Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Ex-San Francisco DPW Director Sentenced to Seven Years in Corruption Case

September 26, 2022 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
A federal judge sentenced Mohammed Nuru, the former San Francisco public works director, to seven years in prison for bribery and kickbacks. Nuru, 59, pleaded guilty to the charge of defrauding the public of its right to honest services earlier this year amid a federal investigation into public corruption in San Francisco’s government. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Thinking About a Daubert Motion to Challenge an Expert Opinion?

February 06, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When you receive an expert opinion, one of the first things you are considering is whether it is worth filing a Daubert motion / challenge. A Daubert motion is a generally a pretrial motion you are using to challenge the admissibility of the expert opinion. Keep in mind this deals with the admissibility, not the credibility, of the expert opinion. A Daubert motion is based on three prongs that must be answered: 1) is the witness qualified to render the expert opinion?; 2) is the expert’s opinion reliable?; and 3) is the expert’s opinion relevant?. A Daubert motion is premised after Federal Rule of Evidence 702 that provides: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

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

D.C. Decision Finding No “Direct Physical Loss” for COVID-19 Closures Is Not Without Severe Limitations

August 24, 2020 — Michael S. Levine & Michael L. Huggins - Hunton Andrews Kurth
On August 6, 2020, in Rose’s 1 LLC, et al. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Civ. Case No. 2020 CA 002424 B, a District of Columbia trial court found in favor of an insurer on cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether COVID-19 closure orders constitute a “direct physical loss” under a commercial property policy. At its core, the decision ignores key arguments raised in the summary judgment briefing and is narrowly premised on certain dictionary definitions of the terms, “direct,” “physical,” and “loss.” Relying almost entirely on those definitions – each supplied by the insureds in their opening brief – the court set the stage for its ultimate conclusion by finding “direct” to mean “without intervening persons, conditions, or agencies; immediate”; and “physical” to mean “of or pertaining to matter ….” The court then apparently accepted the policy’s circular definition of “loss” as meaning “direct and accidental loss of or damage to covered property.” Importantly, however, despite recognizing the fundamental rule of insurance policy construction that the court “must interpret the contract ‘as a whole, giving reasonable, lawful, and effective meaning to all its terms, and ascertaining the meaning in light of all the circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made,’” the court apparently ignored the insureds’ argument that the term “property damage” is specifically defined in the policy to include “loss of use” without any specific reference to physical or tangible damage. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pennsylvania Federal Court Confirms: Construction Defect Claims Not Covered by CGL Policies

March 06, 2022 — Nathan A. Cazier & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & Fears
The construction industry operates under the constant spectre of claims seeking damages for defective or faulty workmanship. Fortunately, the law in most states treats these claims as covered under commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies. A small minority of states take a much stingier view. In a newly decided case, a Pennsylvania federal court confirmed that Pennsylvania belongs to this small group of states that regard construction claims as not worthy of liability insurance coverage. Main St. Am. Assurance Co. v. Howard Lynch Plastering, Inc., No. CV 21-3977, 2022 WL 445768, (E.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2022). Main St. involves a typical construction defect case: W.B. Homes (“W.B.”) developed a residential community, contracting with various trades to build the homes. W.B. required these subcontractors to obtain liability insurance covering their work and, when homeowners sued W.B. for damages due to allegedly faulty work, W.B. tendered the claim to these insurers. One of them, Main Street Assurance Co. (“Main Street”) then sued W.B. for declaratory relief, arguing that under Pennsylvania law, it had no duty to defend W.B. Reprinted courtesy of Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Mr. Cazier may be contacted at nac@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Sweet News for Yum Yum Donuts: Lost Goodwill is Not an All or Nothing Proposition

October 07, 2019 — Josh Cohen - California Construction Law Blog
Last month a California Court of Appeals clarified that a property owner facing eminent domain is only required to prove partial loss of goodwill, not total loss of goodwill, to be entitled to a trial on the amount of goodwill lost. Yum Yum Donuts operated a shop in Los Angeles that was subject to eminent domain by the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to make way for light railway track. At trial, Yum Yum sought loss of goodwill as part of its condemnation damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 1263.510. At trial the MTA’s expert testified that Yum Yum could have reduced its goodwill loss if it relocated to one of three alternative locations rather than simply closing the shop. But the expert conceded that even if Yum Yum had relocated, it would have lost some goodwill. Yum Yum refused to relocate, arguing that its relocation costs would render the move unprofitable. The trial court found that Yum Yum’s failure to mitigate its damages barred Yum Yum from having a jury trial to recover any goodwill damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Josh Cohen, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Cohen may be contacted at jcohen@wendel.com

Deck Collapse Raises Questions about Building Defects

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Inquisitor reports that twenty-one people were injured when a deck collapsed at a rental apartment in Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina. Most of the injuries were not serious. The mayor of Ocean Isle Beach attributed the problem to more people crowding onto it than it was designed for. “I do not think the N.C. building code anticipates 20 to 30 to people in a small deck at one time,” she said. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

LAX Runway Lawsuit a Year Too Late?

January 17, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The City of Los Angeles filed a lawsuit against Tutor-Saliba Corp. and O&G Industries Inc., which had created a joint venture to rebuild Runway 25L at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), according to Brian Sumers writing for the Daily Breeze. However, lawyers for the construction companies are alleging that the lawsuit was filed a year too late: “…the complaint’s first four causes of action against Joint Venture are indisputably barred under California Law,” lawyers from Castle & Associates claimed. This news came soon after a plane blew a tire on the same runway involved in the lawsuit, as reported by the Los Angeles Times. The blown out tire may not be related to the alleged construction defects: “The runway is usable,” Nancy Castles, spokeswoman for Los Angeles World airports told the Los Angeles Times. Castles explained that “the lawsuit is about ‘deterioration’ and that at some point the runway will need to be rebuilt, but that time is not now.” Read the full story at the Daily Breeze... Read the full story at the Los Angeles Times... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court of Appeals Discusses the Difference Between “Claims-Made” and “Occurrence-Based” Insurance Policies

May 31, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
As most contractors know, scope, price and time are the “big” three in any construction contract. Nearly as important, however, are the insurance provisions. Patricularly, when things go bad on a construction project. As the next case, Guastello v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company 61 Cal.App.5th 97 (2021) discusses, the difference between “claims-made” versus “occurrence-based” coverage can be extremely important. The Guastello Case In 2003 and 2004, subcontractor C.W. Poss Inc. built retaining walls in the Pointe Monarch housing development in Dana Point, California. Poss performed all related excavation, ground and grading work. In 2006, Thomas Guastello purchased a home in the development, and in January 2010, a retaining wall close to his lot suffered a massive failure that causing over $700,000 in damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES