Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

November 03, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
Attorney’s fees become a component of damages that parties seek to recover whenever there is a contractual or statutory basis for them to recover their fees. Parties want to be able to recover all or substantially most of the attorney’s fees they incurred in pursuing their claim. (In my experience, recovering all of the fees incurred is very challenging.) But, to be entitled to attorney’s fees, a party has to be deemed the prevailing party. There is the sentiment that as long as you recover a positive net judgment (even if it is for $100 when your claim was for $50,000) then you will be able to recover your attorney’s fees which will likely exceed the amount that was ever in dispute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@katzbarron.com

What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?

March 18, 2019 — Tony Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer is that “If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added). But how do you determine whether a plaintiff obtained a more favorable judgment when the 998 offer is silent with respect to whether it includes costs? In Martinez v. Eatlite One, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1181, 1182–83, the defendant made a 998 offer of $12,001 that was silent regarding the treatment of attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff did not respond to the offer, and the jury ultimately awarded plaintiff damages of $11,490. Id. In resolving the parties’ competing memoranda of costs and plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees, the trial court awarded plaintiff her costs and attorneys’ fees. Id. at 1182. The trial court reasoned that plaintiff had obtained a more favorable judgment than the 998 offer because she was entitled to pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees under the statute, which meant plaintiff’s ultimate recovery exceeded the 998 offer when added to the judgment. Id. at 1183. In other words, the court added plaintiff’s pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees to the $11,490 verdict for the purposes of determining whether the “judgment” was greater than the 998 offer of $12,001. Id. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tony Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

What Cal/OSHA’s “Permanent” COVID Standards Mean for Employers

March 06, 2023 — Payne & Fears LLP
Effective Feb. 3, 2023, California has implemented new, “permanent,” COVID-19 standards. The new regulations were adopted by Cal/OSHA on Dec. 15, 2022, but only became effective upon the review and final approval by the Office of Administrative Law. These non-emergency regulations—slated to remain in effect for two years—supplant the COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) that have been in effect since early in the pandemic. The non-emergency regulations abandon core parts of the ETS, include new definitions for key terms, and update requirements for important provisions. We discuss the primary changes below. The regulation itself is available online, as well as a copy provided by Cal/OSHA comparing the differences between the ETS and the new regulation. An End to Exclusion Pay The non-emergency regulations do not require employers to maintain exclusion pay (an excluded employee’s earnings, seniority, rights, and benefits). All that employers must do under the new regulations is inform confirmed COVID-19 cases and close contacts about potential COVID-19 benefits under federal or local laws (where applicable). This does not affect employees who may receive paid time off under other federal, state, and local laws, as well as through collective bargaining agreements or other employer policies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

New Hampshire Asbestos Abatement Firm Pleads Guilty in Federal Fraud Case

February 02, 2017 — Justin Rice - Engineering News-Record
For the second time in three months, a New England-based asbestos removal company pleaded guilty in federal court to wage and benefit violations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Justin Rice, ENR
Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricej@enr.com

Sixth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Under Kentucky Law

December 30, 2013 — Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law Hawaii
Following Kentucky law, the Sixth Circuit determined there was no coverage for a construction defect claim. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kay & Kay Contracting, LLC, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23587 (6th Cir. Nov. 19, 2013). Walmart hired a contractor to build a new store. The contractor hired Kay and Kay to perform site preparation work and construct the building pad for the new store. After Kay and Kay completed the building pad and the store was erected, cracks were noticed in the building's walls. Walmart contended there was settling in the some of the fill areas. Kay and Kay denied liability, but demanded coverage under its CGL policy with Liberty Mutual. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Third Circuit Holds That Duty to Indemnify "Follows" Duty to Defend

December 27, 2021 — Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In a win for policyholders, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a District Court’s 2018 ruling, which held that the duty to indemnify follows the duty to defend where a settlement precludes a determination on the facts of the case relative to liability and apportionment. In Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Penn National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co.,1 a large concrete panel collapsed and killed a construction worker at a construction site in New Kensington, Pennsylvania. Cost Company (“Cost”), Liberty Mutual’s insured, was a masonry subcontractor on the project and had further subcontracted with Pittsburgh Flexicore Co. (“Flexicore”), Penn National’s insured, for the concrete panels. Cost’s subcontract agreement required Flexicore to name Cost as an additional insured under its general liability policy issued by Penn National. When the construction worker’s widow filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Cost and Flexicore, Cost demanded that Penn National defend and indemnify it as an additional insured under the policy. Penn National refused, arguing that any additional insured status had terminated at the conclusion of Flexicore’s work for Cost. As a result, Liberty Mutual defended Cost in the lawsuit, which was ultimately settled. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com

How the Election Could Affect the Housing Industry: Steven Cvitanovic Authors Construction Today Article

October 07, 2016 — Steven M. Cvitanovic – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Though non-policy issues dominating the news cycle have set this presidential election apart, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have recognized the importance of housing and infrastructure investment. In an article for Construction Today, Partner Steven Cvitanovic outlines several challenges facing the real estate development industry, and analyzes how Clinton and Trump might benefit or harm the industry. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com

Did You Really Accept That Bid? – How Contractors Can Avoid Post-Acceptance Bid Disputes Over Contract Terms

July 28, 2016 — David A. Harris & Steven M. Cvitanovic – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
When California general contractors submit bids to an owner, can they force their subcontractors to honor their bids? Can they recover damages if the subcontractor later refuses to do so? While the general rule in California is that a general contractor who reasonably relies on a subcontractor’s bid may recover damages when the subcontractor reneges, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District recently held that there is a substantial and important exception to the general rule. In Flintco Pacific, Inc. v. TEC Management Consultants, Inc. (LASC No. YC067984), the Court of Appeal held that where a general contractor requires a subcontractor to enter into a “standard-form subcontract” which materially differs from the subcontractor’s bid, the general contractor has rejected the subcontractor’s bid and has instead issued a counteroffer. The subcontractor is thereafter free to walk, or accept the new terms. If the subcontractor walks, the general contractor may not seek to enforce the terms of the subcontract or seek reliance damages. Reprinted courtesy of David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES