Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Licensing Mistakes That Can Continue to Haunt You

November 28, 2022 — Alexa Stephenson & Rick Seely - Kahana Feld
Today there are nearly 290,000 contractors licensed in California. This number continues to grow as California law requires businesses or individuals who alter any road or structure to be licensed contractors if the total cost of the project is $500 or more (including labor and materials). Complaints about improper and defective work performed by contractors are constantly filed with the California Contractors State License Board (“CSLB”) and any violations by those contractors could result in a license suspension. A contractor whose license is suspended by the CSLB or otherwise becomes unlicensed jeopardizes a contractor’s livelihood, compromises current insurance policies, and curtails an ability to obtain future insurance coverage. Moreover, being unlicensed could force a contractor to disgorge all money received on a project per California Business & Professions Code § 7031. What can contractors do to stay vigilant and avoid these scary outcomes? Stay tuned for a few suggestions. 1. Stay Qualified Contractors must make sure the correct person and/or entity is holding the contractor’s license. Contractors can obtain licenses as a sole owner, partnership, corporation, joint venture, or limited liability company. For any form of the business entity, one individual must act as qualifier to meet the CLSB license requirements. This qualifying individual must have the knowledge, experience, and skills to manage the daily activities of a construction business (including field supervision) or be represented by someone else with at least four years of experience within the past ten years as an unsupervised journeyperson, foreperson, supervising employee, or contractor in the trade being applied for. Reprinted courtesy of Alexa Stephenson, Kahana Feld and Rick Seely, Kahana Feld Ms. Stephenson may be contacted at astephenson@kahanafeld.com Mr. Seely may be contacted at rseely@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Florida Court Puts the Claim of Landlord’s Insurer In The No-Fly Zone

March 06, 2023 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
In United States Aviation Underwriters v. Turnberry Airport Holdings, LLC, No. 3D22-270, 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 1207 (U.S. Aviation), the Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District (Appellate Court) considered whether the insurer for a commercial landlord could pursue subrogation against the landlord’s tenant. Based on the terms of the lease between the landlord and the tenant, the Appellate Court held that the landlord’s insurer could not pursue subrogation. In U.S. Aviation, the defendant, Turnberry Airport Holdings, LLC (Turnberry Airport) leased space to an insured aircraft owner. The lease contained the following provision: TENANT agrees that all policies of insurance obtained by it in connection with the Space or as required hereunder shall contain appropriate waiver of subrogation clauses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

No Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims under Kentucky Law

March 25, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court determined that the insurer was not obligated to defend construction defect claims under Kentucky law. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Kentuckiana Commercial Concrete, LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222674 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 14, 2023). HRB, the owner of an apartment complex, filed an arbitration demand against the general contractor, Doster Commercial Construction, for allegedly doing faulty concrete work in the construction of the apartments. Doster added its concrete subcontrator Kentuckiana Commercial Concrete - and 16 other subcontractors - to the arbitration. Kentuckiana tendered the claim to its insurer, Westfield. Wesfield defended. Doster claimed it was an additional insured under the Westfield policy and also sought coverage. Westfield refused the defend Doster. Westfield argued there was no "occurrence." Westfield then sued both Doster and Kentuckiana in federal court, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend either. Westfield moved for a judgment on the pleadings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Insured's Claim for Cyber Coverage Rejected

December 29, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Having failed to adequately secure cyber coverage, the insured law firm's lawsuit was properly dismissed by the trial court on summary judgment. Johnson v. Smith Bros. Ins., LLC, 2020 Vt. Unpub. LEXIS 98 (Vt. Sept. 4, 2020). The law firm attended a CLE seminar presented by the Vermont Attorneys Title Insurance Corporation. Scott Garcia, an employee of Smith Brothers, an insurance agency, gave a presentation on professional liability insurance focusing on cybersecurity issues, including fraudulent scams. After the presentation, one of the law firms members spoke with Garcia and expressed an interest in securing a professional malpractice policy with cyber security coverage. Garcia said he would check the firm's current policy, but was confident he could provide better coverage. It was unclear whether the firm ever provided its current policy. A couple of weeks later, the firm submitted an online application for professional liability coverage through the Smith Brothers' website. The application neither referenced the conversation with Garcia nor specifically requested cybersecurity coverage. Smith Brothers then sent the policy covering a one-year period. The policy included coverage for up to $10,000 for losses resulting from a network or security breach in the performance of professional services. A year later, the firm renewed the same policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Second Circuit Clarifies What Must Be Alleged to Establish “Joint Employer” Liability in the Context of Federal Employment Discrimination Claims

March 14, 2022 — Kevin J. O’Connor, Aaron C. Schlesinger & Lauren Rayner Davis - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
The “joint employer” doctrine has been used with increasing frequency by the plaintiffs’ bar to broaden the scope of target defendants in discrimination cases beyond those who would be traditionally regarded as the employer. This is true even in the construction industry, which has seen a rise in cases where general contractors or construction managers are being targeted when discrimination is alleged on a construction project, even when the GC or CM is far removed from the underlying events and had no control over the employees in question. Until now, the Courts in the federal circuit which includes New York City (the Second Circuit) have been left to decipher a patchwork of case law to ascertain the scope and extent of joint employer liability in discrimination cases. This week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Felder v. United States Tennis Association, et al., 19-1094, issued a comprehensive decision which provides a helpful summary of what must be pled and proven to broaden liability under the joint employer theory in discrimination cases. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. O’Connor, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Lauren Rayner Davis, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at koconnor@pecklaw.com Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Ms. Davis may be contacted at ldavis@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Corps of Engineers to Prepare EIS for Permit to Construct Power Lines Over Historic James River

May 01, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On March 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided National Parks Conservation Assoc. v. Todd T. Simonite, Lieutenant General, et al. The case involves an application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a construction permit to build electric power lines over the “historic James River, from whose waters Captain John Smith explored the New World.” The Corps concluded after reviewing the thousands of comments submitted to it in connection with this application, and after considering the views of several government agencies and conservation groups, that an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) was not required, and that its Environmental Assessment assured the Corps that the project would not result is significant environmental impacts. The Court of Appeals has concluded that, based on this evidence, the Corps’ refusal to prepare an EIS thoroughly discussing all these points was arbitrary and capricious. The Corps has been ordered to prepare the EIS and to take special note of its obligations under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA) and its obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Ill-fated Complaint Fails to State Claims Against Broker and FEMA

September 10, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
A complaint lodged against the insureds' broker and FEMA was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Lopez v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109803 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 2014). The insureds held a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) issued by FEMA, but sold by the broker. The insureds alleged that their property was totally destroyed by Hurricane Isaac. FEMA paid the insureds $234,513.02 for damage to their dwelling and $80,566.17 for its contents, for a total of $315,079.19. This was $34,920.81 below the policy limits. The insureds sued, claiming FEMA negligently miscalculated their damages, misvalued their property, and improperly adjusted their claim. The insureds also alleged that the broker failed to properly advise them regarding the nature of their coverage, the true value of their property, or to purchase the correct amount of insurance on their behalf. The negligent procurement claim against the broker failed because the insureds did not allege any specific facts tending to establish that the broker failed to use reasonable diligence in procuring their insurance. Likewise, the negligent misrepresentation claim against the broker was dismissed. Insurance agents had a duty to supply their customers with correct information, and they could be liable for negligent misrepresentation if they provided incorrect information and an insured was damaged. Here, the insureds did not allege a breach of the duty to supply correct information. 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

Commercial Construction in the Golden State is Looking Pretty Golden

August 26, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
If the $2.1 trillion erased from the U.S. stock market over the last week has you white knuckled, you might consider commercial construction in the Golden State, where things are looking . . . well . . . pretty golden. According to the Summer/Fall 2015 Commercial Real Estate Survey jointly published by Allen Matkins and the UCLA Anderson School of Management, commercial construction in California has risen to its highest level since 2001. The survey, conducted of commercial real estate developers and financiers and their outlook for seven metropolitan regions in California including the East Bay, the Inland Empire, Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, San Francisco and Silicon Valley, found that all respondents expressed optimism (characterized as an optimism sentiment above 50) that office, multifamily, industrial and retail construction would grow over the next three-years although it varied depending on the region and sentiment was at times lower than when the survey was last taken last year. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES