Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act: What Every Employer Should Know

April 06, 2020 — Donald A. Velez, Karissa L. Fox & Sarah K. Carpenter - Smith Currie
Smith Currie provides this update regarding the Families First Coronavirus Response Act as part of its continuing effort to monitor developments concerning the Coronavirus disease (“COVID-19”) and provide guidance as to potential issues that may arise in businesses across the United States. On March 18, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (the “Act”), which contains provisions requiring certain private employers to provide paid leave to employees who cannot work because of Coronavirus, expanding Family and Medical Leave Act coverage, providing for federal tax credits to affected employers, and providing eligible states the ability to further fund their unemployment trust fund accounts. The Act is effective as of April 2, 2020 and will remain in place through December 31, 2020. Below, we provide a summary of the Act and several of its key components, including the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (“EFMLEA”), the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act, and the Emergency Unemployment Insurance Stabilization and Access Act. Reprinted courtesy of Smith Currie attorneys Donald A. Velez, Karissa L. Fox and Sarah K. Carpenter Mr. Velez may be contacted at davelez@smithcurrie.com Ms. Fox may be contacted at klfox@smithcurrie.com Ms. Carpenter may be contacted at skcarpenter@smithcurrie.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

In a Win for Property Owners California Court Expands and Clarifies Privette Doctrine

March 28, 2018 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
We’ve written before about the Privette doctrine, which generally holds that a higher-tiered party is not liable for injuries sustained by employees of a lower-tiered party under the peculiar risk doctrine, here, here, here and here. We’ve also talked about some of the exceptions to the Privette doctrine, including the non-delegable duty doctrine and the negligent exercise of retained control doctrine, which provide that a hirer cannot rely on the Privette doctrine if it owed a non-delegable duty to an employee of an independent contractor or if it retained control over the work of an employee of an independent contractor and negligently exercised that control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to injuries to that employee. In the next case, Delgadillo v. Television Center, Inc., Second District Court of Appeals, Case No. B270985 (February 2, 2018), the Court examined whether a property owner could be held liable under the non-delegable duty doctrine and negligent exercise of retained control doctrine for failing to provide structural anchor bolts on its buildings which led to the death of an employee of window washing company. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rose, Black, & Dean, LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Fair Share Act Does Not Preempt Common Law When Apportioning Liability

March 09, 2020 — Mark T. Caloyer & Joelle Nelson - Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
On February 19, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a long awaited opinion in the matter of Roverano v. John Crane, Inc., No. 26 EAP 2018, No. 27 EAP 2018 (Pa. 2020). The Court’s opinion is a must-read for anyone involved in asbestos litigation in Pennsylvania. In Roverano, the Court ruled that Pennsylvania’s Fair Share Act (42 Pa.C.S. § 7102) does not preempt Pennsylvania common law favoring per capita apportionment of liability to strict liability defendants. In addition, the Court ruled that bankruptcy trusts, that are either joined as third-party defendants or that have entered into a release with the plaintiff, may be included on the verdict sheet for purposes of liability. In this case, Mr. Roverano sued 30 defendants in strict liability and Defendant Crane filed a joinder complaint against Johns-Manville Personal Injury Trust. The case proceeded to trial against eight defendants in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. At trial, some of the defendants filed motions in limine seeking a ruling that the Fair Share Act applied to asbestos cases. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that asbestos exposure cannot be quantified, and held that that it would apportion liability on a per capita basis consistent with the Court’s opinion in Baker v. AC&S, 755 A.2d 664 (Pa. 2000). Reprinted courtesy of Mark T. Caloyer, Lewis Brisbois and Joelle Nelson, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Caloyer may be contacted at Mark.Caloyer@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Nelson may be contacted at Joelle.Nelson@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Collapse of Breezeway Attached to Building Covered

February 24, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court found that a breezeway that collapsed during a party was covered by the commercial property policy. DENC, LLC v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179083 (M.D. N.C. Oct. 15, 2019). DENC owned an apartment complex that was insured by Philadelphia under an all-risk policy. During an early morning party, a large number of students gathered on the second-floor breezeway for a party. The students started jumping in the breezeway when a certain song started playing. The floor abruptly collapsed underneath the students. Philadelphia sent an adjuster to inspect the breezeway a couple days later. He wrote to Philadelphia that "the sole and proximate cause of the loss is water damage occurring over an extended period of time causing the second floor breezeway to sage and the light weight concrete to crack." Shortly thereafter, the building was condemned. A structural engineer found multiple ways in which water had seeped into the breezeway's wood framing and photographed the resulting biological growth and wood decay. He concluded that the building had sustained significant long-term water intrusion which resulted in the wood framing inability to support the loads. The water intrusion was caused by the failure to properly install a water management system on the walls, a properly integrated waterproof system for the walkway slab and framing configuration, and improper venting of dryers. DENC retained an engineer who testified that the breezeway was sagging because the concrete had broken. 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

Partner Vik Nagpal is Recognized as a Top Lawyer of 2020

June 29, 2020 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Please join us in congratulating San Diego Partner Vik Nagpal for being recognized as a Top Lawyer of 2020 by San Diego Magazine! San Diego Magazine works with Martindale-Hubbell to choose top lawyers who have reached the highest level of ethical standards and professional excellence. Vik Nagpal was evaluated and given the highest ratings by the colleagues using a peer reviewed Vik Nagpal is the managing partner of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara LLP’s San Diego offices, as well as directing the firm’s business development. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Is an Initial Decision Maker, Project Neutral, or Dispute Resolution Board Right for You?

July 14, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
Recently, I participated in a roundtable hosted by JAMS with experienced South Florida construction lawyers and retired circuit court judges to discuss the pros and cons of utilizing an initial decision maker (“IDM” and also referred to as a project neutral) or a dispute resolution board (“DRB”) to resolve disputes on construction projects. The IDM and DRB are designed to resolve disputes, specifically claims (whether for time, money, or both), during construction to keep the project progressing forward without being bogged down by the inevitable claim. There are numerous avenues to resolve disputes without resorting to filing a lawsuit or a demand for arbitration. The thought is that dispute resolution will be facilitated by techniques designed to assist the parties with the resolution of claims during construction. While direct discussions between the parties, meetings with the executives for business decision purposes, mediations, etc., are certainly helpful, sometimes these avenues are simply not enough to truly resolve a complex claim on a construction project that occurs during construction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Agent May Be Liable for Failing to Submit Claim

November 01, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
After the agent informed the insured there was no coverage and submitting a claim would be a useless effort, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal of the insured's suit against the agent. Pflueger, Inc. v. AIG Holdings, Inc., 2022 Haw. App. LEXIS 279 (Haw. Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2022). In May 2008, Pflueger notified its agent, Noguchi & Associates, Inc., that it had received federal grand jury subpoenas. Noguchi informed Pflueger that the subpoenas did not qualify as a "claim" under two policies issued by National Union. Consequently, Noguchi did not forward a claim or the subpoenas to National Union and did not seek clarification as to whether the grand jury subpoenas were covered under the policies. Pflueger relied upon Noguchi's representations and took no further action until its attorney submitted a demand letter tendering Pflueger's defense to Nation Union nine months later, in February 2009. 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

Product Liability Alert: “Sophisticated User” Defense Not Available by Showing Existence of a “Sophisticated Intermediary”

November 26, 2014 — R. Bryan Martin & Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Gottschall v. Crane Co., (No. A136516, Filed 10/8/2014, published 10/22/2014), the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, held a company that manufactured and sold asbestos-containing products could not prevail under the “sophisticated user” doctrine based on the contention that a “sophisticated intermediary” existed, in an action brought by the end user of the products. Decedent Robert Gottschall worked in a variety of shipyards for the U.S. Navy between 1957 and 1989. Defendant Crane Co. (“Crane”) manufactured and sold products containing asbestos to the Navy during that time. During his work at the various shipyards, decedent was exposed to asbestos and contracted mesothelioma. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES