Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Haight’s Stevie Baris Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Northern California Rising Stars

July 19, 2021 — Stevie B. Baris - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Congratulations to Stevie Baris who was selected to the Super Lawyers 2021 Northern California Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5% of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, 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 annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stevie B. Baris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Baris may be contacted at sbaris@hbblaw.com

Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP Expands into Georgia

November 03, 2016 — Beverley BevenFlorez – CDJ Staff
Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP (WSHB) has opened a new regional office in Atlanta, Georgia. Richard E. Zelonka, Jr., will be the Managing Partner. With over a decade of trial experience, Mr. Zelonka has handled complex litigation in both state and federal courts throughout the Southeastern United States. “I am thrilled to be joining Wood Smith Henning & Berman. WSHB’s sterling reputation, coupled with its national footprint, is especially attractive. That, coupled with the Firm’s passionate dedication to their clients, made this move a very easy choice for me,” said Mr. Zelonka. “I could not be more excited to lead WSHB’s new Georgia office.” The Firm’s Atlanta office is located at 1170 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1200, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. The main phone number is (404) 885-5700. The fax number is (404) 506-9108. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Port Authority Approves Subsidies for 2 World Trade Project

December 10, 2015 — David M. Levitt – Bloomberg
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey approved subsidies to help expedite the construction of lower Manhattan’s 2 World Trade Center, where Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox Inc. and News Corp. companies have a tentative deal to move their headquarters from midtown. Developer Silverstein Properties Inc., which leases the sites for 2 World Trade Center and two other towers from the Port Authority, would receive a rent break that amounts to $9 million over the life of the lease, Authority Director Patrick Foye said, just before the agency board unanimously approved the proposal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Levitt, Bloomberg

Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

April 10, 2019 — Parker A. Lewton - Smith Currie
A contractor who has encountered unforeseen conditions will typically rely on the contract’s differing site conditions clause as a means to recovery. Most construction contracts address those issues directly. In ConsensusDocs Standard Agreement and General Conditions between Owner and Constructor, the starting point is § 3.16.2. But what if the contract does not contain a differing site conditions clause? Or, what if the contract does contain such a clause, but the contractor failed to provide adequate notice or satisfy other conditions or requirements of the contract? When reliance on a differing site conditions clause is impractical, a contractor still may seek recovery in certain instances under one or more of the following legal theories: misrepresentation; fraud; duty to disclose; breach of implied warranty; and mutual mistake. Misrepresentation Misrepresentation occurs when an owner “misleads a contractor by a negligently untrue representation of fact[.]” John Massman Contracting Co. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 24, 31 (1991) (citing Morrison–Knudsen Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 712, 718–19, 345 F.2d 535, 539 (1965)). A contractor may be able to recover extra costs incurred, under a theory of misrepresentation, if it can show that (1) the owner made an erroneous representation, (2) the erroneous representation went to a material fact, (3) the contractor honestly and reasonably relied on that representation, and (4) the contractor’s reliance on the erroneous representation was to the contractor’s detriment. See T. Brown Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 132 F.3d 724, 728–29 (Fed. Cir. 1997). These four requirements can be satisfied, for example, through the use of deposition testimony detailing the owner’s representations and the contractor’s reliance thereon. See, e.g., C & H Commercial Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 246, 256–57 (1996). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Parker A. Lewton, Smith Currie
Mr. Parker may be contacted at palewton@smithcurrie.com

Recent Changes in the Law Affecting Construction Defect Litigation

October 19, 2017 — David M. McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation
On May 23, 2017, Governor Hickenlooper signed HB17-1279 into law. The bill states that before an HOA’s executive board can institute a construction defect action, it must provide notice of the anticipated commencement of the action to each of the HOA’s unit owners, along with certain disclosures about the anticipated action. The bill also requires that the HOA executive committee convene a meeting of the unit owners to consider the action, and that the construction professionals against which the claim is being brought have the opportunity to address the members of the HOA. The bill also states that the HOA executive committee may only initiate a construction defect action if it is approved by “owners of units to which a majority of votes in the association are allocated.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Be Careful When Requiring Fitness for Duty Examinations

October 21, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Fitness for Duty examinations can be an important part of an employer’s hiring and retention protocol. The Nebraska Supreme Court recently clarified when an employer may require applicants and employees to undergo fitness for duty examinations. In Arens v. Nebco, Inc., the court ruled that an employer must have a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its demand that a current employee submit to a fitness for duty examination. In this case, Lenard Arens suffered two significant injuries over the course of his 25 years of employment with Nebco. The second injury, a closed head injury, limited the type of work he could do and required written instructions due to short term memory loss. Arens was assigned to drive tractor-trailer trucks. Several years after returning to work, Arens had two minor accidents with his truck within a matter of days. Arens supervisor required him to undergo fitness for duty examination. Arens failed the fitness for duty examination and was terminated. Arens filed suit, claiming that Nebco discriminated against him by making him take a fitness for duty test. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies

November 12, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
On August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public policy” of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in Pitzer had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law – which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York – that provision can be overridden by California’s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in Pitzer also held that the notice-prejudice rule “generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,” but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context. The Pitzer case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer “denied coverage based on Pitzer’s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer’s] consent before commencing the remediation process.” The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until “three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment “claiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy’s notice and consent provisions.” Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

ConsensusDOCS Hits the Cloud

April 02, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have discussed the ConsensusDOCS here at Musings on a few occasions. These relatively new form documents, endorsed by the AGC among other trade organizations, are a great counterpoint to the AIA documents that we all are more than familiar with and as construction attorneys and contractors have likely reviewed on numerous occasions. Recently, these documents have joined the parade and have taken to the cloud. The folks at ConsensusDOCS made this move to ease the type of collaboration that I have discussed must occur on construction projects among the players. The use of the cloud based technology is one of the first uses of this technology to increase productivity. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES