Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

NTSB Faults Maintenance, Inspection Oversight for Fern Hollow Bridge Collapse

March 19, 2024 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
The City of Pittsburgh’s failure to act for more than a decade on repeated maintenance and repair recommendations regarding the Fern Hollow Bridge was the probable cause for the structure’s dramatic 2022 collapse, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said at its Feb. 21, 2024, meeting. The city is the owner of the bridge. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Manhattan Developer Wants Claims Dismissed in Breach of Contract Suit

August 27, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Real Deal reported that Savannah, the developer of the condo conversion at 141 Fifth Avenue, “has filed to dismiss a number of claims in a $7.5 million breach of contract lawsuit by the property’s board of managers, while alleging professional negligence against several of its own contractors.” Savanah’s lawyers stated, according to The Real Deal, that whether or not construction defects exist, their client isn’t responsible: “However to the extent that any of the alleged defects exist at the building, sponsor cannot be held liable for the existence of such defects.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court of Appeals Issues Decision Regarding Second-Tier Subcontractors and Pre-Lien Notice

February 06, 2023 — Travis Colburn - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Velazquez Framing, LLC (“Velazquez”) v. Cascadia Homes, Inc. (“Cascadia”) is a Court of Appeals, Division 2 case where the primary issue on appeal was whether a second tier subcontractor was required to provide pre-lien notice under RCW 60.04 for its labor. The defendant, Cascadia, was the general contractor that planned to build a home on property it owned in Lakewood, Washington.[1] High End Construction, LLC (“High End”), submitted a bid to Cascadia for framing work on the home. High End began work on Cascadia’s home, but later subcontracted with Velazquez to complete the framing work.[2] Velazquez did not submit a prelien notice for its work on Cascadia’s home, and Cascadia claimed it was unaware that High End subcontracted with Velazquez for framing at the project. High End invoiced Cascadia and was paid for its work, but High End never paid Velazquez. Subsequently, Velazquez recorded a lien for both labor and materials, and later filed a complaint to foreclose its lien. Cascadia, due to the fact Velazquez did not provide it with prelien notice, moved for summary judgment, arguing prelien notice was required under RCW 60.04.031(1)[3] and the labor portion of a lien cannot be segregated where a subcontractor’s lien includes both labor and materials. Velazquez argued that no prelien notice was required under RCW 60.04.021[4] and RCW 60.04.031 and claimed that subcontractors can segregate the labor portion from the materials portion. The trial court granted Cascadia’s motion and ruled Velazquez did not fall within one of the exceptions for prelien notice in RCW 60.04.031(2), and therefore, could not enforce the lien. Velazquez appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Travis Colburn, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Mr. Colburn may be contacted at travis.colburn@acslawyers.com

Colorado Temporarily Requires Employers to Provide Sick Leave While Awaiting COVID-19 Testing

April 06, 2020 — Shawna Ruetz - The Grindstone Lewis Brisbois Labor & Employment Blog
On March 11, 2020, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) issued emergency rules, referred to as Colorado Health Emergency Leave with Pay (Colorado HELP) Rules, requiring employers in certain industries to provide four days of paid sick leave to employees with flu-like symptoms while awaiting test results for COVID-19, or to anyone who is under instructions from a healthcare provider to quarantine or isolate due to a risk of having COVID-19. These rules take effect immediately for 30 days, or longer if the state of emergency declared by Colorado Governor Polis continues. Which industries are covered by the Colorado HELP Rules?

Leisure and hospitality;
Food services;
Child care;
Education (including transportation, food service, and related work at educational establishments);
Home health (if working with elderly, disabled, ill, or otherwise high-risk individuals)
Nursing homes; and
Community living facilities; and
Retail establishments that sell groceries (added March 26).

How much paid sick leave must be provided? Employers are required to provide up to four days of paid sick leave to employees with flu-like symptoms who are being tested for COVID-19. If the employee tests negative, the leave ends. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shawna Ruetz, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Ruetz may be contacted at Shawna.Ruetz@lewisbrisbois.com

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Who Needs Them”

August 28, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
Who needs them? So argued a surety pursuing recovery under its general agreement of indemnity when the indemnitors urged a Louisiana federal court to dismiss the surety’s complaint for failure to join various allegedly required parties as defendants in the litigation. As part of its court action, the surety moved for preliminary injunction to enforce its collateral security rights. In response thereto, the indemnitors informed the court that if the injunction were to be granted, the indemnitors would “be forced to sell assets that are encumbered by security interests senior to those held by” the surety. In connection therewith, the indemnitors demanded that the other creditors be joined in the action or the lawsuit dismissed. The indemnitors also urged that the public project owner be joined as a party because the surety was seeking proceeds from the project that were still in the possession of the project owner. 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

As Some States Use the Clean Water Act to Delay Energy Projects, EPA Issues New CWA 401 Guidance

August 26, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
In just the past few weeks, three states have used their Clean Water Act 401 authority to delay, for an indefinite period, FERC-authorized pipeline expansion projects. On May 6, 2019, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality denied, without prejudice, Jordan Cove’s application for a Section 401 water quality certification. Jordan Cove plans to build an LNG export terminal at Coos Bay, Oregon, if it can obtain the necessary federal and permits. Under Section 401(a) of the Clean Water Act, any applicant for a federal permit to conduct any activity, including the operation of facilities which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters, shall provide the permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge may originate that any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of the Clean Water Act, including effluent limitations and state water quality standards. The States have a “reasonable time”—which shall not exceed one year after the receipt of the 401 application—in which to act, or the state’s authority may be waived by this inaction. The Oregon DEQ concluded that Jordan Cove has not demonstrated that its project, as presently configured, will satisfy state water quality standards. The 401 applications submitted by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. (Transco) to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the New York State Department of Environmental Protection were similarly rejected without prejudice on May 15, 2019 (New York) and June 5, 2019 (New Jersey). This use of the states’ 401 authority has frustrated plans to build and operate LNG pipelines around the country. 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

Courts Take Another Swipe at the Implied Warranty of the Plans and Specifications

December 15, 2016 — John P. Ahlers – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Implied warranties are warranties created by law, legislation, or courts. In the construction industry, one of the most prominent implied warranties is that owners who provide plans and specifications to their contractors impliedly warrant the adequacy of their plans and specifications.[i] That implied warranty had its beginning in the 1918 US Supreme Court decision of U.S. v. Spearin[ii] and is, therefore, popularly known as the Spearin Doctrine. Under the Spearin Doctrine, if the contractor completes the work in accordance with the owner’s plans and specifications, but there is a deficiency or failure, the owner, not the contractor, is responsible. When the owner breaches its implied warranty, in most instances, the contractor is entitled to additional compensation for extra work performed, delays experienced, and other additional expense or loss occasioned by the warranty breach. A recent case demonstrates that this implied warranty is not “immunity.” The contractor must still act reasonably and diligently, particularly when the contract provisions so require. In the recent Fifth Circuit case of Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport v. INet Airport Systems,[iii] the court, despite the implied warranty that existed, did not grant the contractor summary judgment on claims involving admitted plan deficiencies, since factual issues existed regarding the contractor’s cooperation and participation in the solution to the defects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

Illinois Appellate Court Address the Scope of the Term “Resident” in Homeowners Policy

April 11, 2022 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Cheekati, 2022 IL App (4th) 210023, the 4th District Court of Appeals for the State of Illinois addressed whether the term “resident” in a homeowners policy included a tenant leasing the insured premises. The Insureds owned property which was insured through Farmers under a homeowner’s policy. Unable to sell the property, the Insureds entered into a two-year lease agreement with a tenant. Several months after entering into the lease agreement, the tenant allegedly sustained physical injuries inside of the rented premises when a staircase collapsed. The tenant sued the Insureds and the matter was tendered to Farmers. Thereafter, Farmers denied coverage based on an exclusionary provision in the homeowner’s policy. Specifically, the policy contained a "Liability Exclusions" section, which provided:

"Coverage E (Personal Liability) *** and personal injury coverage, if covered under this policy, do not apply to: Any insured or other residents of the residence premises. We do not cover bodily injury or personal injury to: (a) any insured; or (b) any resident of the residence premises, whether resident in the dwelling or a separate structure." (Emphases in original.)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES