Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Drawing the Line: In Tennessee, the Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Apply to Contracts for Services

December 11, 2023 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Commercial Painting Co. v. Weitz Co. LLC, No. W2019-02089-SC-R11-CV, 2023 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (Weitz), the Supreme Court of Tennessee (Supreme Court) considered whether the economic loss doctrine barred the plaintiff’s claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and punitive damages arising out of a contract with the defendant for construction services. The court held that the economic loss doctrine only applies to product liability cases and does not apply to claims arising from contracts for services. This case establishes that, in Tennessee, the economic loss doctrine does not bar tort claims in disputes arising from service contracts. In Weitz, defendant, Weitz Co. LLC (Weitz), was the general contractor for a construction project and hired plaintiff Commercial Painting Co. (Commercial) as a drywall subcontractor. Weitz refused to pay Commercial for several of its payment applications, claiming that the applications were submitted untimely and contained improper change order requests. Commercial filed a lawsuit against Weitz seeking over $1.9 million in damages, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, enforcement of a mechanic’s lien, and interest and attorney’s fees under the Prompt Pay Act of 1991. Weitz filed a counterclaim for $500,000 for costs allegedly incurred due to Commercial’s delay and defective workmanship. In response, Commercial amended its complaint to add claims for fraud, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, rescission of the contract and $10 million in punitive damages. Commercial alleged that Weitz received an extension of the construction schedule but fraudulently withheld this information from Commercial and continued to impose unrealistic deadlines. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Big Policyholder Win in Michigan

January 05, 2017 — Jeremiah M. Welch – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Jeremiah Welch and Michael Barrese recently had a big win in front of the Michigan Court of Appeals. The case (Skanska-Schweitzer v. Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Michigan) involved Skanska’s claim for defense and indemnity from Farm Bureau Ins. Co. of Michigan for an injury to an elementary school student arising out of the removal of playground equipment by a landscaping company, Horrocks. Farm Bureau denied coverage because it claimed that the work was not part of Horrocks’ contract with the project owner and therefore Skanska, the construction manager, did not qualify as an additional insured on the policy. SDV argued that the AI endorsement did not specify that Horrocks’ work be performed as part of its contract with the owner; it only required that the work be performed “for Skanska.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremiah M. Welch, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Welch may be contacted at jmw@sdvlaw.com

Executing Documents with Powers of Attorney and Confessions of Judgment in PA Just Got Easier

October 27, 2016 — Thomas C. Rogers, Nancy Sabol Frantz and Susan Fetterman – White and Williams LLP
Certain tedious requirements in Pennsylvania for the execution of a document used in a commercial transaction which contains a power of attorney have been eliminated. Act 103 of 2016, which was signed by Governor Wolf on October 4, 2016, exempts certain powers of attorney from the requirement that it be acknowledged by a notary public as well as other formalities. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Thomas C. Rogers, Nancy Sabol Frantz and Susan Fetterman Mr. Rogers may be contacted at rogerst@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Frantz may be contacted at frantzn@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Fetterman may be contacted at fettermans@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Look at Trending Legislative Changes Impacting Workers' Comp

February 26, 2024 — Rosanna Shamash - Construction Executive
The tides are shifting in the construction industry when it comes to legal matters—and business owners could feel the brunt of it. Recent legislative changes in the state of New York could signal how workers’ compensation cases move forward across the country and impact business owners in the space. Arguably, New York has historically laid the groundwork for workers’ compensation law in numerous other states. Now, we’re seeing a clear shift in favor of workers with some of the recent legislative changes. Owners, operators and executives in the construction space have increasingly found themselves facing costly claims that in years prior carried a smaller dollar value and were largely viewed as inconsequential. So, what’s the best way for business owners in the construction industry to protect their businesses for the future? Start by gaining a basic understanding of changes in the legal landscape, by securing defense attorneys who know the construction space and by taking steps to protect your business before an incident happens. Reprinted courtesy of Rosanna Shamash, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CDJ’s #8 Topic of the Year: California’s Board of Equalization Tower

December 31, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Imagine a workplace where bats fly, floors flood, and glass panels randomly pop out of the building to shatter on the sidewalk. Add to that repairs that could total more than twice the purchase price, and you have a story. Especially when it involves a California government facility. Jon Ortiz of the Sacramento Bee shared the story on Insurance News. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking State's Enforcement of New Law Banning Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements

February 24, 2020 — Amy R. Patton, Jeffrey K. Brown & Tyler B. Runge - Payne & Fears
On January 31, 2020, Judge Kimberly Mueller issued a preliminary injunction "in full" preventing the State of California from enforcing AB 51, the state's new law effectively banning mandatory employee arbitration agreements. As we previously reported, AB 51 adds section 432.6 to the Labor Code and section 12953 to the Government Code, which together prohibit employers from requiring an employee, as a condition of employment, continued employment, or receipt of employment-related benefits, to waive any right, forum, or procedure to pursue a claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or the Labor Code. In other words, AB 51 bans mandatory employment arbitration agreements for employment-related claims. In early December 2019, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a coalition of business organizations sued the state of California in federal court in a bid to have AB 51 declared preempted --- and therefore unenforceable --- by the Federal Arbitration Act. The case is Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Becerra, Case No. 2:19-cv-2456 KJM DB (E.D. Cal.). On December 30, 2019, Judge Mueller issued a temporary restraining order preventing the state from enforcing AB 51 pending the resolution of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. You can read our report here. Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears attorneys Amy R. Patton, Jeffrey K. Brown and Tyler B. Runge Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Brown may be contacted at kb@paynefears.com Mr. Runge may be contacted at tbr@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court of Appeal Shines Light on Collusive Settlement Agreements

October 21, 2015 — Kristian B. Moriarty & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Diamond v. Reshko, (filed 8/20/2015, No. A139251) the California Court of Appeal, First District, held that a defendant was entitled to introduce evidence at trial reflecting amounts paid by co-defendants in settlement of a plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff, Christine Diamond, was injured during an automobile accident that occurred while she was a passenger in a taxi driven by Amir Mansouri. Christine, and her husband Andrew, filed suit against Mr. Mansouri, the Yellow Cab Collective (“Yellow Cab”), and the driver of the vehicle that collided with the taxi, Serge Reshko. Before trial, Mansouri and the Yellow Cab Collective settled with Plaintiffs, but agreed to appear and participate as defendants at the jury trial of the action. Mansouri and Yellow Cab paid a total of $400,000 to Plaintiffs in settlement. Reshko filed a pre-trial motion seeking an order permitting Reshko to admit evidence of the settlement between Plaintiffs and the other defendants. The trial court refused to rule on the motion before trial. Ultimately, evidence of the settlement between Plaintiffs, Mansouri and Yellow Cab was excluded during trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs in the total amount of $745,778, finding Mansouri 40 percent at fault, and Reshko 60 percent at fault. The Trial Court entered judgment against Reshko in the sum of $406,698. Reshko appealed the judgment. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that evidence of the settlement should have been admitted at trial because the settling defendant’s position should be revealed to the court and jury to avoid committing a fraud on the court, and in order to permit the trier of fact to properly weigh the settling defendant’s testimony. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Gaps in Insurance Created by Complex Risks

January 22, 2024 — The Hartford Staff - The Hartford Insights
From slips, trips and falls to extreme weather and cyberattacks, businesses are regularly confronted with risks to operations and profitability. In 2023, elevated building costs, increased flooding, and growing ransomware attacks made it compelling for business owners to make sure they had adequate insurance to stay ahead of property and liability exposures. However, if left unchecked, these trends can lead to gaps in coverage. As 2024 approaches, now is the time to assess your risk and collaborate with the right resources to fill any potential voids in insurance. Economic inflation for example has changed property valuations, which can result in coverage gaps if policyholders have not examined their replacement costs recently. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES