Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Question of Parties' Intent Prevents Summary Judgment for Insurer

December 02, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's and insured's intent as to which entities were to be insured prevented the insurer's motion for summary judgment. Chaus v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136311 (E.D. La. Oct. 5, 2015). Water damage from a broken pipe occurred at the insured's building. Blaze Chaus LLC owned the building.The building was occupied by two entities which provided health care services: Dr. Kelly G. Burkenstock, M.D. and Azure Spa, Inc. Dr. Burkenstock was the sole owner of all three entities. The application for commercial insurance was submitted by "Dr. Kelly G. Burkenstock, d/b/a/ Blaze Chaus LLC." The application requested a "Physicians and Surgeons Endorsement" and reflected that the business activities of the applicant as "Internal Medicine Doctor." 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

Baltimore Bridge Collapse Occurred After Ship Lost Power Multiple Times

May 28, 2024 — Allyson Versprille - Bloomberg
The container ship that rammed into Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge in March lost power multiple times on both the day of the fatal accident and the day before, according to a preliminary report. The Dali, which sails under the flag of Singapore, lost power twice on March 26 before hitting the bridge and causing it to collapse, killing six construction workers who were on the structure at the time. The first blackout was caused when electrical breakers powering most of the vessel’s equipment and lighting unexpectedly tripped, the National Transportation Safety Board said in a report Tuesday. The crew eventually was able to restore electrical power, but then a second blackout occurred only 0.2 miles from the bridge. They regained power, but the ship lacked the propulsion needed to avoid striking the bridge, safety inspectors found. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Allyson Versprille, Bloomberg

Digitalizing the Hospital Design Requirements Process

April 02, 2019 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Decisions made at the early stages of a hospital project can have a huge impact on its life cycle value. To make sure that a hospital will be a good investment, its future users should be involved in helping set out the design requirements. A Finnish team of experts wanted to see if they could improve the process and set up an experiment to see how it could be done digitally. Currently, over one billion euros are budgeted to hospital construction and renovation in Finland. Globally, the sum is around US$400 billion. You would imagine that the design for such large investments would be very efficient from the start. Unfortunately, that is not the case. During the design phase, doctors, specialists, nurses, and other stakeholders take part in workshops in which they express their needs and requirements. For a large hospital project, 40 to 100 workshops are the norm. The work is done with a variety of tools, with sticky notes being the predominant technique. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Social Distancing and the Impact on Service of Process Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic

April 13, 2020 — Robert Devine, James Burger & Susan Zingone - White and Williams
Service of process usually requires person-to-person contact and is an essential part of civil procedure. It notifies the defendant of the legal proceedings against him/her and establishes jurisdiction. “Process” refers to the documents that must be served on a defendant. If service of process is not performed pursuant to the governing rules of civil procedure, a lawsuit cannot proceed. Service of Process in NJ and PA Personal service is required to be the first attempted means of service in New Jersey. If personal service is not successful, then service may be made by mailing a copy of the process via registered or certified mail with return receipt requested to the defendant’s usual place of abode or business/place of employment, or to an authorized agent. The party attempting to serve the defendant by mail can choose to mail the process by regular mail as well, and if the defendant refuses to accept or claim the registered or certified copy, and the regular mail copy is not returned, then service is considered effectuated. Pennsylvania allows for a defendant to be served via personal service by handing a copy to the defendant or by delivering a copy to an adult family household member at the defendant’s residence. Pennsylvania also permits service of process by mail. Process can be served by mail requiring a signature of the defendant. If the mail is unclaimed, alternative service must be attempted. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys Robert Devine, James Burger and Susan Zingone Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Burger may be contacted at burgerj@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Zingone may be contacted at zingones@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Consider Manner In Which Loan Agreement (Promissory Note) Is Drafted

March 02, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Consider who you loan money too and, perhaps more importantly, the manner in which your loan agreements (promissory notes) are drafted. By way of example, in what appears to be a failed construction project in Conrad FLB Management, LLC v. Diamond Blue International, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2897a (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), a group of lenders lent money to a limited liability company (“Company”) in connection with the development of a project. Promissory notes were executed by Company and executed by its managing member as a representative of Company, and not in a personal capacity. Company, however, did not own the project. Rather, an affiliated entity owned the project (“Affiliated Entity”). Affiliated Entity had the same managing member as Company. Once the Company received the loan proceeds, it transferred the money to Affiliated Entity, presumably for purposes of the project. The loans were not repaid and the lenders sued Company, Affiliated Entity, and its managing member, in a personal capacity. The lenders claimed they were all jointly liable under the promissory notes. Although the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the lenders, this was reversed on appeal as to the Affiliated Entity and the managing member because there was a factual issue as to whether they should be bound by the note executed on behalf of Company. First, Florida Statute s. 673.4011(1) provides that “a person is not liable on a promissory note unless either (a) the person signed the note, or (b) the person is represented by an agent who signed the note.” Conrad FLB Management, LLC, supra. Affiliated Entity is a separate entity and did not execute the note. 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 Litigation Roundup: “Builder’s Risk Indeed”

October 24, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A contractor for a hotel in Seattle was tasked with constructing the hotel utilizing premanufactured modular hotel rooms. The modular unit portion of the project was the subject of a $15.8 million subcontract between the general contractor and the manufacturer. The manufacturer was also responsible to the GC for shipping and installing the modular units. Shipping was to be “DDP,” or “Delivery Duty Paid” – which, according to a New York federal court, “is an international shipping term meaning that the seller assumes all responsibilities and costs for delivering property to the named place of destination, including export and import clearance, fees, duties, and taxes.” Additionally, per the subcontract, the manufacturer was responsible for “ensur[ing] all modular units [were] covered, secured[,] and protected from damage during the shipping process….” The modular units were shipped from Poland to Seattle. In the shipping process, the units spent some time in the Port of Everett in Washington state, where the units sustained water damage while sitting in port. A related damage claim made by the subcontractor against the general contractor’s builder’s risk policy. On the face of the policy, the policy covered subcontractors as “additional insured” parties, covered all manner of materials and the like to be used on the project, and would provide that coverage in the process of transporting the materials insofar as “inland or coastal waters” were concerned. Yet, the builder’s risk insurer refused to cover the claim for the damages to the modular units which occurred while sitting in port in Everett. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

French President Vows to Rebuild Fire-Collapsed Notre Dame Roof and Iconic Spire

June 03, 2019 — Scott Blair & Peter Reina - Engineering News-Record
Two British masonry experts familiar with centuries-old stone structures voiced concern that the catastrophic fire that collapsed the roof and spire of Notre Dame on April 15 could also have damaged stonework of the iconic Paris cathedral that may affect its stability. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Blair, ENR and Peter Reina, ENR Mr. Blair may be contacted at blairs@enr.com Mr. Reina may be contacted at reina@btinternet.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Do Engineers Owe a Duty to Third Parties?

June 10, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
A Texas Court of Appeals, in USA Walnut Creek, DST v. Terracon Consultants, Inc., recently ruled that an engineer owed a duty to the buyer of an apartment complex, even though the engineer had no contractual relationship with the buyer. This is an expansion of the duty professionals owe on construction projects and could signal a change in the law. In the case, Walnut Creek purchased a three year old apartment complex. A few years after taking possession, Walnut Creek noticed problems with the apartments, including cracking foundations, walls, breaking windows, and out of square door frames. Walnut Creek sued the developer and general contractor, alleging construction defects. The developer claimed that the engineer, Terracon, was at fault and Walnut Creek added Terracon to the lawsuit, asserting that Terracon was negligent in performing engineering services during construction. Terracon asked the court to dismiss the claim, arguing that it did not owe a duty to Walnut Creek. Walnut Creek in turn argued that engineers do owe a duty to subsequent owners. The trial court dismissed the case against the engineer and Walnut Creek appealed. The appellate court reversed the trial court, finding that the engineer did owe a duty to subsequent purchasers. The court seemed persuaded by the allegations that the engineer actually created the construction defects which were the basis for the litigation. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES