Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Summarizing Changes to NEPA in the Fiscal Responsibility Act (P.L. 118-5)

September 05, 2023 — Anthony B. Cavender & Marcus Manca - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into law on January 1, 1970, and it has rarely been amended or revised since then. NEPA is basically a procedural statute which requires Federal permitting authorities, before a major federal project is approved, to carefully consider the significant environmental consequences of the proposed federal action. NEPA has been employed to conduct a probing review of wide variety of federal projects and actions, and the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has promulgated a comprehensive set of rules and guidance documents that must be followed or consulted. (See 40 CFR Section 1500 et seq.) The first set of NEPA rules was issued in 1978, and very little was done to bring the rules up to date until 2020. The first phase of this review has been completed, and a second and final phase will soon be underway. The NEPA review process includes the use of “categorical exclusions,” environmental assessments and environmental impact statements to measure the environmental impact of a proposed project. Over time, the rules and their implementation and judicial interpretation have become ever more complex, and an enormous body of NEPA case law has resulted. The recent Congressional debt limit deliberations provided an opportunity to revise some of these procedures, and the Fiscal Responsibility Act, signed into law on June 3, 2023, included at Title III, a section devoted to “Permitting Reform.” Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury and Marcus Manca, Pillsbury Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
The Ohio Supreme Court has concluded that claims of defective construction or workmanship are not an occurrence under a general liability policy. The court looked at appellate decisions and concluded that CGL policies are not intended to insure against risks under the control and management of the insured. These risks should instead be mitigated with performance bonds. The question was raised in the case Westfield Ins. Co. v. Custom Agri Systems, Inc. The Sixth District Court of Ohio concluded it was an “open question under Ohio law whether a CGL policy covers defective construction claims.” Westfield filed a motion, granted by the Sixth Circuit, to certify the question to the state Supreme Court. The Sixth Court additionally found that the contractual liability exclusion barred coverage in the case, issues a summary judgment to Westfield. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Requirement to Post Collateral Under General Agreement of Indemnity Is Real

May 16, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In prior postings, I have discussed the all-powerful General Agreement of Indemnity (click here and here). This is the document a bond-principal executes to obtain bonds (e.g., performance and payment bonds). Not only does the bond-principal execute this General Agreement of Indemnity, but typically, so do other indemnitors such as the company’s principals and their spouses, other related companies, etc. The objective is that the surety has financial comfort that if a claim is made against the bond, there are avenues where it will get reimbursed and indemnified for any cost it incurs, or payment it makes, relative to that claim against the bond. When a surety issues bonds, the objective is that all losses it incurs gets reimbursed because the bonds are NOT insurance policies. One of the powerful tools the surety can exercise in the General Agreement of Indemnity is to demand the bond-principal and other indemnitors to post collateral in an amount the surety deems sufficient to cover any losses it may incur. This is a right in any General Agreement of Indemnity I have seen and is a right the surety can rightfully exercise. A recent example is shown from the opinion in Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Quinco Electrical, Inc., 2022 WL 1230110 (M.D.Fla. 2022), which pertains to the surety’s motion for preliminary injunction. 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

Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back

February 25, 2014 — Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefko - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
Last week, the California appellate courts decided two cases with ramifications under the Right to Repair Act. The first case, Burch, addresses whether the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for the homeowner. The second case, KB Home, addresses a situation where a homeowner or the homeowner's insurer fails to follow the procedures under the Right to Repair Act. Last August, the Fourth Appellate District announced its decision in Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 holding that SB 800 is not a homeowner’s exclusive remedy in situations where defects cause actual damage. Many lawyers believed that Liberty Mutual would be a one-off because of its facts – it was a subrogation case brought by an insurance company. So much for that. Now the Second Appellate District is getting into the act. In Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, et al., the Second Appellate District overturned an order granting summary adjudication in favor of a developer, general contractor, and their respective owners, in a construction defect action brought by a residential homeowner. The trial court found that the Right to Repair Act precluded the homeowner’s negligence and implied warranty claims but the Court of Appeal reversed. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP and Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com, Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Congratulations to Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, John Toohey, and Tyler Offenhauser for Being Recognized as 2022 Super Lawyers!

February 07, 2022 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
BWB&O is proud to announce that Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, John Toohey, and Tyler Offenhauser have been named as 2022 Southern California’s Super Lawyers! We are also honored to share that Nicole Whyte is included in two of the top lists, Top 50 Women Lawyers in Southern California and Top 50 Lawyers in Orange County! Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. During the final selection process, only lawyers in the top 5% of the total lawyers in the state are selected to the Super Lawyers list. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Potential Problems with Cases Involving One Owner and Multiple Contractors

January 27, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Matthew Devries’ blog, Best Practices Construction Law, problems can arise in a case with one owner and multiple contractors: “Increasingly, two or more contractors may each have a separate contract with the owner for different portions of the work on a single project.” The problems occur when contractor responsibilities or storage sites become entangled, “for example, from one contractor’s storage of materials on a site where the other has work to perform, or from one contractor’s failure to progress with work that is preliminary to the other’s work.” Devries adds that in “addition to claims against the other contractor, claims may also be made against the owner for failure to coordinate the work.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insured's Testimony On Expectation of Coverage Deemed Harmless

August 30, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Affirming the district court, the Third Circuit found that the insured's testimony that she expected her loss to be covered was harmless. Gordon v .Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13507 (3rd Cir. July 26, 2017). After a storm, portions of the stone facade of the insured's home collapsed. Allstate denied coverage because her policy was limited to "sudden and accident physical loss to the property" caused by a named peril, including windstorm. Allstate contended that the damage to the home was caused by neglect, not the storm. 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

CDJ’s #3 Topic of the Year: Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 (2014)

December 31, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In 2013, the case Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC received a great deal of attention for its possible ramifications to how California’s Right to Repair Act (also known as SB 800) could be applied. However, 2014 had its share of SB 800 policy trends, most notably caused by the ruling in Burch. In their article, “Construction Law Client Alert: California’s Right to Repair Act (SB 800) Takes Another Hit, Then Fights Back,” authors Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefco, of Haight Brown & Bonesteel, analyzed Burch as well as KB Home Greater Los Angeles v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, et al., both cases that had ramifications on how California’s Right to Repair Act is applied. Read the full story... Karen L. Moore of Low, Ball & Lynch discussed the Liberty Mutual and Burch cases in her article, “California’s Right to Repair Act is Not a Homeowner’s Exclusive Remedy when Construction Defects cause Actual Property Damage.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES