from third-party negligence-type claims when an owner accepts a patent defect. The Slavin doctrine protects contractors from liability for injuries to third parties by presuming that the owner has made a “reasonably careful inspection” of the contractor’s work prior to accepting it as completed; if the owner accepts the contractor’s work as complete and an alleged defect is patent, then the owner “accepts the defects and the negligence that caused them as his own,” and the contractor will no longer be liable for the patent defect. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

New York Appellate Court Affirms 1966 Insurance Policy Continues to Cover WTC Asbestos Claims

January 02, 2019 — Michael S. Levine & Joshua S. Paster - Hunton Andrews Kurth
In a prior post, we discussed a New York trial-court decision that found an insurance policy issued in 1966, to insure the construction of the World Trade Center, continues to cover modern-day asbestos claims, with each claim constituting an individual occurrence. Last week, in American Home Assurance Co. v. The Port Authority of N.Y. and N.J., 7628-7628A (1st Dep’t Nov. 15, 2018), an intermediate appellate court affirmed that decision, agreeing that coverage is triggered for claims tied to alleged asbestos exposure at the WTC site in the 1960s and ’70s. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Joshua S. Paster, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Paster may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Defect Lawsuit Came too Late in Minnesota

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has upheld a summary judgment in a construction defect case, Lee v. Gorham. Minnesota law requires that contractors warranty that the home will be free of major construction defects during the first ten years, but claims must “be brought within two years of the discovery of the breach.” The Lees received a home inspection report in 2009 that identified a variety of defects, including “several possible structural defects.” The court noted that the report stated, “Contact your builder in writing of the findings, and discuss your options with an attorney.” The Lees contacted the contractor, Gorham Builders. After initial silence, Gorham told the Lees that problems would “have to be ‘turned over to [the] insurance company.’” Rodney noted in his testimony that he had two choices, to either sue Gorham or hire an outside contractor. Mr. Lee had concluded that the legal costs were likely to be equal to the cost of the contractor. In June, 2011, the Lees changed their mind about bringing a suit. Gorham sought and received a summary judgment dismissing the case on the grounds that too much time had passed since the Lees learned of the construction defect. The Lees appealed. The appeals court upheld the summary judgment. The Lees claimed that the 2009 home inspection did not alert them of a “major construction defect,” but the court concluded that the language of the report fit within the Minnesota statutory definition of a “major construction defect.” Nor was the appeals court convinced that at any time did Gorham provide “assurances that it would cure the defects to the home.” Within the same month as the May 2009 inspection, Gorham had made it clear that any problems were an issue for the insurance company. Thus, the appeals court concluded that the Lee’s equitable-estoppel argument was without merit. The Lees also brought to appeal the new argument that they did not realize they were dealing with “major construction defects” until they received a subsequent home inspection in 2011. The court noted that the second report does not detail “new defects or structural issues not identified in the 2009 inspection report.” In addition to being “without merit,” the court noted that this claim was not made in the district court and so the appeals court “need not consider this issue on appeal.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Newport Beach Partners Jeremy Johnson, Courtney Serrato, and Associate Joseph Real Prevailed on a Demurrer in a Highly Publicized Shooting Case!

November 11, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara’s Partners Jeremy Johnson, Courtney Serrato, and Associate Joseph Real prevailed on a Demurrer in a highly publicized shooting case. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging negligence, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, and public nuisance against BWB&O’s clients, a highly recognized hospitality and lifestyle company with nightlife and restaurant venues, in addition to other celebrity defendants. Plaintiffs were the victims of a shooting that occurred by an unknown individual(s) outside and near the restaurant/venue owned by BWB&O’s clients. Plaintiffs alleged it was BWB&O’s clients that were responsible for the third parties’ criminal acts because BWB&O’s clients attracted more people than the venue’s capacity, causing people to occupy the street, sidewalk, and property nearby. Plaintiffs further alleged that BWB&O’s client should have anticipated or known that criminal conduct, including gun violence, would take place. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

New California Construction Law for 2019

January 02, 2019 — Daniel F. McLennon - Smith Currie
The California Legislature introduced over 2637 bills in the second half of the 2017-2018 session. This article summarizes some of the more important bills affecting contractors in their roles as contractors, effective January 1, 2019, unless otherwise noted. Not addressed here are many other bills that will affect contractors in their roles as businesses, taxpayers, and employers. Each of the summaries is brief, focusing on what is most important to contractors. Because not all aspects of these bills are discussed, each summary’s title is a live link to the full text of the referenced bills for those wanting to explore the details of the new laws. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel F. McLennon, Smith Currie
Mr. McLennon may be contacted at dfmclennon@smithcurrie.com

Reminder: Know Your Contractor Licensing Rules

January 09, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In the course of my construction law practice, I have the pleasure of speaking with and talking to contractors and subcontractors that are based in Virginia and also based in other states. With the more nationalized construction landscape due to the constricted construction economy, I have more and more interaction with the latter category. When I get a call from an out of state contractor (often when that construction company has an issue), one of my first questions is always whether that contractor has obtained its contractors license here in Virginia. In most cases, the answer is “Yes” and we can move on. However, in some instances, the answer is no and we have to discuss the potential consequences. Among the consequences for failure to obtain the proper contractor license prior to performing work in Virginia are as follows:

Inability to record a mechanic’s lien
Possible criminal charges
Possible inability to collect for construction work performed

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES