FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Mediation Fails In Federal Lawsuit Seeking Damages From Sureties for Alleged Contract Fraud

August 17, 2020 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
After mediation failed, a federal whistle blower lawsuit over alleged fraud against two contractors, which also targets sureties and a surety bond producer, is moving forward. The parties have asked a U.S. district court judge in Washington, D.C. to rule on outstanding motions in preparation for a possible trial. Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Update: Amazon Can (Still) Be Liable in Louisiana

December 31, 2024 — Michael Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation Strategist
On November 25, 2024, in Pickard v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-01448, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215377, the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (District Court) ruled that Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) could be liable for manufacturer-seller liability under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) for a defective product sold by a third-party seller through the “Fulfillment by Amazon” program (FBA). The court also dismissed two tort claims against Amazon as follows: (i) Amazon does not qualify as a “seller” for purposes of non-manufacturer seller liability (because passing title is required for that claim); and (ii) there is insufficient evidence to prove the decedent, Archie Pickard (Pickard), relied on Amazon’s safety practices when purchasing the defective product, precluding a claim for negligent undertaking. Background Pickard died from injuries sustained in a house fire allegedly caused by a defective battery charger he purchased on Amazon. Jisell, a Chinese company and a third-party seller, manufactured and sold the charger. Amazon never took title to the charger but stored it in its warehouse and delivered it to Pickard through the FBA. Pickard’s children filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Amazon alleging three claims: (i) manufacturer-seller liability under the LPLA; and tort-based claims of (ii) non-manufacturer seller liability and (iii) negligent undertaking. After Amazon moved for summary judgment on all claims, the District Court certified questions to the Supreme Court of Louisiana (Supreme Court) seeking guidance as there was minimal guidance regarding the application of products claims to online marketplaces. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Certified Question Asks Hawaii Supreme Court to Determine Coverage for Allegations of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

October 09, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court certified questions to the Hawaii Supreme Court regarding coverage for underlying allegations of greenhouse gas emissions. Aloha Petroleum, Ltd. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156211 (D. Haw. Sept. 5, 2023). Aloha was sued in two lawsuits, one filed by the County of Maui and the second filed by the City and County of Honolulu. The underlying lawsuits alleged that Aloha disregarded known risks of harm to the counties when selling its fuel products that would inevitably combust and produce greenhouse gasses, particularly carbon dioxide, thereby changing the climate and causing harm to the counties. Aloha tendered the suits to AIG. Coverage was denied based on AIG's determination there was no "occurrence" and the pollution exclusion barred coverage. Aloha sued AIG in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment on AIG's obligations under the policy. 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

---

Design Professional Needs a License to be Sued for Professional Negligence

January 13, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
“With regard to claims for professional negligence, the Florida Supreme Court has explained that ‘where the negligent party is a professional, the law imposes a duty to perform the requested services in accordance with the standard of care used by similar professionals in the community under similar circumstances.’” Sunset Beach Investments, LLC v. Kimley-Horn and Associates, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D130a (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) quoting Moransais v. Heathman, 744 So.2d 973, 975-76 (Fla. 1999). When it comes to professional negligence, two things are important: 1) the person being sued is a professional under the law (person has special education, training, experience, and skill) and 2) the standard of care for that professional (e.g, licensed, professional engineer). In a recent case, an engineering intern—not, a licensed, professional engineer–was sued for professional negligence. The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that an engineering intern is not a person that can be sued for professional negligence, unlike a licensed, professional engineer. Sunset Beach Investments, supra. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

---

Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick are JD Supra’s 2020 Readers’ Choice Award Recipients

July 13, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight is thrilled to announce that Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick are receiving JD Supra’s 2020 Readers’ Choice Awards. The award acknowledges top authors and firms for their thought leadership in key topics during 2019. This is Valerie’s third JD Supra Readers’ Choice Award and Christopher’s second. Specifically, Valerie and Chris receive the following recognition for the level of visibility and engagement our firm and authors attained in 2019, from among thousands of others, with readers of these topics: Valerie Moore – a top author in Insurance Christopher Kendrick – a top author in Insurance JD Supra’s Readers Choice Awards The Readers’ Choice Awards recognize top authors and firms who were read by C-suite executives, in-house counsel, media and other professionals across the JD Supra platform during 2019. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

When a Request for Equitable Adjustment Should Be Treated as a Claim Under the Contract Disputes Act

August 29, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In federal contracting, contractors are sometimes torn about submitting a request for equitable adjustment (known as an “REA” under 48 C.F.R. 252.243-7002) or submitting a formal claim under the Contract Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. s. 7103), the latter requiring a final decision by the contracting officer and starts the clock with respect to interest and preserving rights. It is also sometimes not easy for the contracting officer receiving an REA to determine whether the REA is actually a claim under the Contract Disputes Act requiring more immediate action. This recent take by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hits the nail on the head:

We recognize that contracting officers will sometimes face the difficult challenge of determining whether a request for equitable adjustment is also a claim. Contractors must choose between submitting a claim—which starts the interest clock but requires the contracting officer to issue a final decision within 60 days—and submitting a mere request for equitable adjustment—which does not start the interest clock but gives the contractor more time to negotiate a settlement and possibly avoid hefty legal fees. The overlap between these two types of documents might create room for gamesmanship. For example, a contractor could submit a document that is a claim—starting the interest clock—but appears to be a mere request for equitable adjustment—causing the contracting officer to not issue a final decision within the 60-day deadline and allowing interest to accrue for months or years. But the government has tools to address this challenge: The contracting officer can communicate to the contractor that she is going to treat the document as a claim and issue a final decision within 60 days. Or the government can explicitly require the contractor to propose settlement terms and attempt to settle disputes before submitting a claim to the contracting officer for a final decision.

Zafer Construction Company v. U.S., 2022 WL 2793596, *5 (Fed.Cir. 2022).

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

---

Is Arbitration Okay Under the Miller Act? It Is if You Don’t Object

October 15, 2014 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
I have discussed both payment bond claims under the Miller Act and alternate dispute resolution (ADR) here at Construction Law Musings on many an occasion. A question that is sometimes open is what to do when there is contractually mandated arbitration for claims “relating to the contract or the work.” While here in Virginia, as in most places, the courts will almost automatically send any breach of contract case with such a clause to arbitration, a question exists whether the claim against the bond held by a surety that is not a party to the contract is subject to being referred. Well, in a recent opinion the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Norfolk weighed in on this question where there was no opposition or objection to a motion to stay pending arbitration. In U.S. for Use of Harbor Construction Co. Inc. v. THR Enterprises Inc. the Court considered a fairly typical payment dispute leading to a Miller Act claim. The general contractor and surety filed a motion to dismiss or alternatively stay the litigation based upon a clause in the contract between general contractor and subcontractor allowing the general contractor to elect the type of ADR to be used to resolve the dispute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

The Relevance and Reasonableness of Destructive Testing

August 17, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Destructive testing is a routine investigatory procedure in construction defect disputes. The destructive testing is necessary to determine liability (causation), the extent of damage, and the repair protocol. Destructive testing is designed to answer numerous questions: Why did the building component fail? Was the building component constructed incorrectly? What is the magnitude of the damage caused by the failure? What specifically caused the damage? What is the most effective way to fix the failure and damage? There are different iterations to the same questions, but in many instances, destructive testing is necessary to answer these questions. Claimants sometimes prohibit destructive testing. Of course, destructive testing is intrusive. In many instances, it is very intrusive. But, this testing is a necessary evil. Without this testing, how can a defendant truly analyze their potential exposure and culpability? They need to be in a position to prepare a defense and figure out their liability. This does not mean destructive testing is warranted in every single construction defect dispute. That is not the case. However, to say it is never warranted is irrational. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

---