FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Domingo Tan Receives Prestigious Ollie Award: Excellence in Construction Defect Community

May 28, 2024 — Wood Smith Henning & Berman
(Anaheim, CA.) - Wood Smith Henning & Berman is thrilled to announce that Domingo Tan, a partner in the Los Angeles office, has been awarded the prestigious Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence. Fondly known as the "Ollie", this esteemed accolade is presented annually to a standout professional in the construction defect community who has demonstrated exceptional contributions and unwavering dedication to the field. The exciting announcement of Tan's victory took place during the 30th Anniversary of the West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar in Anaheim. Widely recognized as the nation's largest conference for professionals handling construction defect matters, the event drew a remarkable gathering of general counsel, risk managers, claim professionals, and attorneys who actively participated in the nomination and voting process. The Ollie award pays tribute to the late Judge Jerrold S. Oliver, a highly respected legal professional renowned for his groundbreaking work in alternate dispute resolution methods for construction defect disputes. It celebrates individuals who embody the values of loyalty, commitment, and trust within the industry. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wood Smith Henning & Berman

---

Luxury Villa Fraudsters Jailed for Madeira Potato Field Scam

September 25, 2018 — Franz Wild - Bloomberg
Four men and a woman convicted of conning people to invest in a fraudulent luxury villa construction scheme on a potato field in the Portuguese island of Madeira were sentenced to as long as 5 1/2 years in a U.K. jail. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Franz Wild, Bloomberg

---

They Say Nothing Lasts Forever, but What If Decommissioning Does?

June 10, 2019 — Stella Pulman - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The looming decommissioning liabilities of offshore energy producers have been a focus of the federal government in recent years. One recent case out of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Taylor Energy v. United States, highlights the tension between the federal government’s desire to maintain financial security for decommissioning activities, and that of an operator whose security is tied up indefinitely while the government awaits technological advances to allow for safe decommissioning. The case relates to a trust agreement between Taylor Energy and the United States, established to secure Taylor’s decommissioning liabilities for 28 wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Taylor completed certain decommissioning work for which it was reimbursed by the trust. However, with over $400 million remaining in the trust, Taylor and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) concluded that the ecological benefits of further decommissioning would be outweighed by the ecological risks. But despite recognizing that the limitations of current technology made the environmental impacts of further decommissioning work unjustifiable, the BSEE declined to release Taylor from its decommissioning obligations and instead decided to await “changes in technology and a better understanding of the undersea environment.” Because Taylor’s decommissioning obligations remained in place, the U.S. refused to release the remaining funds in the trust. Taylor claimed that the United States should release the remaining funds in the trust because “decommissioning the remaining wells is not ‘currently technologically feasible.’” Taylor asserted that Louisiana law applied to the trust agreement, and that under Louisiana law every contract must be completed within an ascertainable term. By holding the trust funds until decommissioning was complete, Taylor argued that the government was essentially holding the funds in perpetuity given the technological infeasibility of completing decommissioning. Taylor also asserted that the agreement was premised on an impossibility (the full decommissioning of the wells), and/or a mutual mistake of the parties (that the wells could be decommissioned). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stella Pulman, Pillsbury
Ms. Pulman may be contacted at stella.pulman@pillsburylaw.com

---

Constructing a New American Dream

August 06, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Shelley D. Hutchins in Big Builder interviewed various architects and engineers to discuss the future of home design and building. Obtaining the American Dream “means having a place of sanctuary and security as well as shelter,” Hutchins wrote. “What that house looks like and how it functions is changing to accommodate different family make-ups, population and culture shifts toward denser more integrated communities, and increasingly extreme weather patterns.” Hutchins declared, “According to experts, educators, and experimenters in the residential design and construction industry many solutions for building houses for the future involve revisiting what worked before. Combining historic research with new innovations is what will produce the best housing.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Carillion Fallout Affects Major Hospital Project in Liverpool

October 30, 2018 — Peter Reina - Engineering News-Record
Managers of a 90%-complete, 646-bed hospital in Liverpool will take charge of the project after unravelling a public-private partnership with the contractor Carillion Plc, which collapsed ignominiously in January (ENR 1/22 p. 12). Following cancellation of the contractor’s other large U.K. hospital P3, near Birmingham, project lenders face large losses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Peter Reina, ENR
Mr. Reina may be contacted at reina@btinternet.com

---

Does Your 998 Offer to Compromise Include Attorneys’ Fees and Costs?

June 15, 2017 — Anthony J. Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer to compromise is explained in section 998(c)(1):

If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added). The Basic Requirements for a Valid 998 Offer Pursuant to section 998(b), a 998 offer must satisfy three principal conditions: (1) it must be contained in a writing; (2) it must state the terms and conditions of the proposed judgment or award; and (3) it must contain a provision allowing the offeree to accept the offer by signing a statement to that effect. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(b). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony J. Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

---

Foreclosure Deficiency: Construction Loan vs. Home Improvement Loan

November 12, 2019 — Kevin J. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, Helvetica Servicing, Inc., v. Pasquan, 2019 WL 3820015, (8/15/19), the Court of Appeals addressed the distinction between (1) a construction loan (or refinance of same) and (2) a home improvement loan (or refinance of same), as it relates to Arizona’s anti-deficiency statute, A.R.S. §33-729(A). In general, an anti-deficiency statute provides that although a purchase-money lender or a construction lender can – in appropriate circumstances – foreclose on their loan and cause a sale of the property to pay the loan, the lender cannot (if the statutory criteria are met) force the homeowner/borrower to pay the remaining balance still owed on the loan following the foreclosure (known as the deficiency). In other words, if the anti-deficiency rule applies, the lender’s sole remedy to collect on the loan is a foreclosure sale of the property; and the homeowner/borrower’s downside risk is loss of the property in foreclosure; the homeowner/borrower does not have any personal liability to pay the remaining unpaid balance of the loan post-foreclosure. In effect, the homeowner/borrower can simply walk away and not have to repay the loan. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com

---

Montana Federal Court Upholds Application of Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

November 08, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Interpreting Montana law, the federal district court found that the policy's anti-concurrent causation clause prevented coverage for the insured's damaged home. Ward v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149051 (D. Mont. Aug. 9, 2021). Plaintiff was advised by her tenants that water was bubbling up from the ground. It was determined that water was leaking from a main pipe serving the property. Subsequently, this old pipe was abandoned, left in the ground, and replaced with a new pipe in a new path with new excavation. Nevertheless, the insured reported the incident to her agent under her Landlord Protection Policy issued by Safeco, but reported there was no damage to the property. Two months later, it was discovered a pipe burst again. The insured called her agent, who maintained the loss would not be covered, but agreed to submit a claim to Safeco. Safeco hired an inspector. A report stated that a portion of cracks found in the concrete perimeter of the home were not new and that the shape of the structure on which the house sat could explain their presence. The report noted that new cracks in the foundation could have been caused by a lack of care to make sure that the foundation was sufficient supported by consolidated soil during the excavation of the new water line. Based upon this report, Safeco denied coverage based upon the earth movement and water damage exclusions. 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

---