Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

The Court of Appeals Holds That Indifference to Safety Satisfies the Standard for a Willful Violation Under WISHA

May 16, 2022 — Cameron Sheldon - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In March 2022, the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division One, issued Marpac Constr., LLC v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., No. 82200-4-I, 2022 WL 896850, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2022) holding Marpac Construction, LLC (“Marpac”) liable for three willful Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973 (WISHA) violations pertaining to safe crane operation near energized power lines. Marpac was the general contractor on an apartment complex construction project in West Seattle. The worksite had high voltage power lines running throughout the site. Seattle City Light had flagged some with a 10-foot offset, but none of the other power lines were flagged. Marpac’s superintendent assumed that the lines were between 26 kilovolts (kV) and 50 kV based on their connection to the lines flagged by Seattle City Light. The superintendent never called Seattle City Light to check the voltage of the lines and the lines remained above ground. In September 2016, a subcontractor began work on the project’s structural foundation. The subcontractor expressed concerns about working around the power lines, but Marpac promised it was working on mitigation of the power line hazard and directed the subcontractor continue working. At one point, the subcontractor’s employees had to move the crane and concrete forms away from the power lines to allow a cement truck to park in its place. The crane’s line contacted the power lines, causing serious injuries to two of the subcontractor’s employees. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Cameron Sheldon, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Sheldon may be contacted at cameron.sheldon@acslawyers.com

Following California Law, Federal Court Adopts Horizontal Allocation For Asbestos Coverage

May 19, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Following California law, the federal district court adopted horizontal allocation to settle a dispute among carriers for an insured sued for selling asbestos products. New England Fire Ins. Corp. v. Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., Civil No. 3:12cv948 (D. Conn. April 8, 2014) [ruling here] The insured was a California-based corporation that sold plumbing supply products that contained asbestos. The insured was named in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits that were filed largely in California. The insured had primary and excess coverage for bodily injury claims. New England Fire Insurance issued an excess policy to the insured. The policy provided the insurer would be liable for the ultimate new loss in excess of the insureds underlying limit, which was defined as the amount equal to the limits of the underlying insurance, plus the applicable limits of any other underlying insurance collectible by the insured. 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

OSHA Begins Enforcement of its Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard. Try Saying That Five Times Real Fast

November 02, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
On October 23, 2017, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) began enforcement of its Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard (Construction Silica Standard). OSHA enforcement of its Construction Silica Standard actually began on September 23, 2017, but for a period of 30 days, OSHA offered compliance assistance in lieu of enforcement for employers who were making good faith efforts to comply with the Construction Silica Standard. California’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) has a nearly identical construction silica standard that requires employers to limit worker exposure to respirable crystalline silica above 25 micrograms per cubic meter of air (25 μg/m3) as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) under any foreseeable condition. 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

Three Steps to a Safer Jobsite

January 18, 2021 — Deb Hilmerson - Construction Executive
Creating a conscious and robust safety culture is essential to the bottom line. A history of, and reputation for, stringent safety protocols will help contractors win more bids and reduce potential exposure to costly fines. According to OSHA, one out of every five worker deaths is construction-related. Non-fatal construction-related injuries are rising. Now is not the time to be complacent, even for contractors with a clean, or relatively clean, safety record. Situations are changing and, in some cases, better, safer and more efficient options are becoming available. There are three areas of concern that deserve construction executives’ close attention. Safety Glasses or Face Shield Concerns in the Wake of COVID-19 Facial and eye injuries can occur any time a worker is nailing, cutting, grinding, welding, working with concrete or handling hazardous chemicals. Now with COVID-19 protocols requiring face coverings, there is an unanticipated aggravation: fogged safety glasses. Reprinted courtesy of Deb Hilmerson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Receiving a $0 Verdict and Still Being Deemed the Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees

May 24, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Low and behold, a party can be the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees even if that party is awarded $0. That’s right, even if the party is awarded a big fat zero, they can still be the prevailing party for purposes of being entitled to attorney’s fees. This is because a party is the prevailing party if they prevail on the significant issues in the case. A party can prevail on the significant issues even if that party is awarded $0. Whoa! For example, in Coconut Key Homeowner’s Association, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D1045a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), a homeowner sued her homeowner’s association claiming the association breached its governing documents. There was a basis for fees under Florida’s homeowner’s association law (and there likely was a basis under the governing documents). At trial, the jury held that the association breached its governing documents, but awarded the homeowner nothing ($0). The trial court also issued injunctive relief in favor of the homeowner. The homeowner claimed she should be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees; however, this was denied by the trial court based on the $0 verdict and no fees were awarded to the homeowner. 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

Home Prices Up in Metro Regions

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Housing prices in the largest metro regions beat expectations, rising 12.8% in August as compared to a year before. Analysts were expecting weaker increases; instead these have been the fastest increases in seven years. The metropolitan area with the largest increase was Las Vegas, where houses increased in price by 29.2%. Three California regions — San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego — also saw increases of greater than 20%. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Appeals Court Affirms Carrier’s Duty to Pay Costs Taxed Against Insured in Construction Defect Suit

November 03, 2016 — Jesse Howard Witt – The Witt Law Firm
One of the key reasons for builders to maintain liability insurance is to cover the cost of hiring defense counsel and paying litigation costs in the event of a construction defect lawsuit. If a builder loses a lawsuit, it will typically be responsible for paying the plaintiff’s litigation costs. Today, the Colorado Court of Appeals clarified that the “supplementary payments” section of a standard Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance policy covers such costs, even if the carrier has reserved the right to dispute whether it has a duty to indemnify the actual damages awarded. This may seem counter-intuitive, insofar as a carrier may owe costs even if it does not cover the underlying loss, but the court’s decision is consistent with the plain language of the CGL form that most carriers use. Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, The Witt Law Firm Mr. Witt may be contacted at his website www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Prevailing Payment Bond Surety Entitled to Statutory Attorneys’ Fees Even if Defended by Principal

January 09, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
For contractors involved in California public works projects the scenario is not uncommon: The general contractor awarded the public works project is required to obtain a payment bond for the benefit of subcontractors and suppliers and the payment bond surety issuing the payment bond requires the general contractor to defend and indemnify the surety from and against any claims against the payment bond. In Cell-Crete Corporation v. Federal Insurance Company, 82 Cal.App.5th 1090 (2022), the 4th District Court of Appeal examined whether a payment bond surety, who prevails in a claim against the payment bond, is entitled to statutory attorneys’ fees when the party actually incurring the attorneys’ fees was the general contractor, pursuant to its defense and indemnity obligations, as opposed to the surety itself. The Cell-Crete Case General contractor Granite Construction Company was awarded a public works contract issued by the City of Thermal known as the Airport Boulevard at Grapefruit Boulevard and Union Pacific Railroad Grade Separation Project. We’ll just call it the “Project.” Subcontractor Cell-Crete Corporation entered into a subcontract with Granite for lightweight concrete and related work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES