Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

SIGAR Report Finds +$15 Billion in “Waste, Fraud and Abuse” in Afghanistan

August 20, 2018 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel
Today, our colleagues Alex Ginsberg, Glenn Sweatt and Kevin Massoudi published their Client Alert on a recently issued Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) Report that finds over $15 billion in waste, fraud and abuse. In New SIGAR Report Identifies “Waste, Fraud and Abuse” in Afghanistan, our colleagues identify key takeaways from the Report include:

The Report reviewed public spending for Afghanistan reconstruction efforts and identified at least $15.5 billion in waste, fraud and abuse.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

AAA Revises its Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures

April 02, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
This one is for the lawyers. Or for those of you who are claims-minded . . . Effective March 1, 2024, the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) revised its Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures. For those involved in construction, this is important since the AAA Rules are the default arbitration rules contained in AIA form contracts and are often the arbitration rules referenced in other construction contracts as well. So, what are the changes?

General: Fax numbers have gone the way of the Dodo bird and replaced by email addresses for all parties. Also, while already done in practice, preliminary hearings may now be held via videoconference in addition to telephone and in-person (Rule R-23).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Supreme Court Overrules Longstanding Decision Supporting Collection of Union Agency Fees

July 02, 2018 — Amy R. Patton, Blake A. Dillion, & Eric C. Sohlgren - Payne & Fears
In a 5 to 4 opinion, the United States Supreme Court overruled a longstanding decision which required government employees who are represented by but do not belong to a union, to pay a fair share or agency fee to cover the union's costs for collective bargaining activities. In Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), the Supreme Court found that requiring such fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment: "[n]either an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay." Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears attorneys Amy R. Patton, Blake A. Dillion and Eric C. Sohlgren Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com Mr. Sohlgren may be contacted at ecs@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SunTrust Will Pay $968 Million to Resolve Mortgage Probes

June 18, 2014 — Tom Schoenberg – Bloomberg
SunTrust Banks Inc. (STI) agreed to pay $968 million to resolve federal and state claims that a unit misrepresented the quality of mortgages the bank originated and deceived homeowners on loans it serviced. The agreement covers loans SunTrust Mortgage made from January 2006 through March 2012 that were backed by the Federal Housing Administration even though they didn’t meet agency requirements, the Justice Department said in a statement today. Atlanta-based SunTrust disclosed the agreement in an October regulatory filing and has already accounted for the payment. “SunTrust’s conduct is a prime example of the widespread underwriting failures that helped bring about the financial crisis,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement. “We will continue to hold accountable financial institutions that, in the pursuit of their own financial interests, misuse public funds and cause harm to hardworking Americans.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Schoenberg, Bloomberg
Mr. Schoenberg may be contacted at tschoenberg@bloomberg.net

Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Wins Summary Judgment in Pinellas County Circuit Court

November 29, 2021 — Bradley T. Guldalian - Traub Lieberman
On September 20, 2021, Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian secured summary judgment in Pinellas County Circuit Court in St. Petersburg, Florida, on behalf of a Homeowner who invited an acquaintance to his house to assist him with hanging a gutter on his roof. While he was assisting the Homeowner installing the gutter, the Plaintiff fell from a ladder and sustained a comminuted left intertrochanteric (hip) fracture. The Plaintiff was taken to the hospital, where he underwent open reduction, internal fixation of his left hip fracture. He was hospitalized for five days and released in wheelchair. He incurred more than $70,000 in medical bills and was confined to a wheelchair for two months. The Plaintiff filed a negligence action against the Homeowner alleging he improperly set up the ladder causing it to become unstable, thereby creating a dangerous condition on the premises which proximately caused his fall. The Plaintiff claimed the Homeowner breached the duty he owed the Plaintiff to provide safe and stable equipment for his use. After engaging in discovery, Mr. Guldalian moved for summary judgment arguing that because the Plaintiff could not explain in his deposition why he fell from the ladder, the Plaintiff could not establish—as a matter of law—the Homeowner was negligent, did anything, or failed to do something, that proximately caused his injury. In support of his argument, Mr. Guldalian submitted the affidavit of an investigator who inspected the ladder after the Plaintiff’s fall and found no defect in, on, or about the ladder, and affirmed that the area where the ladder was set up had no raised or defective areas which could have caused the ladder to become unstable. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bradley T. Guldalian, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Guldalian may be contacted at bguldalian@tlsslaw.com

Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

September 01, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

A U.S. District Court Judge in Florida has ruled in favor of a company that sought to void a settlement agreement. The case, Water v. HDR Engineering, involved claims of construction defects at Florida’s C.W. Bill Young Regional Reservoir. The Tampa Bay Water Authority attributed these to both HDR Engineering’s design and Bernard Construction Company which had built the embankment. Bernard Construction filed a complaint against their subcontractor, McDonald.

Tampa Bay Water settled with Bernard Construction and McDonald, in an agreement that set a minimum and maximum settlement, but also would “prohibit Barnard and McDonald from presenting any evidence on several claims and positions of TBW, to require Barnard to call certain witnesses at trial, to preclude Barnard and McDonald from calling other witnesses, and to restrict the filing of trial and post-trial motions.” HDR Engineering moved to void the agreement as collusive.

The judge that the agreementÂ¬? contained “133 paragraphs of ‘Agreed Facts’ that the parties stipulated would survive any order declaring the Settlement Agreement void or unenforceable.” He characterized these as stipulating “that Barnard neither caused nor contributed to TBW’s damages.” HDR motioned that a summary judgment be given to Barnard Engineering.

The court found that “the evidence identified by TBW is patently insufficient to survive summary judgment.” Further, TBW’s expert initially held Barnard responsible for “lenses, pockets, streaks and layers within the embankment,” but then later withdrew this assigning the responsibility to HDR. Further, the court notes that, “TBW’s arguments that lenses, pockets, streaks, and layers in the soil wedge caused or contributed to its damages and that Barnard is liable for those damages have been foreclosed by the Agreed Facts.”

As TBW failed to provide sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment, the court granted summary judgment, mooted the claim against McDonald, and terminated the agreement between TBW and the other parties.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Appraiser Declarations Inadmissible When Offered to Challenge the Merits of an Appraisal Award

March 14, 2018 — Valerie Moore and Christopher Kendrick - Publications & Insights
In Khorsand v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. (No. B280273, filed 2/27/18), a California appeals court affirmed an appraisal award favorable to a homeowners insurer, ruling that it was improper to admit as evidence in opposition to a petition to confirm the award a declaration from the policyholders’ appraiser, except for the limited purpose of showing improprieties in the appraisal, bias, partiality or other improper conduct. The homeowners had a pipe leak and submitted a claim. The insurer responded to an estimate from the owners’ adjuster by retaining an expert and paying an undisputed amount that was significantly less. Eleven months later the owners had upper deck damage and submitted another claim. Relying on the same expert, the insurer paid another undisputed amount significantly less than the owner’s estimate. The owners requested appraisal but the insurer denied the request, contending that the dispute was over coverage and outside the scope of appraisal. The owners’ petition for appraisal was granted, with the court ordering separate listing of items the insurer disputed regarding coverage or causation. The appraisal panel issued an award stating that total damage was $132,293, of which $96,530 was contested by the insurer. The insurer filed a petition to confirm the award, which was granted despite the fact that the owners’ appraiser had refused to sign it. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Supports Coverage

January 06, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

Relying on the efficient proximate cause doctrine, the court determined coverage potentially existed for damage caused by water. Union Sav. Bank v. Allstate Indem. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134398 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 21, 2011).

The Tods purchased property that was mortgaged by Union Savings. The Tods obtained a Landlords Policy for the property from Allstate. When the Tods were in default on their loan, Union Savings notified them that foreclosure proceedings would commence. Union Savings sent an appraiser to the property who discovered water in the basement. Water and electricity to the building were off. Union Savings notified Allstate and later filed a formal claim under the mortgagee clause in the Landlords Policy. This clause stated, "A covered loss will be payable to the mortgagees named on the policy declaration. . . ."

Allstate denied coverage, citing exclusions for water damage.

Read the full story…

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