Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

AI and the Optimization of Construction Projects

February 19, 2024 — Rahul Shah - Construction Executive
Seeking answers on how to construct smarter and greener buildings or improve water efficiency in homes and offices, those who create our buildings and construction projects are entering a new era of learning as they turn their attention to the benefits of artificial intelligence. While human involvement will continue to be paramount, AI has the potential to assist in creating informed decisions, for example by suggesting sustainable, durable materials or cost-effective, but still safe, practices. The possible applications of AI for the construction industry could be transformative across design, procurement, construction, operation and decommissioning. In fact, research suggests designers and contractors are already applying AI and machine learning to manage the volumes of data involved in the design of buildings, the planning of construction projects and the day-to-day operations of sites. Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Shah, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals ruled on January 9 in Burrow v. JTL Dev. Corp., a construction defect case in which houses suffered damage due to improperly compacted soil, upholding the decision of the lower court.

Turf Construction entered into a deal with JTL to develop a parcel they acquired. A third firm, Griffin Homes, withdrew from the agreement “when a geotechnical and soils engineering firm reported significant problems with soil stability on 14 of the lots.” Turf Construction then took over compacting and grading the lots. Turf “had never compacted or graded a residential tract before.” Robert Taylor, the owner of Turf, “testified he knew there was a significant problem with unstable soils.”

After homes were built, the plaintiffs bought homes on the site. Shortly thereafter, the homes suffered damage from soil settlement “and the damage progressively worsened.” They separately filed complaints which the court consolidated.

During trial, the plaintiff’s expert said that there had been an inch and a half in both homes and three to five inches in the backyard and pool areas. “He also testified that there would be four to eight inches of future settlement in the next fifteen to twenty years.” The expert for Turf and JTL “testified that soil consolidation was complete and there would be no further settlement.”

Turf and JTL objected to projections made by the plaintiffs’ soil expert, William LaChappelle. Further, they called into question whether it was permissible for him to rely on work by a non-testifying expert, Mark Russell. The court upheld this noting that LaChappelle “said that they arrived at the opinion together, through a cycle of ‘back and forth’ and peer review, and that the opinion that the soil would settle four to eight inches in fifteen to twenty years was his own.”

Turf and JTL contended that the court relied on speculative damage. The appeals court disagreed, stating that the lower court based its award “on evidence of reasonably certain damage.”

Turf also that it was not strictly liable, since it did not own or sell the properties. The court wrote that they “disagree because Turf’s grading activities rendered it strictly liable as a manufacturer of the lots.” The court concluded that “Turf is strictly liable as a manufacturer of the lots.”

Judge Coffee upheld the decision of the lower court with Judges Yegan and Perren concurring.

Read the court’s decision…

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

The Right to Repair Act (Civ.C §895 et seq.) Applies and is the Exclusive Remedy for a Homeowner Alleging Construction Defects

February 07, 2018 — Craig Wallace – Smith Currie
McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (01.18.18) ____ Cal.4th _____ (2018 WL 456728) The California Supreme Court confirmed that the Right to Repair Act (CA Civil Code § 895, et seq. and often referred to by its legislative nomenclature as “SB800”) applies broadly to any action by a residential owner seeking recovery of damages for construction defects, regardless of whether such defects caused property damages or only economic losses. This includes the right in the Act of the builder to attempt repairs prior to the owner filing a lawsuit. Background Homeowners sued builder for construction defects. Included in their causes of action was a cause of action for violation of the Right To Repair Act. The Act requires that before filing litigation, a homeowner must give the builder notice and engage in a nonadversarial prelitigation process which gives the builder a right to repair the defects. The builder asked the court to stay the homeowners’ action so the prelitigaiton process could be undertaken. Rather than give the builder the repair right, the homeowners dismissed the particular cause of action from their case, leaving only other so-called common law and warranty causes of action. The common law claims sought recovery for property damage caused by the defects. The builder nonetheless asked to the Court to stay the action so it could exercise its right to repair. The trial court, relying on Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, denied builder’s request to stay the action. The Liberty Mutual Court concluded that certain common law construction defect claims fell outside the purview of the Act. Builder appealed. The Court of Appeal disagreed with Liberty Mutual, so did not follow it, granted the builder’s request for a stay, and directed that the homeowners afford the builder the right to repair the claimed defects as provided under the Act. The California Supreme Court affirmed, disapproving Liberty Mutual and the subsequent cases relying on it. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Wallace, Smith Currie
Mr. Wallace may be contacted at swwallace@smithcurrie.com

Haight has been named a Metropolitan Tier 1 and Tier 2 “Best Law Firm” by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2025

November 11, 2024 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP is listed in the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® (2025 Edition) “Best Law Firms” list with metro rankings in the following areas: Los Angeles

Metropolitan Tier 1

Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

Metropolitan Tier 2

Insurance Law

Orange County

Metropolitan Tier 1

Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

General Partner Is Not Additional Insured For Construction Defect Claim

August 26, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined that the project owner's general partner was not an additional insured entitled to a defense and indemnity against claims for construction defects. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v,. Cypress Fairway Condo. Ass'n, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94012 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2015). Construction of the Cypress Fairway Condominium project took place in 1999 and 2000. Cypress Fairway Ltd. ("Cypress") was the owner and Vineland Partners , LLC ("Vineland") was its general partner. The general contractor was Winter Park Construction Company ("WPC"). Water intrusion and property damage occurred, but it was unclear when or whether the damage was known. Cypress' expert indicated that the damage began shortly after the end of construction. In 2004, the complex was sold to Cypress Madison Ownership Company. In 2010, the Cypress Fairway Condominium Association sued Cypress and Vineland. Count V of the underlying complaint asserted there were construction defects that Cypress and Vineland were responsible for when they owned and managed the project. Count VI alleged that Cypress and Vineland negligently supplied information which the Association relied on for the purchase of the condominiums. 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

Candis Jones Named “On the Rise” by Daily Report's Georgia Law Awards

September 29, 2021 — Candis Jones - Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Atlanta Partner Candis Jones was named a lawyer “On the Rise” by the Daily Report (part of Law.com). Ms. Jones is one of 20 attorneys from Georgia to receive this distinction as part of the publication's 2021 Georgia Law Awards. The Daily Report’s “On the Rise” category recognizes outstanding attorneys under the age of 40 who have made an impression on their colleagues, their clients, and the larger legal community of Georgia. Winners are selected by the publication’s editorial staff. Ms. Jones is a member of Lewis Brisbois' General Liability Practice and has extensive experience with insurance defense, premises liability, personal injury, and medical malpractice cases. Her clients include Fortune 500 companies, numerous insurance carriers, and a major metropolitan transit authority. Outside her legal practice, Ms. Jones is an active member of her legal community and was recently installed as President of the Gate City Bar Association, the oldest African-American bar association in the State of Georgia. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Candis Jones, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Jones may be contacted at Candis.Jones@lewisbrisbois.com

New Jersey Appellate Decision Reminds Bid Protestors to Take Caution When Determining Where to File an Action

March 13, 2023 — Brian Glicos & Nicholas J. Zaita - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
On February 21, 2023, the New Jersey Appellate Division held that University Hospital is not a “state administrative agency” and, therefore, the Appellate Division does not have original jurisdiction to determine the merits of an action commenced by an unsuccessful bidder to challenge the award of a contract. In re Protest of Contract for Retail Pharmacy Design, Constr., Start-up & Operation, Request for Proposal No. UH-P20-006, A-1667-20, 2023 WL 2125002 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Feb. 21, 2023). Pursuant to Rule 2:2-3(a)(2) of New Jersey’s Rules of Court, final decisions or actions of any state administrative agency or officer may be appealed directly to the Appellate Division as of right. Accordingly, where an unsuccessful bidder chooses to challenge the award of a contract issued by, for example, the New Jersey Department of Transportation, the unsuccessful bidder must file its action directly with the Appellate Division. On the other hand, where an unsuccessful bidder wishes to challenge a contract award made by a local municipality (among a slew of other public entities), the Superior Court Law Division maintains original jurisdiction over the dispute. Reprinted courtesy of Brian Glicos, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Nicholas J. Zaita, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Glicos may be contacted at bglicos@pecklaw.com Mr. Zaita may be contacted at nzaita@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Your Construction Contract

April 08, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Your construction contract is an important topic. What’s even more important is YOUR process for reviewing and negotiating construction contracts. Are you simply acting as a riverboat gambler willing to assume undue risk because you don’t value the investment in understanding what you are signing? If so, it becomes hard to complain about what you agreed to and signed when you chose NOT to invest in the process. Investing in the process means you are working with a construction attorney, you have an insurance broker that understands your industry, you have resources in place to ensure risk is negotiated and allocated, and you understand what risk you are assuming to make sure you are properly protecting and perfecting your rights, and transferring risk downstream. When it comes to construction contracts, there are really three approaches: 1. Riverboat Gambler. This is the “I’ll sign whatever you give me because I don’t want to lose the contract / revenue.” Under this approach, you are not worried about undue risk because you don’t value the investment in the next two approaches. Your thought process is that you’ll care about the risk when an issue pops up, i.e., the riverboat gambler. This is not an approach I’d recommend because it is contrary to the adage, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” This is simply a reactive approach to issues and risks. The other two approaches are more proactive and better suited to understand and manage risk. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES