FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Recent Changes in the Law Affecting Construction Defect Litigation

October 19, 2017 — David M. McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation
On May 23, 2017, Governor Hickenlooper signed HB17-1279 into law. The bill states that before an HOA’s executive board can institute a construction defect action, it must provide notice of the anticipated commencement of the action to each of the HOA’s unit owners, along with certain disclosures about the anticipated action. The bill also requires that the HOA executive committee convene a meeting of the unit owners to consider the action, and that the construction professionals against which the claim is being brought have the opportunity to address the members of the HOA. The bill also states that the HOA executive committee may only initiate a construction defect action if it is approved by “owners of units to which a majority of votes in the association are allocated.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

Title II under ADA Applicable to Public Rights-of-Way, Parks and Other Recreation Areas

June 29, 2017 — Richard E. Morton - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Plaintiff Ivana Kirola, who suffers from cerebral palsy, sued the City and County of San Francisco, in a class action contending certain public areas, including rights-of-way, pools, parks and other recreation areas, did not meet the mandate of Title II of the American With Disabilities Act (Kirola v. City and County of San Francisco, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 14-17521, 2017 DJDAR 5982). Title II provides that no qualified individual with a disability “shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” Title II’s implementing regulations mandate that each facility constructed after January 26, 1992 be “readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” And, for each facility “altered after January 26, 1992,” the altered portion must, “to the maximum extent feasible,” be likewise accessible. The Federal Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board creates nonbinding Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) to ensure compliance with Title II, and that the Department of Justice (DOJ) adopt its own binding regulations, consistent with the ADAAG standards. Here, the District Court interpreted ADAAG standards as not applying to public rights-of-way, parks, and playground facilities. The District Court concluded that none of Kirola’s experts were reliable in their interpretation of the standards and how the standards applied to the public rights-of-way, etc. Conversely, the District Court concluded that all of the city’s experts were reliable. It thus disregarded and discarded every ADAAG violation identified by Kirola’s experts, accepting only the small number of violations identified by the city’s experts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard E. Morton, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Morton may be contacted at rmorton@hbblaw.com

---

Subcontractor’s Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

September 07, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Since I wrote my ebook on the application of federal Miller Act payment bonds, I have not discussed a case applying the Miller Act. Until now! Below is a case that reinforces two important points applicable to Miller Act payment bond claims. First, the case reinforces what a claimant needs to prove to establish a Miller Act payment bond claim. Very important. Second, the case reinforces that a subcontractor is going to be governed by its subcontract. This means that those provisions regarding payment and scope of work are very important. Not that you did not already know this, but ignoring contractual requirements will not fly. In U.S.A. f/u/b/o Netplanner Systems, Inc. v. GSC Construction, Inc., 2017 WL 3594261 (E.D.N.C. 2017), a prime contractor hired a subcontractor to run cabling and wiring at Fort Bragg. The subcontractor claimed it was owed a balance and filed a lawsuit against the general contractor the Miller Act payment bond. 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

---

Performing Work with a Suspended CSLB License Costs Big: Subcontractor Faces $18,000,000 Disgorgement

September 17, 2015 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & David A. Harris – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In what could lead to a draconian result, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held that a contractor who performs work without a valid license can be required to disgorge all payments received, even if the contractor perfectly performed its work. The case, Judicial Council of California v. Jacobs Facilities, Inc. (Ct. of Appeal, 1st App. Dis., Div. One, A140890, A141393), involved an $18,000,000 contract between Jacobs Facilities, Inc. (“Jacobs Facilities”) and the Judicial Council of California (“Judicial Council”). In April 2006, Jacobs Facilities, a wholly owned subsidiary of Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (“Jacobs Engineering”) entered into a three year contract with the Judicial Counsel to maintain 121 courthouses and other judicial branch buildings throughout Southern California (the “Contract”). Jacobs Facilities contracted to provide maintenance and oversight services, while retaining subcontractors to perform the actual maintenance and repair work. In December 2006, as part of a corporate reorganization, Jacobs Engineering started winding up Jacobs Facilities and transferred its employees to Jacobs Engineering and then subsequently to another wholly owned subsidiary called Jacobs Project Management Co. (“Jacobs Management”). The work that was performed by Jacobs Facilities was taken over by Jacobs Management. As part of the windup, Jacobs Facilities’ Contractor’s State License Board license was allowed to lapse and the license expired by operation of law in November 2008. Although Jacobs Management was now performing the work, it was not added as a party to the contract. Although it appears Judicial Council was aware of the corporate changes, it was not until November 2009 that the parties assigned the contract to Jacobs Management. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Mixing Concrete, Like Baking a Cake, is Fraught with Problems When the Recipe is Not Followed

February 26, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
“Mixing concrete, like baking a cake, is fraught with problems when the recipe is not followed.” – Justice Kenneth Yegan, State Ready Mix, Inc. v. Moffatt & Nichol, California Court of Appeal for the Second District, Case No. B253421 (January 8, 2015). I love jurists who aren’t afraid to mix in a little humour in their opinions. But “[t]he law,” as a framed needlepoint in one of my colleague’s offices says, “is serious business.” And the State Ready Mix case involved one of the thorniest problems in construction litigation: What to do when you’re sued and you think someone else is to blame. 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

---

Insurer's Bad Faith is Actionable Tort for Purposes of Choice of Law Analysis

January 08, 2024 — Janeen M. Thomas - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
When an insurer handles a claim in violation of its duty to act in good faith, policyholders are often eager to sue the insurer for bad faith, seeking extra contractual damages. Before filing suit, however, it is critical that policyholders consider what state’s law applies to the bad faith claim. In the recent case of Scott Fetzer Co. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc.1, the Ohio Supreme Court held that Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws, § 145 (“Section 145"), governed the choice of law dispute, which meant that the insured would be able to obtain discovery of Travelers’ claims-handling procedures, guidelines, internal documents, and communications relating to the claim.2 The insured, Scott Fetzer, argued that the materials were discoverable because documents evidencing an insurer’s bad faith are not protected by attorney-client privilege in Ohio. In response, Travelers argued that the laws of either Indiana (the place where the parties entered into the insurance contract), or Michigan (the location of the insured risk) governed the discovery dispute because Restatement (Second) § 193 (“Section 193”) governs the choice of law analysis for claims that “arise out of insurance contracts.”3 The laws of either Indiana or Michigan were more favorable for Travelers because Indiana does not allow discovery of materials covered by attorney-client privilege, and Michigan does not even recognize a cause of action for bad faith. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Janeen M. Thomas, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at JThomas@sdvlaw.com

---

Steel Makeover Under Way for Brooklyn's Squibb Footbridge

January 13, 2020 — Tom Stabile - Engineering News-Record
Brooklyn Bridge Park’s Squibb Bridge has 127 fewer years of existence than the borough’s iconic East River span, but the pedestrian crossing got lots of New York City attention since it was first opened in 2013 after being shut down twice—once for excessive “bounciness” and again due to rotting wood. Now its reconstruction, hopefully for good, is anything but a straightforward operation. Tom Stabile, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Neighbor Allowed to Remove Tree Roots on Her Property That Supported Adjoining Landowners’ Two Large Trees With Legal Immunity

July 14, 2016 — Paul R. Cressman, Jr. – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC Blog
A recent Washington Court of Appeals opinion addressed the rights of a neighbor to destroy roots and branches on her property that belonged to trees located on an adjoining landowner’s property.[1] Mustoe had two large Douglas-fir trees located entirely on her property, about two and one-half feet from the property line with her neighbor Ma. Ma caused a ditch to be dug on her property along the border with Mustoe’s lot. The ditch was 18-20 inches deep. In the process, Ma exposed and removed the trees’ roots, leaving them to extend only three-four feet from the trunks of the trees. This resulted in a loss of nearly half of the trees’ roots, all from the south side, exposing them to southerly winds with no support. The damaged trees posed a high risk of falling on Mustoe’s home. The landscape value of the trees was estimated to be $16,418. The cost of their removal was estimated to be $3,913. Mustoe filed suit against Ma asserting that Ma had negligently, recklessly, and intentionally excavated and damaged her trees, along with other property, and also sought emotional distress damages. The trial court dismissed Mustoe’s suit. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul R. Cressman, Jr., Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Cressman may be contacted at pcressman@ac-lawyers.com

---