FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act: What Every Employer Should Know

April 06, 2020 — Donald A. Velez, Karissa L. Fox & Sarah K. Carpenter - Smith Currie
Smith Currie provides this update regarding the Families First Coronavirus Response Act as part of its continuing effort to monitor developments concerning the Coronavirus disease (“COVID-19”) and provide guidance as to potential issues that may arise in businesses across the United States. On March 18, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (the “Act”), which contains provisions requiring certain private employers to provide paid leave to employees who cannot work because of Coronavirus, expanding Family and Medical Leave Act coverage, providing for federal tax credits to affected employers, and providing eligible states the ability to further fund their unemployment trust fund accounts. The Act is effective as of April 2, 2020 and will remain in place through December 31, 2020. Below, we provide a summary of the Act and several of its key components, including the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (“EFMLEA”), the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act, and the Emergency Unemployment Insurance Stabilization and Access Act. Reprinted courtesy of Smith Currie attorneys Donald A. Velez, Karissa L. Fox and Sarah K. Carpenter Mr. Velez may be contacted at davelez@smithcurrie.com Ms. Fox may be contacted at klfox@smithcurrie.com Ms. Carpenter may be contacted at skcarpenter@smithcurrie.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Texas contractual liability exclusion

May 18, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Ewing Construction Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., No. C-10-256 (S.D. Tex. April 28, 2011), insured Ewing was the general contractor for an athletic facility constructed for a school district. The school district sued Ewing alleging defective construction of the project. The underlying complaint included contract and negligence causes of action, and sought damages for the repair of the damages and loss of the use of the project. The complaint did not allege damage to any property other than the project itself. Ewing tendered its defense to its CGL insurer Amerisure. Amerisure denied a defense and Ewing filed suit against Amerisure. The federal district trial court entered summary judgment for Amerisure. Applying Texas law, the court held that all of the damages fell within the “contractual liability” exclusion precluding any duty to defend or indemnify.



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

---

Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex

June 10, 2015 — Kristen Lee Price and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego, et al. (No. D063992, filed 5/28/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a controversial plan to eliminate vehicles from various plazas in historic Balboa Park. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal considered a question of first impression involving the interpretation of San Diego Municipal Code section 126.0504. Balboa Park, designated a National Historic Landmark in 1940, is a large urban park in the center of San Diego. The City of San Diego (“City”) recently approved a proposed plan (“Project”) to eliminate vehicles from the plazas within the Balboa Park complex and to return the plazas to purely pedestrian zones. Subsequently, a community group named Save Our Heritage Organisation (“SOHO”) filed a petition for a writ of mandate alleging, among other things, the City erroneously approved the Project. SOHO contended Municipal Code section 126.0504 mandated two key findings be made before the Project could be approved: (1) that the intended purpose of the property would not be adversely affected; and (2) without the proposed project, the property would not be put to a “reasonable beneficial use.” SOHO argued that although the City made the requisite findings, those findings lacked substantial evidentiary support. The trial court agreed with SOHO and directed the City to rescind the site development permit. The City argued on appeal that Municipal Code section 126.0504 vested it with “discretion to make a qualitative determination of whether an existing use of the property, even if deemed beneficial, is also a reasonable use of that property under all of the facts and circumstances applicable to the particular property in question.” The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed. Reprinted courtesy of Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Miller Wagers Gundlach’s Bearish Housing Position Loses

May 19, 2014 — Alexis Leondis – Bloomberg
Bill Miller said investor Jeffrey Gundlach and real estate billionaire Sam Zell are wrong about housing. Gundlach, the chief executive officer of DoubleLine Capital LP, and Zell, chairman of landlord Equity Residential, predict fewer young people will buy homes, further driving down the U.S. ownership rate. Miller, the stock picker who beat the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index for a record 15 years, said he’s so confident lending and housing will rebound that he’s betting on mortgage insurers, homebuilders and subprime servicers. “Anytime there’s a cataclysm, people always say it’s never going to come back,” said Miller, 64, sitting outdoors at a table overlooking Baltimore’s harbor. “I don’t believe there’s been a secular change in demand for housing. People may just rent longer than they otherwise would have before eventually buying.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alexis Leondis, Bloomberg
Ms. Leondis may be contacted at aleondis@bloomberg.net

---

United States Supreme Court Limits Class Arbitration

May 13, 2019 — Jeffrey K. Brown & Raymond J. Nhan - Payne & Fears
On April 24, 2019, the United States Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") bars orders requiring class arbitration when an agreement is ambiguous about the availability of such a procedure. Lamps Plus v. Varela, 587 U.S. __ , 2019 WL 1780275, (2019). In Lamps Plus, the Court clarified a 2010 case in which it held that a court may not compel arbitration on a class-wide basis when an agreement is silent on the availability of class arbitration. Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animal Feeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 687 (2012). In Lamps Plus, a 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court explained that because the FAA envisions the use of traditional individualized arbitration, a party cannot be forced under the FAA to submit to class arbitration unless the parties explicitly agreed to do so. Because class arbitration does not share the benefits of traditional arbitration -- lower costs, greater efficiency and speed, and the parties' choice of a neutral -- the FAA requires more than an "ambiguous" agreement to show that the parties bound themselves to arbitrate on a class-wide basis. Unlike individualized arbitration, or even traditional class actions, class arbitration raises serious due process concerns because absent class members will have limited judicial review. Based on these critical differences between individual and class arbitration, the Court reiterated in Lamps Plus that "courts may not infer consent to participate in class arbitration absent an affirmative contractual basis for concluding that the party agreed to do so." Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey K. Brown, Payne & Fears and Raymond J. Nhan, Payne & Fears Mr. Brown may be contacted at jkb@paynefears.com Mr. Nhan may be contacted at rjn@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insurer Must Cover Construction Defects Claims under Actual Injury Rule

March 01, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

The Texas Court of Appeals held that the insured need not prove the exact dates physical damage occurred in order to trigger defense and indemnity coverage. Vines-Herrin Custom Homes, LLC v. Great Am. Lloyds Ins. Co., 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 10027 (Tex. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2011).



In 1999, the insured built a home. He was insured under a CGL policy issued by Great American from November 9, 1998 to November 9, 2000. Thereafter, the insured held a CGL policy issued by Mid-Continent from November 9, 2000 to September 18, 2002.



After construction was completed, the insured sold the house to the buyer in May 2000. After moving in, the buyer found numerous construction defects in the home, including water entering cracks in the home, and sinking and sagging of parts of the house. The buyer sued the insured, who sought coverage under the two policies. When the insurers refused to defend the underlying suit, the insured sued for a declaratory judgment.



The underlying case went to arbitration and an award of $2.4 million was granted to the buyer. The insured assigned to the buyer his claims against the insurers.

Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

---

Orlando Commercial Construction Permits Double in Value

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
This August, permits were taken out for $102.3 million of commercial construction projects, a 95% increase over last August’s $52.4 million. Meanwhile, residential construction was up by a third, jumping from $205.6 million to $274.1 million. Overall that sent construction up by 46% in the Orlando area. The construction industry is a major one in the Orlando area and its recovery provides some hope for the region. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

2019 California Construction Law Update

January 15, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The California State Legislature introduced 2,637 bills during the second year fo the 2017-2018 Legislative Session. Of these, 1,016 were signed into law. It was last official bill signing for Governor Jerry Brown who ends not only his second term as Governor but a colorful political career spanning nearly 50 years during which he has dated pop stars, practiced Zen meditation, kicked it with radical ex-nuns and an Apollo astronaut and, at 80, has sparred regularly with President Trump on issues ranging from climate change to immigration to net neutrality. For those in the construction industry it wasn’t quite as exciting, unless of course you count SCR 120, which officially makes April “California Safe Digging Month.” Hooray! Each of the bills discussed below took effect on January 1, 2018, except as otherwise stated. Building Codes SB 721 – Requires the inspection of exterior elevated elements, including balconies, decks, porches, stairways, walkways, and elevated entry structures, of multifamily buildings with three or more dwelling units by an architect, engineer or contractor with a Class A, B or C-5 license by January 1, 2025 and by January 1st every six years thereafter. Elements posing an immediate threat to the safety of occupants, or which prevent occupant access or emergency repairs, are required to be repaired immediately. Elements not posing an immediate threat to the safety of occupants, or which do not prevent occupant access or emergency repairs, are required to be repaired within 180 days. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---