FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Eleven WSHB Attorneys Honored on List of 2016 Rising Stars

• Raymond Babaian: Partner, Rancho Cucamonga
• Emil Macasinag: Senior Counsel, Los Angeles
• Amy Pennington: Partner, Los Angeles
• Christopher Perez: Senior Counsel, Rancho Cucamonga
• Keith Smith: Partner, Riverside
• Kevin Gillispie: Partner, Concord
• Alicia Kennon: Senior Counsel, Concord
• Eugene Zinovyev: Senior Associate, Concord
• Timothy Repass: Partner, Seattle and Portland
• Jodi Mullis: Senior Associate, Phoenix
• Vincent Beilman: Partner, Tampa and Miami
“We are pleased to have 11 of our best selected for this year’s lists,” Dan Berman, Firm Chairman and Founding Partner stated. “We value our selections to Rising Stars because the choices come from our peers. It is truly an honor and a validation of all of the great work we do at WSHB.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of


---

Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

July 20, 2011 — CDJ STAFF


The Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled on July 8 in the case of Rollander Enterprises, Inc. v. H.C. Nutting Co. Judge Baily wrote the opinion affirming the decision of the trial court.



The case involved an unfinished condominium complex, the Slopes of Greendale, in Greendale, Indiana. Rollander is a real estate development company incorporated in Ohio. One of the issues in the case was whether the case should be settled in the Indiana courts or be tried in Ohio. The project was owned by a special purpose entity limited liability corporation incorporated in Indiana.



Rollander hired Nutting to determine the geological composition of the site. Nutting’s report described the site as “a medium plastic clay containing pieces of shale and limestone.” The court summarized this as corresponding with “slope instability and landslides.” Rollander then hired Nutting to design the retaining walls, which were constructed by Scherziner Drilling.



After cracking was discovered on State Route 1, the walls were discovered to be inadequate. More dirt was brought in and a system of tie-backs was designed to anchor the walls. Not only were the tie-backs unsightly, local officials would not approve the complex for occupancy. Further, the failure of the wall below one building lead to damage of that building.



The court concluded that since almost all events occurred in Indiana, they rejected Rollander’s contention that the case should be tried in Ohio. Further, the court notes “the last event making Nutting potentially liable on both claims was an injury that occurred in Indiana and consequently, under the lex loci delicti analysis, Indiana law applies.”



Nor did the court find that Nutting was responsible for the damage to the rest of the project, citing an Indiana Supreme Court ruling, that “there is no liability in tort to the owner of a major construction project for pure economic loss caused unintentionally by contractors, subcontractors, engineers, design professionals, or others engaged in the project with whom the project owner, whether or not technically in privity of contract, is connected through a network or chain of contracts.”



The court concluded:



Because Rollander was in contractual privity with Nutting, and Indy was connected to Nutting through a chain of contracts and no exception applies, the economic loss rule precludes their recovery in tort. Damage to Building B was not damage to "other property," and the negligent misrepresentation exception to the economic loss rule is inapplicable on these facts. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by entering judgment on the evidence in favor of Nutting on the Appellants' negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims.



Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of


---

Tests Find Pollution From N.C. Coal Ash Site Hit by Florence Within Acceptable Levels

October 30, 2018 — Associated Press - Engineering News-Record
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Despite the gray muck that fouled the Cape Fear River near a Wilmington power plant after Hurricane Florence, water tests so far show heavy metals contained in coal ash are within state standards, North Carolina environmental officials said Thursday. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

---

No Coverage for Hurricane Sandy Damage

August 02, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The magistrate recommended that summary judgment be entered in favor of the insurer, thereby eliminating coverage for property damage incurred during Hurricane Sandy. Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. v. Great Northern Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103015 (E.D. N.Y. June 30, 2017). Madelaine Chocolate owned a facility three blocks form the Atlantic Ocean and one block from the Jamaica Bay section of Long Island Sound. Hurricane Sandy arrived October 29, 2012. Madeline Chocolate's facility sustained significant damage to its inventory, production machinery and premises, as storm surge from both bodies of water hit the property. Operations ceased during the 2012 holiday season and beyond, resulting in millions of dollars in lost income. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Flow-Down Clauses Can Drown Your Project

August 26, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Flow-Down or pass-through clauses obligate downstream contractors to certain provisions contained in the up up-stream contractor contracts, such as the contract between the general contractor and the owner. These clauses are contained in every major form subcontract and they can expand the scope of your potential liability. This blog will look at typical language of a flow-down clause, what it means and how you can deal with them. Typical Flow-Down Clause A simple flow down clause might provide:

“The Subcontractor agrees to be bound to the Contractor by the terms of the prime contract and to assume to the Contractor all the obligations and responsibilities that the Contractor by those documents assumes to the Owner, except to the extent that the provisions contained therein are by the terms or by law applicable only to the Contractor.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---

Poor Pleading Leads to Loss of Claim for Trespass Due to Relation-Back Doctrine, Statute of Limitations

April 13, 2017 — Brett G. Moore & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co. (No. C070770, Filed 4/6/2017), the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District held that the relation-back doctrine could not save a property owner’s trespass claim against an adjacent neighbor where the property owner’s original complaint was factually devoid and was later amended to include the trespass claim after the statute of limitations had run. The relation-back doctrine is a well-settled legal principle which allows a plaintiff to amend a complaint to add a cause of action which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. As long as the factual allegations “relate back” to the those alleged in the original complaint, an additional cause of action will not be subject to the applicable statute of limitations. The policy behind statutes of limitation is to put a defendant on notice of the need to defend against a claim in time to prepare an adequate defense. On May 21, 2007, a fire broke out at defendant Lambirth Trucking Company’s (“Lambirth”) soil enhancement facility adjacent to plaintiff Vincent Scholes’ (“Scholes”) property. Scholes had previously notified Lambirth that wood chips and rice hulls were accumulating on his property as a result of Lambirth’s operations. Local authorities also warned Lambirth of the hazards presented by storage of those materials. Reprinted courtesy of Brett G. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moore may be contacted at bmoore@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of


---

Construction Termination Issues for the Architect and Engineer: Part 1– Introduction to the Series

July 24, 2023 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
Earlier this year, I was asked to talk to other construction lawyers on the topic of termination. My first question was– whose termination are we talking about here– the architect / engineer? The contractor? Is someone wanting to “fire” the owner? The answer, as it turns out, is — yes. That is, yes, any and all of the above termination topics were on the table. As you may have suspected, even the threat of a termination is bad, bad news. It is the “nuclear option” for a construction project. Everyone risks getting harmed. As the design professional administering a contract, you run a risk of being dragged into litigation no matter what you do. So, how should you proceed? Carefully. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

---

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Win Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings In Favor of Insurer

June 26, 2023 — Jeremy S. Macklin & Danielle K. Kegley - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Jeremy Macklin and Associate Danielle Kegley obtained judgment on the pleadings in favor of Admiral Insurance Company (“Admiral”), in a matter brought before the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. In the underlying case, an injured employee sued various companies, and their agents, for injuries he sustained on a construction project. The insureds, one of the defendant companies and its employee, sought coverage for the underlying lawsuit under a professional liability policy issued to that company by Admiral. The policy at issue provided coverage for the company and its employees, for negligent acts or omissions committed in the rendering of “professional services,” defined as services “involving specialized training and skill while in the pursuit of” mechanical and process engineering. After initially defending the insureds, Admiral filed a declaratory judgment action asking the Court to declare that the company has no duty to defend or indemnify the insureds in the underlying lawsuit and to allow Admiral to immediately withdraw its defense of the insureds. Admiral argued there is no coverage under the professional liability policy, as the underlying lawsuit does not contain allegations that the underlying plaintiff’s injuries arose from the rendering of or failure to render “professional services.” The insureds argued that since they were hired as mechanical and process engineers for the project, that any lawsuits against them must necessarily arise from their “professional services.” Further, the insureds asked the Court to disregard the express allegations in the underlying lawsuit concerning their role on the project as a general contractor. Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman and Danielle K. Kegley, Traub Lieberman Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com Ms. Kegley may be contacted at dkegley@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of


---