Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Eleventh Circuit Reverses Attorneys’ Fee Award to Performance Bond Sureties in Dispute with Contractor arising from Claim against Subcontractor Performance Bond

February 27, 2019 — CDJ STAFF
On October 26, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the “Eleventh Circuit”) issued a decision which reversed an award of prevailing party attorneys’ fees to performance bond sureties in their dispute with a contractor arising from the contractor’s claim against a subcontractor’s performance bond. Had the lower court’s decision been affirmed, the performance bond sureties would have been able to recover prevailing party attorneys’ fees against the contractor even though they were not parties to the underlying subcontract and the subcontract did not contain a prevailing party attorneys’ fee provision. The underlying case is complicated and arose from the construction of Brickell CityCentre in Miami. Americaribe-Moriarty JV (the “Contractor”) asserted a claim against a performance bond procured by a defaulted subcontractor and issued by International Fidelity Insurance Company and Allegheny Casualty Company (collectively, the “Sureties”). The Sureties filed a declaratory judgment action against the Contractor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “District Court”), seeking a declaration that the Contractor failed to perfect its claim against the performance bond. Reprinted courtesy of Gary M. Stein, Peckar & Abramson and K. Stefan Chin, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com Mr. Chin may be contacted at kschin@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pennsylvania Superior Court Fires up a Case-By-Case Analysis for Landlord-Tenant, Implied Co-Insured Questions

February 03, 2020 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Joella v. Cole, 2019 PA Super. 313, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently considered whether a tenant, alleged by the landlord’s property insurance carrier to have carelessly caused a fire, was an implied co-insured on the landlord’s policy. The court found that the tenant was an implied co-insured because the lease stated that the landlord would procure insurance for the building, which created a reasonable expectation that the tenant would be a co-insured under the policy. Since the tenant was an implied co-insured on the policy, the insurance carrier could not maintain a subrogation action against the tenant. This case confirms that Pennsylvania follows a case-by-case approach when determining whether a tenant was an implied co-insured on a landlord’s insurance policy. The Joella case stems from a fire at an apartment building in Northampton County, Pennsylvania. The landlord’s property insurance carrier paid the landlord $180,000 to repair the damages resulting from the fire. In March 2018, the insurer brought a subrogation action against Annie Cole, a tenant in the building, alleging that Ms. Cole’s negligent use of an extension cord caused the fire. Ms. Cole raised the affirmative defense that she was an implied co-insured on the landlord’s insurance policy. The subrogating insurer filed a partial motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss Ms. Cole’s defense. In response, Ms. Cole filed a cross motion for partial judgment, arguing that because the lease specified that the landlord would maintain fire insurance for the building, there was a reasonable expectation that she would be a co-insured on that policy. The trial court found in favor of Ms. Cole, holding that the landlord’s insurer could not maintain a subrogation action against her because she was an implied co-insured of the landlord’s insurance policy under the terms of the lease. The landlord’s insurer filed an appeal with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Insurer Must Pay Portions of Arbitration Award Related to Faulty Workmanship

October 21, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined that portions of an arbitration award against the insured contractor based upon faulty workmanship were covered by the policy. Wallace v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122219 (D. N. H. July 23, 2010). Plaintiffs, owners of adjoining homes, hired McPhail Roofing, LLC to replace the roofs of their houses. After installation, the plaintiffs found several problems with their roofs and withheld roughly a third of the agreed-upon contract price from final payments due to McPhail. A roofing consultant found evidence of water leaking through both roofs during rainstorms. Improper installation of the shakes on the roofs allowed rain to seep through to the roof decks (the plywood underneath the roofs) and eventually into the houses. The only way to cure the installation defects was to remove and replace the roofs entirely. Plaintiffs and McPhail went to arbitration. Plaintiffs sought compensation for the damage caused by the leaking and for the replacement costs of the roofs. McPhail sought the remaining payment under the contracts. Nautilus defended McPhail under this CGL policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Water Infrastructure Bill

November 06, 2018 — Tom Ichniowski – Engineering News-Record
Congress has approved major water infrastructure legislation that authorizes $3.7 billion for new Army Corps of Engineers civil-works projects and $4.4 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency drinking-water program. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

WSHB Expands into the Southeast

March 18, 2019 — William Silverman – Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP
National law firm Wood, Smith Henning & Berman LLP (WSHB) announced the opening of its North Carolina office, bringing the total number of offices nationwide to 24. Leading this office is prominent trial attorney William Silverman. Mr. Silverman enjoys a well deserved reputation for consistent results throughout the Carolinas in complex commercial litigation. His practice areas include construction and corporate disputes, insurance coverage, first and third party insurance bad faith litigation, environmental, and catastrophic injury matters. He is an “AV Preeminent” rated attorney by Martindale-Hubbell, and has been listed in Business North Carolina’s Legal Elite in the Young Guns and Construction categories. Mr. Silverman comes to the Firm from a seven year tenure at Wall Templeton, where he served as a Shareholder. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William Silverman, Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP
Mr. Silverman may be contacted at wsilverman@wshblaw.com

Haight Brown & Bonesteel Ranked on the 2017 "Best Law Firms" List by U.S. News - Best Lawyers

November 10, 2016 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
U.S. News – Best Lawyers® ranked Haight Brown & Bonesteel on the 2017 “Best Law Firms” list in the Metropolitan Tier 1 Ranking in Los Angeles for their defense work in insurance law and personal injury litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Statutes Authorizing Public-Private Partnership Contracting

February 01, 2022 — Robert A. James & Shade Oladetimi - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Public-private partnerships are often cited as a key pathway to restoring and enhancing the nation’s infrastructure. They can be challenging arrangements to structure. (As a result of the pandemic, they have even suffered the indignity of having their “PPP” acronym coopted by the Paycheck Protection Program. With apologies to Small Business Administration practitioners, we use “PPP” in this article to refer to the infrastructure tool.) One gating condition to setting up a PPP is identifying the authority for a public entity to use a contracting method that does not run afoul of the general requirements that (i) works of improvement be let to the lowest responsive bid by a responsible bidder and (ii) design services be awarded through a qualifications-based selection process. Integrated forms of project delivery that vest in a single concessionaire multiple design, construction, financing, operation, maintenance and entrepreneurial roles must find an exception to any applicable background rules. Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. James, Pillsbury and Shade Oladetimi, Pillsbury Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Oladetimi may be contacted at shade.oladetimi@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Obtains Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss in Favor of Defendant

August 16, 2021 — Lisa M. Rolle - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle obtained a motion to dismiss in favor of an international hotel chain. In the case brought before the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, the Plaintiff sustained a slip and fall injury in a Portuguese hotel (“Hotel”), which was allegedly caused by violations of building codes and New York and Portuguese negligence laws. The Plaintiff notes that the Hotel utilized the branding affiliated with the international hotel chain, and the named corporate entities are subsidiaries of the parent company of the international hotel chain. Further, Plaintiff alleged that the named corporate entities “owned, operated, maintained, and controlled” the Hotel where the accident occurred, as the international hotel had previously acquired the entity which owned the spa branding utilized. In moving for pre-answer dismissal, Traub Lieberman acknowledged purchase of the managing agent of the Hotel, which became a subsidiary of their operations. However, Traub Lieberman asserted that the international hotel chain had not owned, operated, maintained, or managed the Hotel. Under New York law, parent corporations cannot be held liable for the actions of their subsidiaries, except in cases that support piercing the corporate veil. Traub Lieberman argued that the motion should be granted as a parent company cannot be held liable for acts committed by its subsidiary and further claimed that the parent company has never owned or operated the Hotel. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES