Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Time to Reform Construction Defect Law in Nevada

February 21, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Las Vegas Review-Journal is supporting efforts to reform the state’s construction defect laws. Although the intention was to “protect homeowners from the costs of shoddy workmanship,” they state the laws have instead “enriched lawyers and made housing more expensive.” The take the Las Vegas homeowner association scandal as a sign that reform is needed. A further sign of needed reform is that during a time when new home sales decreased, construction defect claims more than tripled. The editorial notes that “current law allows lawsuits to be brought for cosmetic imperfections that pose no risks.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Firms Complain of Missed Payments on Redevelopment Project

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Firms working on the Quincy Center redevelopment project in the Boston area are claiming that the developer has been slow to pay. Street-Works Development says that Twining Properties, a partner in the development, is in the process of paying off $1.9 million owed to construction companies. The project was put on hold when it was determined that funds were not available to build the initially planned 15-story, steel-framed apartment building as part of a residential, retail, and office complex. The residential portion will now be a 6-story, wood-framed building. One of the contractors has taken the first steps to placing a lien on another property owned by Street-Works. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New York Court Enforces Construction Management Exclusion

March 14, 2018 — Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
In its recent decision in Houston Cas. Co. v. Cavan Corp. of NY, Inc., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1138 (N.Y. 1st Dep’t Feb. 20, 2018), a New York appellate court had occasion to consider the application of a construction management exclusion in a general liability policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP

Plaintiff’s Mere Presence in Area Where Asbestos is Present Insufficient to Establish Bystander Exposure

October 21, 2015 — R. Bryan Martin & Laura C. Williams – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Schiffer v. CBS Corporation (filed 9/9/15; modified 9/30/15), the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant asbestos insulation manufacturer finding plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of bystander exposure. Plaintiff James Schiffer (“Schiffer”) alleged that while working at the Ginna Gas & Electric power plant in the summer of 1969, he was exposed to asbestos-containing materials during installation of equipment and insulation manufactured by CBS Corporation’s predecessor-in-interest, Westinghouse. After developing mesothelioma, Schiffer and his wife sued numerous entities, including CBS, which successfully moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Schiffer failed to submit evidence that he was exposed to asbestos-containing materials. Reprinted courtesy R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Laura C. Williams, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Skipping Depositions does not Constitute Failure to Cooperate in New York

March 09, 2020 — Ryan G. Nelson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Insurance policies typically impose, on the insured, a duty to cooperate with the insurer during investigation and litigation of a claim. Non-cooperation can be grounds for denying coverage. This begs the question: what constitutes non-cooperation? Recently, a New York appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision that failure by an employee of the insured to show up for three court-ordered depositions did not rise to the level of “willful and avowed obstruction” and therefore, the insurer could not deny coverage on the basis of non-cooperation. See Foddrell v. Utica First Insurance Co., 178 A.D.3d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). In so holding, the Foddrell court applied the Thrasher test: “To effectively deny coverage based upon lack of cooperation, an insurance carrier must demonstrate (1) that it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) that the efforts employed by the insured were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) that the attitude of the insured, after his or her cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction.” Id.; see Thrasher v. U. S. Liab. Ins. Co., 19 N.Y.2d 159, 167 (1967). Thomas Foddrell’s suit against Utica First Insurance Company (“Utica First”) stemmed from his personal injury suit against Janey & Rana Construction Corporation (“J&R” (Utica First’s insured). During that lawsuit, J&R’s principal, Gardeep Singh, failed to appear for two court-ordered depositions. After his failure to appear at those depositions, Utica First sent an investigator to inform Singh that he was scheduled for a third deposition. Singh responded to the investigator that he would speak with J&R’s attorneys about the matter. Ultimately, Singh did not appear for the third court-ordered deposition. In response to Singh’s repeated failure to appear for the depositions, Utica First sent Singh a letter advising him that because of his lack of cooperation, Utica would no longer agree to indemnify J&R. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan G. Nelson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Nelson may be contacted at rgn@sdvlaw.com

House of Digital Twins

March 08, 2021 — Cristina Savian - AEC Business
As a vocal and passionate advocate for the adoption of Digital Twins for our built assets, I keep finding myself standing in, what feels like, the middle of a house of cards, observing its always rocky structure in constant danger of collapse. A wobbly system threatened by the tremors stressed by one of the most prominent digital revolutions that our construction industry has ever experienced. DIGITAL TWINS FOR OUR BUILT ASSET. This booming industry trend is gaining speed at a rate that the construction industry has never experienced before. Construction has always been slow at innovating and still holds its title as the least digitalised industry, but the Digital Twin revolution has now found our location and is ready to disrupt. I often witness how these forces attempt to pull down the cards, but, to my surprise, their resilience is what keeps holding the house together. Hold on, is this resilience or resistance? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Cristina Savian, AEC Business

Addenda to Construction Contracts Can Be an Issue

March 30, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
We’ve all been there. Your client either has a well drafted standard subcontract (with any luck in consultation with an experienced construction attorney) that it presents to its subcontractors and suppliers or your client is presented with a construction contract that has some provisions that it would prefer were either different or gone altogether. In the first of these scenarios, your client often gets push back from a subcontractor to change certain provisions. Such a response is not necessarily a bad thing depending on the provisions that the potential subcontractor may have. The construction contract documents will govern the way that the project moves forward and will be strictly enforced in Virginia and elsewhere so some early give and take is not unusual or unwanted. In the second scenario, your client is likely to be reading a fairly one sided document. The General Contractor has drafted the contract and is “north” of your client in the payment chain. Like it or not, they will in most instances leave it to you and your attorney to root out the particularly egregious on sided terms and seek to negotiate them to some sort of equality. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Client Alert: Restaurant Owed Duty of Care to Driver Killed by Third-Party on Street Adjacent to Restaurant Parking Lot

January 07, 2015 — R. Bryan Martin, Lawrence S. Zucker II, & Kristian B. Moriarty – Haight, Brown, & Bonesteel, LLP
In Annocki v. Peterson Enterprise, LLC, (Filed 11/14/2014, Certified for Publication 12/5/2014, No. B251434) the Court of Appeal, Second District, held a restaurant owed a duty of care to the driver of a motorcycle who died as a result of the negligent driving of a third party exiting the restaurant’s parking lot. Decedent, Joseph M. Annocki, was driving his motorcycle on Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, when it collided with the vehicle operated by Terry Allen Turner, who was exiting the parking lot of “Geoffrey’s" restaurant, which was owned and operated by the Defendant, Peterson Enterprise, LLC (“Peterson”). The parents of the decedent (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Peterson, alleging Peterson failed to adequately staff the restaurant parking lot, which caused Turner to become confused and make an illegal left turn onto Pacific Coast Highway, thereby causing the accident that killed decedent. Plaintiffs further alleged Peterson knew, or should have known, that its parking lot and driveway were designed and in such condition as to create a danger of decreased visibility of the adjacent highway, and failed to adequately provide signage directing patrons that only right turns could be made onto Pacific Coast Highway. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin, Lawrence S. Zucker II and Kristian B. Moriarty Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES