Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Ohio Rejects the Majority Trend and Finds No Liability Coverage for a Subcontractor’s Faulty Work

December 11, 2018 — Shannon M. Warren - The Subrogation Strategist
In Ohio N. Univ. v. Charles Constr. Servs., 2018 Ohio LEXIS 2375 (No. 2017-0514, October 9, 2018), the Supreme Court of Ohio was recently called upon to determine if a general contractor’s Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance policy provided coverage for defective work completed by its subcontractor. Rejecting the majority trend, the court held that, because the subcontractor’s faulty work was not an “occurrence” caused by an accident – i.e. a fortuitous event – within the meaning of the contractor’s CGL policy, the insurer did not have to defend or indemnify the contractor with respect to the plaintiff’s claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Warren may be contacted at warrens@whiteandwilliams.com

Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” in four practice areas and Tier 2 in one practice area by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2021

November 30, 2020 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP is listed in the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® (2021 Edition) “Best Law Firms” list with five metro rankings in the following areas: Los Angeles

Tier 1

Insurance Law
Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Product Liability Litigation – Plaintiffs

Tier 2

Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

Not All Work is Covered Under the Federal Miller Act

May 24, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The recent opinion out of the Eastern District Court of Virginia, Dickson v. Forney Enterprises, Inc., 2021 WL 1536574 (E.D.Virginia 2021), demonstrates that the federal Miller Act is not designed to protect ALL that perform work on a federal construction project. This is because NOT ALL work is covered under the Miller Act. In this case, a professional engineer was subcontracted by a prime contractor to serve on site in a project management / superintendent capacity. The prime contractor’s scope of work was completed by January 31, 2019. However, the prime contractor was still required to inventory certain materials on site, which was performed by the engineer. The engineer claimed it was owed in excess of $400,000 and filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit on February 5, 2020 (more than a year after the project was completed). 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

‘Like a War Zone’: Malibu Fire Ravages Multimillion-Dollar Homes

December 04, 2018 — John Gittelsohn, Anousha Sakoui, & Christopher Palmeri - Bloomberg
Malibu resident Lance Schultz was jolted awake at 2 a.m. Friday with word that he needed to evacuate. With a roaring fire approaching the coastal community, he gathered his girlfriend, dog and 8-month-old son and headed to nearby Zuma Beach. He returned Sunday to survey the damage. His home was saved after his girlfriend’s 82-year-old father returned to hose down the property he had built years before. But Schultz estimates about one-fifth of the houses in the neighborhood are gone, including a mansion down the block that was on sale for $16 million. Much of the rest of the area is covered in black soot. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Gittelsohn, Anousha Sakoui, & Christopher Palmeri, Bloomberg

Quick Note: Aim to Avoid a Stay to your Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

February 23, 2017 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
Strategy is important. This is especially true if you are trying to avoid arbitration. In a recent federal district court case, a subcontractor sued the prime contractor and the Miller Act payment bond surety. The subcontractor, however, had an arbitration provision in its subcontract with the prime contractor. The prime contractor moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the subcontract and moved to stay the subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond claim. The last thing, and I mean the last thing, the subcontractor wanted to do was to stay its claim against the Miller Act payment bond. However, the district court compelled the subcontractor’s claim against the prime contractor to arbitration and stayed the subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond claim pending the outcome of the arbitration. See U.S. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 2017 WL 495614 (S.D.Al. 2017). This is not what the subcontractor wanted. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

The “Ugly” Property Next Door is Ruining My Property Value

September 14, 2017 — Kevin J. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Traditional bases for private nuisance claims include circumstances where noise, light, vibration, or odor emanating from a neighboring property harm the value of your property. Such bases can be objectively verified and quantified. Courts in various states depart, however, on the issue of whether pure unsightliness of a neighboring property, which diminishes the value of your property, supports a cognizable damages claim against the neighboring property owner under the law of nuisance. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com

New Jersey Supreme Court Holding Impacts Allocation of Damages in Cases Involving Successive Tortfeasors

March 28, 2022 — Thomas Regan & Karley Kamaris - Lewis Brisbois
Newark, N.J. (March 21, 2022) - Late in 2021, the Supreme Court of New Jersey addressed the issue of allocating damages in personal injury cases in which the plaintiff asserts claims against successive tortfeasors, such as medical malpractice in the treatment of a slip and fall injury caused by negligence. The decision in Glassman v. Friedel, 249 N.J. 199 (2021) overruled and replaced the long-held principles established in Ciluffo v. Middlesex General Hospital, 146 N.J. Super. 478 (App. Div. 1977) regarding successive liability. Ciluffo held that, when an initial tortfeasor settles before trial, the non-settling defendants in a successive tort were entitled to a pro tanto credit for the settlement amount against any damages assessed against them. The Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division in 2020, and the Supreme Court of New Jersey last year, abandoned that framework for one more consistent with statutory contribution law in the Garden State. In Glassman v. Friedel, 465 N.J. Super. 436 (App. Div. 2020), the Appellate Division held that the application of the principles in Ciluffo in a negligence case has no support in modern jurisprudence, thus limiting its application. It rejected the holding in Ciluffo in light of the state legislature’s enactment of the Comparative Negligence Act, which requires juries to apportion damages between successive events and apportion fault among the parties responsible for each event. The appellate division went on to hold that a non-settling, successive tortfeasor may present proofs at trial as to the negligence of the settling tortfeasor, and that the burden of proof as to the initial tortfeasor’s negligence being the proximate cause of the second causative event indeed lies on the non-settling defendant. In sum, the appellate division in Glassman established steps the jury can use to determine successive tortfeasor liability, but largely treated it as one, attenuated incident. Reprinted courtesy of Thomas Regan, Lewis Brisbois and Karley Kamaris, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Regan may be contacted at Thomas.Regan@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Kamaris may be contacted at Karley.Kamaris@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Developer Transition - Maryland Condominiums

June 21, 2017 — Nicholas D. Cowie - Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law Blog
INTRODUCTION “Developer transition” is the process by which the governance of a condominium association is transferred from developer to unit owner control. This article provides a brief overview of the legal requirements that govern the developer transition process for Maryland condominiums. This article also as well as a “transition checklist” for transitioning unit owner-controlled boards of directors. PERIOD OF DEVELOPER CONTROL A developer initially controls an association because it owns all unsold units in the newly created condominium community. As such, the developer has the controlling votes associated with majority ownership and can appoint its own employees as the initial members of the board of directors and thereby control how the condominium association conducts its affairs. This is referred to as the “period of developer control,” during which the developer makes all decisions on behalf of the association. The developer also creates an association’s governing documents, allowing it to dictate, subject to applicable law, the procedures and time periods under which control over the association’s board of directors will eventually be transferred to the homeowners. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.
Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES