FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

White House Reverses Trump Administration NEPA Cutbacks

October 24, 2021 — Mary B. Powers & Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-Record
The Biden administration's Oct. 6 announcement that it will restore certain long-standing environmental reviews for infrastructure projects—rolled back by the Trump administration last year—won praise from environmental groups but has some in the construction sector wary of new project delays as a major federal funding push looms. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Defect Claim Must Be Defended Under Florida Law

February 15, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii

The Eleventh Circuit found that the insured caused property damage to areas beyond its own work, obligating the insurer to defend. Addison Ins. Co. v. 4000 Island Blvd. Condo. Ass'n, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 26870 (11th Cir. Dec. 28, 2017).

The condominium association contracted with Poma Construction Corp. to replace the building's aging concrete balcony railings with new aluminum and glass railings. Poma subcontracted with Windsor Metal Specialties, Inc. to paint the new railings. Work was completed on February 24, 2012. Poma issued a 10-year warranty covering its installation of the railings. Windsor issued a 20-year limited warranty covering the paint job.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Construction Professionals Could Face More Liability Exposure Following California Appellate Ruling

December 17, 2024 — Jamison Rayfield & Brian Slome - Lewis Brisbois
San Diego/San Francisco, Calif. - The California Court of Appeal recently reversed a summary judgment ruling in favor of a geotechnical engineering firm that had conducted a brief inspection of a residential construction project's footing trench for $360. The case arose when homeowner Cheryl Lynch experienced significant property damage after her home's foundation failed and the structure began subsiding into a slope. Lynch sued Peter & Associates for professional negligence and nuisance, despite having no direct contractual relationship with the firm, which had been hired by her contractor to perform the geotechnical inspection. The court distinguished this case from Bily v. Arthur Young & Co. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 370, which had limited auditors' professional duty to third parties, noting that Bily dealt with purely economic damages, whereas Lynch involved physical property damage, making Bily's policy concerns about unlimited liability inapplicable. The court emphasized that construction professional negligence cases, particularly those involving residential property damage, warrant a different analysis than cases involving economic loss. Reprinted courtesy of Jamison Rayfield, Lewis Brisbois and Brian Slome, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Rayfield may be contacted at Jamison.Rayfield@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Slome may be contacted at Brian.Slome@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

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

---

Million-Dollar U.S. Housing Loans Surge to Record Level

July 30, 2014 — Alexis Leondis – Bloomberg
Banks are handing out mortgages of as much as $10 million to the wealthy in record numbers while first-time homebuyers struggle to get loans. Erin Gorman, managing director at Bank of New York Mellon Corp., said she’s fielding more requests for home loans of at least $2 million than ever before. She recently provided a mortgage of more than $6 million for a client’s purchase of a second property in Colorado. “These high-net-worth borrowers do act differently than first-time buyers, who borrow because they have to,” said Gorman, who serves as the national mortgage sales director at Bank of New York Mellon’s wealth management group based in Boston. “High-net-worth borrowers don’t have to borrow. They choose to, so they’re very strategic about what, why, and when they borrow.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alexis Leondis, Bloomberg
Ms. Leondis may be contacted at aleondis@bloomberg.net

---

COVID-19 Response: California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board Implements Sweeping New Regulations to Prevent COVID-19 in the Workplace

December 14, 2020 — Peter Shapiro, Drake Mirsch & Jade McKenzie - Lewis Brisbois
On November 19, 2020, the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (OSHSB) proposed sweeping and significant new emergency standards to reduce employee exposure to COVID-19. These standards have been accepted by the Office of Administrative Law and are effective as of November 30, 2020. Accordingly, it is critical that employers familiarize themselves with these new requirements and begin to implement these standards as quickly as possible. The standards include COVID-19 prevention in the workplace, multiple COVID-19 infections and outbreaks in the workplace, “major” COVID-19 outbreaks in the workplace, prevention in employer provided housing, and prevention in employer-provided transportation to and from work. They apply to all California employers and places of employment, except places with one employee who does not have contact with others, employees working from home, or employees in specified health care facilities, services or operations when covered by section 5199. COVID-19 Prevention Program Employers are required to establish, implement, and maintain an “effective” written COVID-19 Prevention Program. Under the Program, an employer is responsible for developing a system for communicating about COVID-19, identifying and evaluating COVID-19 hazards, investigating and responding to COVID-19 cases, correcting COVID-19 hazards, providing training and instructions to employees regarding COVID-19, ensuring all employees are physically distanced, providing face coverings, implementing policies regarding personal protective equipment and recordkeeping, ensuring COVID-19 cases are excluded from the workplace, and prohibiting symptomatic employees from returning to work unless certain requirements are met. Reprinted courtesy of Peter Shapiro, Lewis Brisbois, Drake Mirsch, Lewis Brisbois and Jade McKenzie, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Shapiro may be contacted at Peter.Shapiro@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Mirsch may be contacted at Drake.Mirsch@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. McKenzie may be contacted at Jade.Mckenzie@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Client Alert: Absence of a Court Reporter at a Civil Motion Hearing May Preclude Appellate Review

November 26, 2014 — Angela S. Haskins & Blythe Golay - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
A California Court of Appeal expressed its concern over the due process implications of reviewing a trial court's decision that incorporated reasons that were not documented due to the absence of a court reporter. In Maxwell v. Dolezal (No. B254893, filed 11/4/14), the court cautioned that although the lack of a transcript did not preclude its review of an order sustaining a demurrer, the case was an exception because the operative complaint and demurrer were sufficient to permit effective appellate review. The plaintiff in Maxwell, acting in pro per, had filed an action for invasion of privacy and breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had used his photograph and website without his consent and that he did not receive the money, food and housing in exchange for the intellectual property rights per their agreement. The defendant demurred on the grounds that the complaint was uncertain and it could not be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract was written, oral, or implied. At the hearing on the demurrer, no court reporter was present. Nonetheless, the trial court's minute order explicitly sustained the demurrer "[f]or the reasons stated in open court," without further elaborating. The trial court also denied the plaintiff further leave to amend on the ground that he was unable to articulate in open court a reasonable basis for any additional allegations that would remedy the deficiencies. The court of appeal noted that it was "profoundly concerned about the due process implications of a proceeding in which the court, aware that no record will be made, incorporates within its ruling reasons that are not documented for the litigants or the reviewing court." Reprinted courtesy of Angela S. Haskins, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Blythe Golay, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Haskins may be contacted at ahaskins@hbblaw.com; Ms. Golay may be contacted at bgolay@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex

June 10, 2015 — Kristen Lee Price and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego, et al. (No. D063992, filed 5/28/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a controversial plan to eliminate vehicles from various plazas in historic Balboa Park. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal considered a question of first impression involving the interpretation of San Diego Municipal Code section 126.0504. Balboa Park, designated a National Historic Landmark in 1940, is a large urban park in the center of San Diego. The City of San Diego (“City”) recently approved a proposed plan (“Project”) to eliminate vehicles from the plazas within the Balboa Park complex and to return the plazas to purely pedestrian zones. Subsequently, a community group named Save Our Heritage Organisation (“SOHO”) filed a petition for a writ of mandate alleging, among other things, the City erroneously approved the Project. SOHO contended Municipal Code section 126.0504 mandated two key findings be made before the Project could be approved: (1) that the intended purpose of the property would not be adversely affected; and (2) without the proposed project, the property would not be put to a “reasonable beneficial use.” SOHO argued that although the City made the requisite findings, those findings lacked substantial evidentiary support. The trial court agreed with SOHO and directed the City to rescind the site development permit. The City argued on appeal that Municipal Code section 126.0504 vested it with “discretion to make a qualitative determination of whether an existing use of the property, even if deemed beneficial, is also a reasonable use of that property under all of the facts and circumstances applicable to the particular property in question.” The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed. Reprinted courtesy of Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---