FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Invest In America Act Offers 494 Billion In Funding to U.S. Infrastructure and Millions of New Jobs

July 20, 2020 — Stefanie A. Salomon - Peckar & Abramson
The Investing in a New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation in America (INVEST in America) Act was approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on June 18, 2020 and is making its way up to Congress. The bill will create millions of jobs and provide substantial investment in the nation’s deteriorating highways, bridges and public transit systems. The bill also endeavors to leave behind a smaller carbon footprint, a major improvement for the nation’s biggest source of carbon pollution. Investing in a New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation in America Act According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the current condition of the nation’s infrastructure earns a grade of D+, and there exists an estimated $2 trillion funding gap to bring it into a state of good repair by 2025. While Americans have benefited from a century of infrastructure building, neglect has befallen our once greatest achievements – the roadways and arteries that led to the explosive growth of our nation. In the 1930s, 4.2 percent of the country’s GDP was spent on infrastructure investment. Unfortunately, by 2016 that number fell to 1.5 percent resulting in the substandard conditions that now confront us. Stated more bluntly, our nation’s infrastructure is crumbling and immediate investment in required to bring it up to par. The INVEST in America Act is our “immediate” opportunity to start replacing the outdated systems of the past with smarter, safer, and more resilient infrastructure. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stefanie A. Salomon, Peckar & Abramson
Ms. Salomon may be contacted at ssalomon@pecklaw.com

---

Loss of Use From Allegedly Improper Drainage System Triggers Defense Under CGL Policy

February 28, 2018 — Katherine E. Miller and Michael S. Levine – Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The Eleventh Circuit, in Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Adams Homes of Northwest Florida, Inc., No. 17-12660, 2018 WL 834896, at * 3-4 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2018) (per curiam), recently held under Florida law that a homebuilder’s alleged failure to implement a proper drainage system that allowed for neighborhood flooding triggered a general liability insurer’s duty to defend because the allegations involved a potentially covered loss of use of covered property. Reprinted courtesy of Katherine E. Miller, Hunton & Williams and Michael S. Levine, Hunton & Williams Ms. Miller may be contacted at kmiller@hunton.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@hunton.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Most Common OSHA Violations Highlight Ongoing Risks

July 27, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
In the 12 months from October 2018 through September 2019, the most recent period reported by OSHA,[1] the workplace safety agency cited the following standards[2] more than any other in the 28 states which do not have OSHA-approved state plans, including Colorado:

1. 1926.501 – Duty to have fall protection – included in 459 citations, resulting in $2,475,596 in penalties ($5,393/citation);
2. 1926.451 – General requirements for scaffolds – included in 265 citations, resulting in $834,324 in penalties ($3,148/citation);
3. 1926.1053 – Requirements for ladders including job-made ladders – included in 164 citations, resulting in $354,853 in penalties ($2,163/citation);
4. 1926.503 – Training requirements related to fall protection - included in 114 citations, resulting in $156,076 in penalties ($1,369/citation);
5. 1926.405 - Wiring methods, components, and equipment for general use – included in 93 citations, resulting in $150,821 in penalties ($1,621/citation);
6. 1926.20 - General safety and health provisions – included in 85 citations, resulting in $328,491 in penalties ($3,864/citation);
7. 1926.1052 – Requirements for stairways – included in 79 citations, resulting in $155,651 in penalties ($1,970/citation);
8. 1926.102 – Requirements for eye and face protection - included in 67 citations, resulting in $165,595 in penalties ($2,471/citation);
9. 1926.403 – General requirements for electrical conductors and equipment – included in 63 citations, resulting in $146,050 in penalties ($2,318/citation), and;
10. 1926.100 – Requirements for head protection – included in 55 citations, resulting in $127,274 in penalties ($2,314/citation).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

Contractors Should be Aware of Homeowner Duties When Invited to Perform Residential Work

September 26, 2022 — Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Division 2 of the Court of Appeals[1] recently addressed a property owner’s liability to a contractor who is injured performing work on their property. The action arose from an incident in which Virgil Mihaila, a remodeling contractor, fell from a ladder while installing a new roof on the Troths’ shed and landed on a metal grounding rod that was sticking over a foot out of the ground. Mihaila saw the grounding rod as he was working and recognized the danger, but he claimed that he could not complete the roofing job without encountering it. Although he tried to position his ladder so that he would avoid the grounding rod if he fell, he somehow fell off the ladder and landed on the grounding rod, sustaining multiple rib fractures and a punctured lung. Mihaila filed a complaint against the Troths, alleging that they were negligent in failing to protect him from the danger of the grounding rod sticking out of the ground. The Troths denied that they were negligent and asserted the affirmative defense of contributory negligence. The Troths filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, stating that summary judgment was appropriate regarding the Troths’ duty because Mihaila “became aware of the risk, undertook to encounter the risk, and made his own efforts to mitigate the risk.” The trial court denied Mihaila’s motion for reconsideration and Mihaila appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

---

Assignment of Insured's Policy Ineffective

April 06, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
An assignment of policy rights made before the policy was issued was ineffective. W. Alliance Bank v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19936 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2016). The bank issued a loan to Sorrento Networks, Inc. in 2011. As collateral, Sorrento gave the bank a continuing security interest in all of Sorrento's personal property, including its inventory, commercial tort claims and insurance proceeds. The loan agreement authorized the back to act on Sorrento's behalf in collecting any money owed to Sorrento and prosecuting any claims that Sorrento might have. 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

---

Contract Should Have Clear and Definite Terms to Avoid a Patent Ambiguity

December 11, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you need more of a reason to have contracts with clear and definite terms, this case is it. This case exemplifies what can happen if the contract, not only does not have clear and definite terms, but contains a patent ambiguity. The contract will be deemed unenforceable which will make one of the contracting parties very unhappy! In Bowein v. Sherman, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D2208a (Fla. 6th DCA 2023), the buyer and seller entered into a real estate transaction. The transaction was for $2 Million. The purchase-and-sale agreement included the address and legal description of a parcel to be sold. However, there was a section in the agreement called “Other Terms and Conditions” which identified that the offer was actually for four properties that were being sold by the seller. When it came to closing time, the seller refused to close because the seller disputed that the $2 Million purchase price was for all four of his properties. The buyer sued the seller for specific performance to force the sale which the trial court agreed in favor of the buyer. However, the appellate court did not. First, the appellate court held that “[t]he equitable remedy of specific performance may be granted only where the parties have actually entered into a definite and certain agreement.” Bowein, supra (quotation and citation omitted). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

California Booms With FivePoint New Schools: Real Estate

May 13, 2014 — John Gittelsohn – Bloomberg
FivePoint Communities Management Inc. is already constructing a school at its Great Park Neighborhoods project in Irvine, California, for 1,000 elementary and middle school students even as it’s still building the first 700 homes. “We build the schools ahead of time,” said Emile Haddad, chief executive officer of Aliso Viejo, California-based FivePoint, which has permits for about 10,000 homes at Great Park. “That way we always have them ready.” Local schools, along with parks and recreation facilities, have long been draws for buyers in new communities. Now, as school districts face tight construction budgets and homebuilders compete to attract families able to qualify for mortgages, developers are taking the lead on school construction instead of waiting for local governments to do the job. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg
Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net

---

Are Untimely Repairs an “Occurrence” Triggering CGL Coverage?

November 16, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
All Class A commercial contractors in Virginia are required to have a minimum level of Commercial General Liability (CGL) coverage. As a general rule, this insurance is there for damage to property or persons arising from an “occurrence” that is covered by the policy. Many cases that are litigated relating to coverage for certain events under a CGL policy turn on the definition of “occurrence” and whether the event leading to a request for coverage constitutes an “occurrence.” A recent case in Fairfax County, Virginia, Erie Insurance Exchange v. Spalding Enterprises, et al., is just such a case. In the Spalding Enterprises case, the Court considered the following scenario. A homeowner, Mr. Yen contracted with Spalding Enterprises to fix some fire damage at his home. Spalding promised the repairs would be complete in October of 2019. However, after Mr. Yen paid a $300,000.00 deposit, Spalding Enterprises stated that the work would not be completed until November of 2019. Yen then fired Spalding Enterprises and sued for breach of contract, constructive fraud, and violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. Spalding Enterprises sought coverage from Erie Insurance for the claim and Erie denied coverage and sought a declaratory judgment that the events alleged in the Complaint by Mr. Yen did not fall under the definition of “occurrence” in the CGL policy held by Spalding Enterprises. 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

---