Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Property Owner Found Liable for Injuries to Worker of Unlicensed Contractor, Again

September 17, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s not like we didn’t warn you. In Jones v. Sorenson, Case No. C084870 (August 2, 2018), homeowner Danita Sorenson discovered to her chagrin that she had unwittingly become the employer of Mary Jones, who had been hired by Odette Miranda doing business as Designs by Leo to trim some trees, and was liable for Jones’ injuries when Jones fell off a ladder provided by Miranda. “How can this be?” you might ask. The reason, as it turns out, is simple. Miranda was required to hold a Class D-49 Tree Service Contractor’s license in order to contract with Sorenson to trim her trees, and because Miranda did not hold that license (or, for that matter, any contractor’s license), Sorenson automatically was deemed the employer of Jones under Labor Code Section 2750.5 and, therefore, liable for her injuries. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

November 21, 2017 — Jesse Witt - The Witt Law Firm
Originally published by CDJ on September 7, 2017 Colorado’s new construction defect law officially takes effect this month. Although HB 17-1279 was passed in May, the statutory text provides that it only applies “with respect to events and circumstances occurring on or after September 1, 2017.” With that date now upon us, practitioners should be mindful of the law’s new requirements. The law applies to any lawsuit wherein a homeowner association files a construction defect action on behalf of two or more of its members. “Construction defect action” is defined broadly to include any claims against construction professionals relating to deficiencies in design or construction of real property. Before an association may commence such an action, its board must follow several steps. First, the board must deliver notice of the potential construction defect action to all homeowners and the affected construction professionals at their last known addresses. This requirement does not apply to construction professionals identified after the notice has been mailed, or to construction professionals joined in a previously-approved lawsuit. The notice must include a description of the alleged construction defects with reasonable specificity, the relief sought, a good-faith estimate of the benefits and risks involved, and a list of mandatory disclosures concerning assessments, attorney fees, and the marketability of units affected by construction defects. The notice must also call a meeting of all homeowners. The notice should be sent to the construction professionals at least five days before the homeowners. Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contractor Prevails in Part Against CalOSHA in Valley Fever Case

February 26, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Fever. Specifically, Valley fever. Caused by the fungus Coccidioides. It lives in the top two to 12 inches of soil, can become airborne when the soil is exposed, and can cause respiratory illness and even death. And apparently, it is present in many parts of California particularly in the Central Valley and along the coast. Who knew? In Granite Construction Company v. Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board, Case No. C086704 (2023), contractor Granite Construction was cited by CalOSHA for exposing its employees to Coccidioides at a large solar power plant known as California Flats Solar Project in Monterey California. The 3rd District Court of Appeal reversed in part. It should be noted that this case originally unpublished, it was then published, and then later depublished, so it should not be relied on for precedential value. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Products Liability Law – Application of Economic Loss Rule

April 02, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to product liability law, one important doctrine that will always come up is the economic loss rule. The economic loss rule, oftentimes going by its acronym ELR, lives and breathes in the realm of product liability law. Does the economic loss rule extend to a manufacturer’s distributor for a duty to warn when the product is NOT defective? A recent opinion out of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, NBIS Construction & Transport Ins. Services v. Liebherr-America, Inc., 2024 WL 861257 (11th Cir. 2024), was confronted with this question, including whether the economic loss rule should even extend to a distributor of a product, and certified the following to Florida’s Supreme Court to answer: “Whether, under Florida law, the economic loss rule applies to negligence claims against a distributor of a product, stipulated to be non-defective, for the failureto alert a product owner of a known danger, when the only damages claimed are to the product itself?” NBIS, supra, at *8. 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

Montana Supreme Court: Insurer Not Bound by Insured's Settlement

December 02, 2019 — K. Alexandra Byrd - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In Draggin’ Y Cattle Co., Inc. v. Junkermier, et al.1 the Montana Supreme Court held that where an insurer defends its insured and the insured subsequently settles the claims without an insurer’s participation, a court may approve the settlement as between the underlying plaintiff and underlying defendant, but the settlement will not be presumed reasonable as to the insurer. Therefore, an insurer who defends its insured cannot be bound by a stipulated settlement that the insurer did not expressly consent to. The case involved Draggin’ Y Cattle Company (the “Cattle Company”), a ranching and cattle business that utilized the services of an accounting firm, Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. (“Junkermier”), to structure the sale of real property to take advantage of favorable tax treatment. It was discovered that Junkermier’s employee misinformed the Cattle Company’s owners of the tax consequences of the sale. The Cattle Company’s owners subsequently filed suit against Junkermier and its employee and alleged nearly $12,000,000 in damages due to the error. Junkermier’s insurer, New York Marine, provided a defense for Junkermier and its employee. The Cattle Company’s owners offered to settle the claims against Junkermier and its employee for $2,000,000, the policy limit of the New York Marine policy. New York Marine refused to give its consent or tender the policy’s limit. Subsequently, Junkermier, its employee, and the Cattle Company entered into their own settlement agreement for $10,000,000. The settlement was contingent upon a reasonableness hearing to approve the stipulated agreement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Byrd may be contacted by kab@sdvlaw.com

City Drops Impact Fees to Encourage Commercial Development

November 08, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Orvido, Florida city council wants to encourage commercial development, and they’re willing to do it by discouraging residential development. The impact fees for commercial buildings have dropped sharply, the Orlando Sentinel notes that for a 50,000 square-foot office building, the city is reducing the impact fee from $2,890 to $1,575, a drop of $1,313, nearly half. Meanwhile, the impact fee for single-family homes has seen an increase of seven percent, going from $3,195 to $3.433. The city is clear about its reasons. “We’re very heavy on the residential side. We want to have more high-paying jobs come into the city,” said Keith Britton, a member of the council. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contractor Side Deals Can Waive Rights

October 02, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Here at Construction Law Musings, we are quite fond of the Federal Miller Act and it’s Virginia counterpart, the “Little” Miller Act. Both of these statutes allow a subcontractor or supplier on a government construction project the security to perform their work with the knowledge that a bonding company will back their claim for payment. These acts are necessary because a construction company cannot file a mechanic’s lien on a government owned piece of property. As a general rule the Miller Acts impose almost strict liability on a contractor and its surety to pay for work performed by a downstream supplier or subcontractor. However, as a recent case out of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals makes clear, this rule is not without exceptions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

New York Team’s Win Limits Scope of Property Owners’ Duties to Workers for Hazards Inherent in Their Work

May 20, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
New York, N.Y. (May 9, 2024) - New York Partners Jennifer Oxman and Andrew Harms recently secured dismissal of a personal injury plaintiff’s complaint on summary judgment in Queens County, with a state judge accepting their argument that a porter who allegedly tripped and fell on loose wood in a stairwell had no cause of action against the property owner because it was his job to clean the stairs in the first instance. The porter was not an employee of the property owner, but rather an employee of a property management company. Therefore, the workers compensation bar did not apply to the employee’s claims. In a four-page decision, Justice Chereé A. Buggs of Queens County Supreme Court found that plaintiff’s duties as a porter included cleaning the stairwell and that he saw and cleaned loose pieces of wood on occasions prior to his accident. Justice Buggs held that while the wood debris likely came from an “outside source”, i.e. a contractor performing work at a neighboring building, the source of the debris was not relevant. Rather, what mattered was the fact that the hazard upon which plaintiff tripped was “inherent in or related to” plaintiff’s work responsibilities. By contrast, Justice Buggs held that the contractor who allegedly was the source of the wood was not entitled to summary judgment under the same legal theory because it arguably caused and created the hazard upon which plaintiff tripped. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES