Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Failure to Consider Safety Element in Design Does Not Preclude Public Entity’s Discretionary Authority Under Design Immunity Defense

May 16, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In Rodriguez v. Department of Transportation, Case No. F074027 (March 27, 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District considered the following mind-twister: Can you knowingly approve something (which does not include something else) if you never considered the absence of that “something else?” Think about that for a moment . . . or, better yet, just read on. Rodriguez v. Department of Transportation In 2013, a pickup truck traveling westbound on State Route 152 toward Los Banos, California, ran off the road injuring Erik Rodriguez and the driver and killing another passenger. Rodriguez sued the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) on the ground that the accident was caused by a dangerous condition on public property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

A Brief Discussion – Liquidating Agreements

June 27, 2022 — Gerard J. Onorata - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
During a construction project, it is not uncommon for disputes to arise between a general contractor and a subcontractor. Frequently, these disputes involve claims for extra work and delay damages that can be attributed to the owner of the project due to deficient design or unforeseen conditions. When these occasions arise, the parties can often resolve these claims without the need for litigation or arbitration by entering into a “liquidating agreement.” What is a Liquidating Agreement? Because there is no direct contractual relationship between a subcontractor and an owner, there does not exist a legal basis for a subcontractor to assert a breach of contract claim against a project owner. In legal parlance, this is known as “lack of contractual privity.” A liquidating agreement bridges this contractual gap and allows a subcontractor to pass its claim against the owner through the general contractor. Essentially, with a liquidating agreement, the general contractor acts as a conduit for passing through the subcontractor’s claim. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gerard J. Onorata, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Onorata may be contacted at gonorata@pecklaw.com

2015-2016 California Labor & Employment Laws Affecting Construction Industry

October 28, 2015 — Steven M. Cvitanovic, David A. Harris, & Kristen Lee Price – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Earlier this month, California Governor Jerry Brown signed dozens of bills that affect employers. Many of these bills have special significance to the construction industry. Here is a brief review: Assembly Bill 219 – Prevailing Wages for Concrete Delivery on Public Projects AB 219 continues California’s aggressive expansion of prevailing wages. This bill expands the definition of “public works” for purposes of state prevailing wage law to include the hauling or delivery of ready-mixed concrete for a public works project. Previously, delivery drivers hired by a material supplier were exempted from the prevailing wage. Before AB 219, labor law made a distinction between “suppliers” and “contractors.” Thus, ready-mixed concrete was held to be a finished product, and treated differently from a product that was assembled on site. The new law eliminates this distinction. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys Steven M. Cvitanovic, David A. Harris and Kristen Lee Price Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Appellate Court Endorses Discretionary Test for Vicarious Disqualification of Law Firms Due To New Attorney’s Conflict

February 07, 2018 — David W. Evans and Stephen M. Tye – Publications & Insights
In California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund et al. v. The Superior Court of Orange County (1/26/2018 – No. G054981), the Fourth Appellate District considered whether vicarious disqualification of a law firm is mandatory or discretionary where an attorney with a conflict joins a firm and the firm enacts an ethical screen to prevent transmission of confidential information between the new attorney and the rest of the firm. This case arose from an effort by the California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund (the “Fund”) to be reimbursed for workers’ compensation benefits advanced on behalf of the Healthcare Industry Self-Insurance Program (the “Program”). The Fund hired Nixon Peabody LLP (“Nixon Peabody”) to represent it in connection with this matter. In November 2013, represented by members of Nixon Peabody’s San Francisco office, the Fund filed a lawsuit naming 304 members of the Program as defendants. Approximately 170 defendants have since settled. Two of the non-settling defendants (“Moving Parties”), were represented by Michelman & Robinson, LLP (“M&R”). From approximately 2009 until February 1, 2017, attorney Andrew Selesnick served as Chair of M&R’s Health Care Department at the firm’s Los Angeles office, managing a team of attorneys who represented clients in the healthcare industry. Commencing in 2014, a team of four attorneys at M&R, including Selesnick, represented the Moving Parties and four other defendants, the latter of whom have since settled. Selesnick was actively involved, including participating in a confidential discussion pertaining to Moving Parties’ liability and damages and receiving many e-mails containing communications about the common defense of the remaining 170 defendants. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown Bonesteel and Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown Bonesteel Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Heat Stress Deaths Show Europe Isn’t Ready for Climate Change

August 07, 2023 — Olivia Rudgard - Bloomberg
More than 60,000 people died as a result of record-breaking temperatures in Europe last summer, a study has found, raising concerns about multiple countries’ lack of preparation for extreme heat fueled by climate change. Between May 30 and Sept. 4 of last year, there were 61,672 deaths caused by hot weather across 35 European countries, according to the study by researchers at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health and the French National Institute of Health, published in the journal Nature Medicine. Last year’s was the warmest summer ever recorded on the continent, breaking a record set just one year earlier. Temperatures were more than 2C above the recent average for countries that included France, Switzerland and Spain. Last year’s extreme-heat casualties echo an earlier hot summer in 2003, when 70,000 excess deaths were recorded across Europe. The loss of life led several countries to introduce early-warning systems for heat waves, as well as more planning around health care services. But the large number of deaths in 2022 shows the limitations of these measures, the study’s authors noted. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Olivia Rudgard, Bloomberg

A Court-Side Seat: A FACA Fight, a Carbon Pledge and Some Venue on the SCOTUS Menu

November 02, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
In this summary of recent developments in environmental and regulatory law, venues are challenged, standing is upheld, statutory exemption is disputed and more. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Change Must Come from Within … Maryland? As the new term begins, the Court has agreed to review BP PLC v. Mayor and City Council of Maryland, a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which held that a climate change damages case filed against many energy companies must be heard in the state courts of Maryland and not the federal courts. The petitioners argue that the federal office removal statute authorizes such removal, and the Fourth Circuit’s contrary decision conflicts with rulings from other circuit courts. THE FEDERAL COURTS Where Is the Fund in That? On September 25,2020, in U.S. House of Representatives v. Mnuchin, et al., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the lower court should not have dismissed a lawsuit filed by the U.S. House of Representatives challenging the Executive Branch’s transferal of appropriated funds to the Department of Defense to build a physical barrier along the southern border of the United State. The case is More than $8 billion is at stake, a sum that had been transferred from various federal accounts not involved with building the wall. The appeals court held that the lower court should not have dismissed this lawsuit because the House of Representatives had standing to bring this lawsuit even if the U.S. Senate was not involved with this litigation. Accordingly, the case was returned to the lower court for additional findings, with the appeals court noting that the Constitution’s Appropriation’s Clause serves as an important check on the Executive Branch. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

School System Settles Design Defect Suit for $5.2Million

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A school district in New York State has settled a dispute with its architectural and engineering firm for $5.2 million. Greece School District alleged that the multi-million dollar remodel lead to a variety of problems due to design defects. The problems included leaking roofs, malfunctioning drainage systems, and problems with heating systems. Tetra Tech had one work at 20 schools in the district. The state Comptroller audited the $119.5 million renovation project and concluded that haste in the planning resulted in costly changes. Prior to the lawsuit, the architectural and engineering firm managed to recoup about $200,000 on behalf of the school district for work that was defective. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer’s Consent Not Needed for Settlement

October 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Texas Supreme Court has concluded in Lennar Corp. v. Markel Am. Ins. Co. that “the costs incurred by a builder to locate and repair damage caused by the builder’s defective product are covered under its general liability insurance policy.” Hunton & Williams have issued a Client Alert discussing the case. For the background of the case, Lennar built about 800 homes using EIFS. The EIFS trapped water and the homes suffered from rot, structural damage, mold, mildew, and termites. Lennar fixed all the homes so built, avoiding litigation. Lennar “notifed its insurers of the defects and invited its insurers to participate in the proactive remediation program.” A lower court had agreed with Markel, one of Lennar’s insurers, that the losses were not “caused by property damage,” and that Lennar should not have made “voluntary payments without Markel’s consent.” The Texas Supreme Court granted review, rejecting Markel’s argument and affirming the jury’s finding. According to Hunton & Williams, the implications of the Texas Lennar decision is that it “confirms that all insurers with policy in effect at the time of property damage are responsible for all sums for which the policyholder is liable.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES