Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

In Search of Cement Replacements

October 19, 2017 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Could we replace cement as the vital element in concrete some day? We look at two alternative answers to this question. The Problems with Cement Portland cement dominates in the construction and road building industries. From an environmental point of view, cement is not the perfect solution. The cement industry accounts up to 7% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. For every 600 kg of cement, approximately 400 kg of CO2 is released into the atmosphere. It is possible to recycle concrete by crushing it and using the gravel e.g. in road construction. However, the demand for new concrete is huge and increasing. According to The Washington Post, China used more cement between 2011 and 2013 than the U.S. used in the entire 20th Century. The worldwide production of cement has increased from 3.3 billion tons in 2010 to 4.2 in 2016. Even that is not enough; shortage of cement is a real problem in some countries. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at info@aepartners.fi

Surge in Home Completions Tamps Down Inflation as Fed Meets

June 17, 2015 — Carlos Torres – Bloomberg
American builders are tamping down what little inflation there is. Construction companies completed 392,000 buildings with five or more units at an annualized rate in May, the most since 1988, Commerce Department figures showed Tuesday in Washington. “The pickup in demand is pushing up rents and also creating more incentive for builders to put up more units,” said Michael Hanson, a senior economist at Bank of America Corp. in New York. The jump in completions “helps offset some of the upward pressure we’ve seen” on rents, said. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Carlos Torres, Bloomberg

Delaware District Court Finds CGL Insurer Owes Condo Builder a Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims — Based on the Subcontractor Exception to the Your Work Exclusion

October 04, 2021 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Laura Rossi - White and Williams
On September 7, 2021, in one of the few decisions addressing the scope of coverage for faulty workmanship under Delaware law, the Delaware District Court denied an insurer’s motion seeking a declaration that it neither needed to defend nor indemnify an insured-builder under a commercial general liability policy. In this declaratory judgment action, Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. Zonko Builders, the insurer argued that the ongoing underlying action failed to properly plead an “occurrence” in a case alleging damages to a condominium caused by faulty workmanship involving subcontractors.* Zonko Builders (Zonko) served as the general contractor, supervising subcontractors. The Condominium Association sued Zonko for damages allegedly resulting from design and construction deficiencies. The motion was opposed by the Condominium Association, which cross-moved for partial judgment on the pleadings. In AE-Newark Associates, L.P. v. CNA Insurance Companies, 2001 Del. Super. LEXIS 370 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 2, 2001), the Delaware Superior Court found that an insured was entitled to coverage for damages arising from a faulty roof system installed by a subcontractor on behalf of the insured general contractor. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and Laura Rossi, White and Williams Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Rossi may be contacted at rossil@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contractor Haunted by “Demonized” Flooring

December 14, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The most un-Halloween of Halloweens has come and gone. If you ask me though, between COVID, protests, fires, hurricanes, the passing of a Supreme Court Justice, and one of the most hotly contested elections in U.S. history, we’ve had enough scares this year to make up for it and then some. In the next case, Sieg v. Registrar of Contractors, Case No. A156089 (September 28, 2020), 1st District Court of Appeal, one contractor, haunted by “demonized” flooring, and who couldn’t catch a break even with the talisman of a release of liability signed by the homeowner, can add one more to his list of reasons why 2020 needs to be relegated to the history books. The Sieg Case In January 2012, homeowners Dennis and Ana Torchia purchased wood flooring for their home in Windsor, California. Specifically, they selected Brazilian Ebony, an exotic species of unusually hard wood, for its appearance and durability. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Super Lawyers in 2016

February 16, 2016 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight is pleased to announce that the following lawyers have been named 2016 California Super Lawyers ®: William G. Baumgaertner Bruce Cleeland Peter A. Dubrawski Angela S. Haskins Michael J. Leahy Michael C. Parme Jennifer K. Saunders Additionally, Gregory M. Smith has been named a 2016 Super Lawyers ® Rising Star. Super Lawyers ® is a rating service of outstanding lawyers who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

CDJ’s #6 Topic of the Year: Does Colorado Need Construction Defect Legislation to Spur Affordable Home Development?

December 31, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The question involves whether a Colorado law passed in 2005 has made it too easy for homeowners to sue developers for construction defects, allegedly causing a decline in condominium building in the state. The Construction Defect Journal became a forum for this lively debate with two prominent, Colorado, construction defect attorneys providing their views on the subject: Jesse Howard Witt, of the Witt Law Firm, published “Colorado Mayors Should Not Sacrifice Homeowners to Lure Condo Developers.” Read the full story... In response, James M. Mulligan of Snell & Wilmer, LLP presented his perspective in, “Are Construction Defect Laws Inhibiting the Development of Attached Ownership Housing in Colorado?” Read the full story... The city of Lakewood did not wait for the state, but instead passed its own ordinance, which “gives developers and builders a ‘right to repair’ defects before facing litigation and would require condominium association boards to get consent from a majority of homeowners — rather than just the majority of the board — before filing suit,” according to John Aguilar’s piece in The Denver Post. Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Funding the Self-Insured Retention (SIR)

August 17, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Unlike a deductible, a self-insured retention (referred to an “SIR”) is, as the name suggests, a self-insured obligation of the insured before its insurer picks up coverage. The SIR needs to be exhausted by the insured (as the primary self-insurance component) before the carrier’s excess defense and indemnification obligations kick-in under the terms of the policy. However, an insured can generally exhaust an SIR by paying legal fees and costs associated with a claim. Oftentimes, the language in the policy requires the SIR to be paid for by the named insured or an insured under the policy. This was an issue addressed by the Florida Supreme Court in Intervest Const. of Jax, Inc. v. General Fidelity Ins. Co., 133 So.3d 494 (Fla. 2014). In this matter, a personal injury claimant asserted a claim against the contractor dealing with a residential home. The contractor hired a subcontractor to install attic stairs and the subcontract required the contractor to indemnify it. The owner of the house injured herself on the attic stairs and sued the contractor. The contractor, in turn, sought indemnification against the subcontractor that installed the attic stairs. 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

The Difference Between Routine Document Destruction and Spoliation

October 18, 2021 — Steven A. Neeley - Construction Executive
In today’s world, there is a tendency to believe that everything must be preserved forever. The common belief is that documents, emails, text messages, etc. cannot be deleted because doing so may be viewed as spoliation (i.e., intentionally destroying relevant evidence). A party guilty of spoliation can be sanctioned, which can include an adverse inference that the lost information would have helped the other side. But that does not mean that contractors have to preserve every conceivable piece of information or data under all circumstances. There are key differences between routine document destruction (when done before receiving notice of potential claims or litigation) and spoliation. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals decision in Appeal of Sungjee Constr. Co., Ltd., ASBCA Nos. 62002 and 62170 (Mar. 23, 2021) provides a good reminder. There, Sungjee challenged its default termination under a construction contract at Osan Air Base in South Korea. Sungjee argued that the government denied it access to the site for 352 days (out of a 450-day performance period) by refusing to issue passes that were needed to access the base. The government argued that it had issued the passes, but it could not produce them to Sungjee in discovery because they had been destroyed as part of a routine document destruction policy. The base security force issued hard copy passes and entered the information in a biometric system. The government was able to produce the biometric system data but not the hard copy passes because they were destroyed each year. Sungjee argued the government was guilty of spoliation and moved for sanctions. It asked the Board to draw an adverse inference that the passes would have shown that the government had not issued proper passes on a timely basis, which delayed Sungjee’s performance. The Board denied Sungjee’s motion for several reasons. Reprinted courtesy of Steven A. Neeley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Neeley may be contacted at steve.neeley@huschblackwell.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES