FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Update Regarding McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct.

April 28, 2016 — Richard H. Glucksman and David A. Napper – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger In Focus
The construction industry continues to await the California Supreme Court's highly anticipated decision regarding McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist.). The Supreme Court will attempt to resolve the conflict presented by the Fourth Appellate District Court's holding in Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 and rejection of the same by the Fifth Appellate District Court in McMillin Albany. The issue is whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2013. CGDRB has been closely monitoring the progress of the case and understands that the real parties in interest have submitted their opening brief on the merits. The Court granted Petitioners a further and final extension to file the answer brief on the merits. The answer deadline is Monday April 25, 2016. Stay tuned. Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and David A. Napper, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Washington Trial Court Narrows Definition of First Party Claimant, Clarifies Available Causes of Action in Commercial Property Loss Context

January 04, 2021 — Kathleen A. Nelson & Jonathan R. Missen - Lewis Brisbois
The law in the State of Washington, albeit clear on issues regarding first party claimants, was recently challenged in the matter of Eye Associates Northwest, P.C. v. Sedgwick et. al. However, despite this challenge of first impression, the court limited the application of the term “first party claimant” (a term of art akin to “insured”) based upon the wording of a loss payee clause, as well as taking into consideration and harmonizing the wording of the leases, other provisions in the policy regarding tenant improvements, and the simple fact that Eye Associates was not named in the policy whatsoever. In Eye Associates, the plaintiff leased office space in a high-rise medical office building, insured by three separate insurance companies. A water loss caused damage to the plaintiff’s leased space, and the plaintiff brought suit against the owner of the building, its insurers, the property manager, a third-party administrator (TPA), and two individual adjusters assigned to inspect and adjust the water loss claim. Reprinted courtesy of Kathleen A. Nelson, Lewis Brisbois and Jonathan R. Missen, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Nelson may be contacted at Kathleen.Nelson@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Missen may be contacted at Jonathan.Missen@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Defects in Texas High School Stadium Angers Residents

March 07, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to WFAA News, many residents of Allen, Texas were upset when their tax dollars were spent on a new high school football stadium, and they are angry now that alleged construction defects may cause the stadium to close, and perhaps not even reopen again this fall. There “is a disproportionately large amount of our tax dollars that goes just to Allen ISD," Rachel Palmer, an Allen resident, told WFAA News. However, Ben Pogue, president of Pogue Construction, the stadium’s general contractor called the situation “a road bump.” WPAA News also interviewed Dr. Simon Chao of the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Texas at Arlington: "Cracking is fairly common in concrete," Chao stated. "The problem is the damage water may cause by getting in the cracks.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Named to Hudson Valley Magazine’s 2022 Top Lawyers List

January 24, 2022 — Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that nine Partners from the Hawthorne, NY office have been named to the 2022 Hudson Valley Magazine Top Lawyers List. 2022 Hudson Valley Magazine’s Top Lawyers:

• Mario Castellitto – Construction
• Jonathan R. Harwood – Professional Malpractice (Non-Medical) – Defense
• Colleen E. Hastie – Construction
• Timothy G. McNamara – Product Liability
• Hillary J. Raimondi – Professional Malpractice (Non-Medical) – Defense
• Richard J. Rogers – Insurance
• Lisa M. Rolle – Professional Malpractice (Non-Medical) – Defense
• Stephen D. Straus – Product Liability
• Lisa L. Shrewsberry – Professional Malpractice (Non-Medical) – Defense

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

---

Court Finds No Coverage for Workplace “Prank” With Nail Gun

April 04, 2022 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In the recent case of Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Burby, 2022 NY Slip Op 22070, ¶ 1 (Sup. Ct.) Justice Richard M. Platkin of the Supreme Court of Albany County, New York examined a homeowners insurance policy and determined that a duty to defend was triggered in a case seeking recovery for injuries sustained when the insured, Burby allegedly discharged a nail gun in the bathroom of a work facility at which both Burby and the underlying plaintiff worked. Burby pled guilty to assault in the third degree for recklessly causing physical injury. MetLife, Burby’s carrier, disclaimed coverage based on lack of an occurrence, the business activities exclusion and the intentional loss exclusion, which bars coverage for injuries expected or intended by the insured or injuries that are the result of the insured’s intentional and criminal acts or omissions. Justice Platkin initially reviewed the intentional loss exclusion and lack of an occurrence and found that, from a duty to defend perspective, neither provided a dispositive coverage defense. However, the court found that the broadly worded business activities exclusion, which was not the subject of MetLife’s motion and instead was the subject of a cross motion by Burby, applied to bar coverage. In doing so, the court searched the record and granted summary judgment on the issue, despite MetLife not moving for relief under the exclusion. With respect to the expected or intended prong of the intentional loss exclusion, the court found that, even if Burby did intend to pull the trigger of the nail gun, it was not pled in the underlying complaint that the harm that resulted to the plaintiff was expected or intended. As such, the court concluded that MetLife did not prove that there was no possible factual or legal basis upon which it could be found that Burby did not reasonably expect or intend to cause injury to the plaintiff. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

---

“Families First Coronavirus Response Act”: Emergency Paid Leave for Construction Employers with Fewer Than 500 Employees

March 30, 2020 — Sidney Lewis & Alex Glaser, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocs
COVID-19 has already taken a toll on construction projects across the nation. Construction industry participants, including general contractors, now face risks and challenges that are exceedingly difficult to anticipate and plan for. The spread of this virus has and will continue to create new labor force issues and amplify existing ones. On March 18, 2020, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6021, the “Families First Coronavirus Response Act,” which, contains provisions related to mandatory paid leave for employers with fewer than 500 employees. This legislation and the substantial obligations it imposes apply to the overwhelming number of general contractors in the nation—those with less than 500 full-time employees! The bill mandates up to 80 hours of “emergency paid leave” related to COVID-19, and not just for those who contract the illness. However, contractors with less than 50 employees may seek exemption. Reprinted courtesy of Sidney Lewis, Jones Walker LLP and Alex Glaser, Jones Walker LLP Mr. Lewis may be contacted at slewis@joneswalker.com Mr. Glaser may be contacted at aglaser@joneswalker.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Climate Change Lawsuit Barred by “Pollution Exclusion”

November 05, 2024 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
On October 7, 2024, the Hawaii Supreme Court answered the question of whether an “accident” includes an insured’s reckless conduct in emitting harmful greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) and whether such emissions are “pollutants” as defined in a general liability policy’s pollution exclusion. In Aloha Petro., Ltd. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pitt., PA, No., 2024 Haw. LEXIS 179 (Oct. 7, 2024), the Hawaii Supreme Court answered in the affirmative as to both certified questions from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, holding that an insured’s reckless conduct can be an “accident” and that GHGs are “pollutants” under the policies’ pollution exclusions. In the underlying case, the County of Honolulu and the County of Maui (the “Counties”) sued Aloha Petroleum, Ltd. (“Aloha”) and several other fossil fuel companies for climate change-related harms. Namely, the Counties alleged that the fossil fuel industry knew that its products would cause catastrophic climate change, and rather than mitigating their emissions, defendants concealed such knowledge, promoted climate science denial, and increased their production of fossil fuels. Aloha was allegedly on notice that its products caused harmful climate change through its former parent company, Phillips 66, and its current parent company, Sunoco. Given this knowledge, the District Court determined that the Counties allegations constituted reckless conduct by Aloha. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

---

The Word “Estimate” in a Contract Matters as to a Completion Date

February 12, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Language in a contract matters. The word “estimates” or “estimated” matters particularly when it comes to a date certain such as a substantial completion or completion date. Remember this. Here is an example. In Parque Towers Developers, LLC v. Pilac Management, Ltd., 49 Fla.L.Weekly D190a (Fla. 3d DCA 2024), a trial court held that the developer did not complete the construction of five condominium units by the date in the purchase agreements. The developer appealed because “[t]he agreements contain no date certain for the completion of the units, but rather include a clause that ‘Seller estimates it will substantially complete construction of the Unit, in the manner specified in this Agreement, by December 31, 2017, subject to extensions resulting from ‘Force Majeure (the ‘Outside Date’).’” Parque Towers, supra. Another provision in the purchase agreements stated, “[w]henver this Agreement requires Seller to complete or substantially complete any item of construction, that item will be understood to be complete or substantially complete when so completed or substantially completed in Seller’s opinion. Id. 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

---