Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Appraisers’ Failure to Perform Assessment of Property’s Existence or Damage is Reversible Error

July 30, 2015 — Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Lee v. California Capital Insurance Co. (No. A136280; filed 6/18/15), a California Court of Appeal held that it was error for an appraisal panel to assign loss values to items simply because they were listed in the insured’s scope of loss, and regardless of whether inspection revealed they were undamaged or never existed. California Capital insured a twelve unit apartment building owned by Ms. Lee in Oakland, California. When a fire damaged one unit, the insurer prepared an estimate of $69,255 and paid an undisputed amount of $46,755, which was the amount of the estimate less depreciation and the deductible. But Ms. Lee claimed that six of the units had been damaged, and she retained a public adjuster who submitted a claim exceeding $800,000. This included cleaning, asbestos abatement, reconstruction of the affected apartments, and loss of rent. She claimed burn damage to one unit and smoke damage requiring complete replacement of all the interior rooms of five apartments, along with removal of a portion of the stucco exterior and iron balcony railings and repainting of the entire building. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Colorado Court of Appeals’ Ruling Highlights Dangers of Excessive Public Works Claims

August 26, 2024 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
In the case of Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners (2024 COA 78), the Colorado Court of Appeals reviewed a complex contract dispute related to the design and construction of a transit rail line. The project, commissioned by the Regional Transportation District (“RTD”), involved a collaboration between Regional Rail Partners and Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company (“Wadsworth”) to build the North Metro Rail Line between Denver Union Station and Thornton. Key Facts:

Contracts and Payments: Regional Rail Partners contracted with Wadsworth to perform specific construction tasks with a total contract value of $60,210,783. By the time of the trial, Regional Rail had paid almost $58 million of this amount.
Disputes and Delays: The project faced numerous delays and disputes, leading to Wadsworth claiming significant financial damages attributed to these disruptions. In April 2018, Wadsworth’s expert estimated that Regional Rail owed them $12,408,496.60.

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

Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben and Associate Laura Puhala Win Summary Judgment in Favor of Insurer, Determining it has No Duty to Defend

September 18, 2023 — Traub Lieberman
In a declaratory judgment action brought before the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben and Associate Laura Puhala won summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff Foremost Signature Insurance Co. (“Foremost”), obtaining a declaration that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify Defendant 170 Little East Neck Road LLC (“Little East”) in an underlying state court personal injury action. In the underlying action, a self-employed financial advisor leasing a suite for her business on the second floor of the property at 170 Little East Neck Road (the “Property”), sued Little East in New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County, alleging injuries resulting from slipping on ice on a walkway near an exterior door at the Property. Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman and Laura S. Puhala, Traub Lieberman Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com Ms. Puhala may be contacted at lpuhala@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

Harmon Tower Construction Defects Update: Who’s To Blame?

August 17, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Reporting on the site VegasInc.com, Liz Benton notes that “nobody wants to take the fall for what happened at Harmon.” Work on the Harmon hotel building in Las Vegas’s CityCenter stopped in 2008 after 26 of the planned 49 stories were completed. Lorence Slutzky, a construction law professor at John Marshall Law School and a partner with the Chicago firm Robbins Schwartz Nicholas Lifton & Taylor told Benton that while inspectors and others are complicit, “the real responsibility rests with Perini, which has an obligation to comply with the plan specifications.” Perini’s claim is that they were given faulty design drawings. MGM disputes this.

Perini has offered to repair the building defects, however MGM has released a statement that they have “zero confidence or trust that Perini can and will properly fix a building it has so badly constructed thus far.” One MGM spokesperson likened these requests from Perini to “the director of ‘Ishar’ demanding a sequel.” “Ishtar,’ cost Columbia Pictures $55 million dollars and earned only $4.2 million in its initial run. Perini claims that MGM halted work because of the economy.

Read the full story…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Design Firm Settles over Construction Defect Claim

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A Pennsylvania township has announced that it has reached a settlement with the architectural firm that designed its administration building. Cee Jay Frederick Associates will be paying than $1.05 million to settle claims of defects in the design of the building. West Whiteland’s administration building was completed in July 2007. The first leaks were noticed in November and December 2008. In response, the township stopped payments to the contractor, Magnum, Inc. Magnum sued, claiming that their work was not to blame for the leaks. Magnum joined the township in suing the design firm. Although Cee Jay Frederick Associates will be paying the township to settle the claim, West Whiteland will be paying $75,000 of that back to the firm to settle outstanding bills that had been withheld during litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Signature? Potentially No Problem for Sureties Enforcing a Bond’s Forum Selection Clause

March 21, 2022 — Brian C. Padove - ConsensusDocs
One of the foundational tenets of contract law is that a party may only be bound by terms they agree to, or in other words, if the party did not sign a contract, that party cannot be bound by the terms thereof. While this principle is generally unwavering, there are certain situations in which a non-signatory to a contract may still be bound by the terms of a contract. In particular, this non-signatory issue may arise when a payment bond claimant makes a bond claim, subsequently files a lawsuit, but the bond contains a forum selection clause different than the venue of the lawsuit and the surety seeks to enforce the bond’s forum selection clause. For example, the claimant may have filed its lawsuit against the surety in federal court, even though the bond provides language specifically mandating that no lawsuit shall be commenced by any claimant other than in a state court where the project is located. Thus, the question then becomes, can the surety enforce the forum selection clause against the claimant when the claimant did not sign the bond and/or never agreed to the terms thereof? The short answer, it depends (yes, that is a very lawyer-like answer). Given recent case law over the past decade, however, the surety has a strong argument in favor of enforcement of the forum selection clause. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian C. Padove, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Padove may be contacted at bpadove@watttieder.com

Construction Defects Survey Results Show that Warranty Laws Should be Strengthened for Homeowners & Condominium Associations

March 29, 2017 — Nicholas D. Cowie - Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law Blog
The Community Associations Institute (“CAI”) recently partnered with its members and industry stakeholders to create a survey about construction deficiencies to learn how they impact homeowners and condominium associations. Click here to view the Construction Defects Report containing the details of the responses to the survey. Click here to see a video presentation summarizing the results of the Construction Defects Survey. This Community Associations Institute (“CAI”) Construction Defects Report demonstrates that many community associations do not discover construction deficiencies until after warranties have expired and/or fail to take the necessary actions to preserve their claims before the statutes of limitations runs. As a result, many homeowners and Condominium associations ended up using association funds to correct builder construction defects and damages caused thereby. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott
Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

Court Finds That SIR Requirements are Not Incorporated into High Level Excess Policies and That Excess Insurers’ Payment of Defense Costs is Not Conditioned on Actual Liability

April 22, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Deere & Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (No. A145170, filed 2/25/19), a California appeals court held that the insured was not required to pay additional self-insured retentions (SIRs) in order to trigger higher level excess coverage because the retained limits applicable to the first layer of coverage did not also apply to the higher-layer excess policies. In Deere, the insured was sued for injuries from alleged exposure to asbestos-containing assemblies used in Deere machines. In a declaratory relief action against its umbrella and excess insurers, the case was tried on: (1) whether the higher-layer excess policies were triggered once the first-layer excess policy limits, which were subject to an SIR paid by Deere, had been exhausted; and (2) whether the insurers’ indemnity obligation extended to Deere’s defense costs incurred in asbestos claims that had been dismissed. The trial court found in favor of the insurers, concluding that the retained limits in the first layer of coverage also applied to the higher-layer excess, which was not triggered until Deere paid additional SIRs. The court also concluded that the insurers were not obligated to pay defense costs when underlying cases were dismissed without payment to a claimant either by judgment or settlement. Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES