FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

AB5 Construction Exemption - A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5's Three-Part Test

May 18, 2020 — Blake A. Dillion - Payne & Fears
Construction companies have a unique opportunity to avoid the application of the restrictive new independent contractors' law that took effect this year. This article provides a checklist that will help construction companies determine whether their relationships with subcontractors qualify for this exemption. California’s Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), which went into effect Jan. 1, 2020, enacts into a statute last year’s California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and the Court’s three-part standard (the “ABC test”) for determining whether a worker may be classified as an employee or an independent contractor. Certain professions and industries are potentially exempt from this standard, including the construction industry. The ABC test does not apply to the relationship between a contractor and an individual performing work pursuant to a subcontractor in the construction industry if certain criteria are met. In order for the “construction exemption” to apply, the contractor must demonstrate that all of the following criteria are satisfied. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears
Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com

---

Morrison Bridge Allegedly Crumbling

February 05, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Portland Mercury reported that the Portland, Oregon Morrison Bridge’s structure is breaking into pieces. "The bridge is crumbling," Joel Mullin, attorney from Stoel Rives representing the county told a Multnomah County judge, according to the Portland Mercury. "The deterioration has accelerated more than anticipated." Newly released documents seem to imply that the bridge “project was doomed well before it started, and county officials should have known it,” the Portland Mercury reported. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court Rules that Collapse Coverage for Damage Caused “Only By” Specified Perils Violates Efficient Proximate Cause Rule and is Unenforceable

January 26, 2016 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Vardanyan v. Amco Ins. Co. (No. F069953, filed 12/11/15) a California appeals court held that policy wording that the collapse coverage for damage “caused only by” certain specified perils did not mean “solely” by those specified perils, but that coverage may nonetheless apply even if excluded causes contributed to the loss, under the Insurance Code section 530 and the efficient proximate cause rule. In Vardanyan, the insured made a claim for water damage from unknown origin to a rental house. An engineer concluded that the various sources of moisture—roof leaks, gutters and downspouts that did not channel the water away from the house, a faucet spraying water on the exterior of the house, leaking toilet and bathtub, and humidity—contributed to the damage to the house, along with poor construction, termite damage and decay. The insurer denied coverage citing multiple policy exclusions, including damage caused by seepage or leakage of water from a plumbing system; deterioration; mold, wet or dry rot; settling of foundations, walls or floors; earth movement; water damage; neglect; weather conditions; acts or decisions of any person; and faulty or defective design, workmanship, repair, construction, or maintenance. The insured retained a public adjuster who disagreed, in particular citing the policy’s “Other Coverage 9” coverage for collapse of a building or part of a building “caused only by one or more” of a list of perils, including hidden decay, hidden insect damage, and weight of contents, equipment, or people. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

A Court-Side Seat: Butterflies, Salt Marshes and Methane All Around

November 16, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Our latest summary of some recent developments in the courts and the federal agencies includes a unique case involving salt marshes adjacent to San Francisco Bay. THE FEDERAL COURTS A Wolf Among the Butterflies On October 13, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of North American Butterfly Association v. Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The National Butterfly Center is a 100-acre wildlife sanctuary located in Texas along the border between the United States and Mexico, and in 2017, the DHS exerted control over a segment of the sanctuary to construct facilities to impede unauthorized entry into the United States. It was alleged that the government failed to provide advance notice to the sanctuary before it entered the sanctuary to build its facilities. The Association filed a lawsuit to halt these actions for several reasons, including constitutional claims and two federal environmental laws (NEPA and the Endangered Species Act), but the lower court dismissed the lawsuit because of the provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). That law forecloses the applicability of these laws if the Secretary of DHS issues appropriate declaration. On appeal, the DC Circuit held, in a 2 to 1 decision, that the lawsuit should not have been dismissed. The plaintiffs had standing to file this lawsuit, but the jurisdiction stripping provisions of the IIRIRA, when invoked, required that the statutory claims be dismissed as well as a constitutional Fourth Amendment search and seizure claim. However, the plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claim that the government’s actions violated their right to procedural due process must be reviewed. The Center was given no notice of the government’s claims and no opportunity to be heard before these actions were taken. The dissenting judge argued that the court was being asked to review a non-final decision, which it should not do. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Will European Insurers’ Positive Response to COVID-19 Claims Influence US Insurers?

August 10, 2020 — Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Last month we wrote a piece concerning AXA’s agreement to pay COVID-19 related business interruption claims by a group of restaurants in France after a court ruled that the restaurants’ revenue losses resulting from COVID-19 and related government orders were covered under its insurance policies. AXA reportedly has already agreed to pay over 200 COVID-19 related claims. Another European insurer recently made headlines for similar reasons. Despite initially denying liability, Swiss insurance company, Helvetia Insurance, announced that most of its policyholders in the hospitality industry have accepted settlements following coverage disputes for COVID-19 related business interruption losses. The settlements reportedly included policyholders from Switzerland, Austria, and Germany. The positive response from the European insurers appears to have influenced the insurance industry across the continent. For instance, in the U.K., the Financial Conduct Authority announced that it is taking certain insurers to court to seek clarity as to coverage for COVID-19 related losses. In Germany, the government and a group of insurers reached an agreement whereby the government will pay for 70% of business interruption losses for policyholders in the hospitality industry, and the insurers will pay for half of the business interruption losses not covered by the government. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

ConsensusDOCS Updates its Forms

October 21, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
As reported recently in ENR Magazine, among other publications, the ConsensusDOCS folks have updated their contract forms. Why is this news? First of all, it’s only been around three and a half years since these documents were officially released and this release is about 18 months sooner than anticipated (the original revision cycle was to be 5 years). Why the revision? According to my friend and counsel to ConsensusDOCS, Brian Perlberg, one major rationale is that “the economics of the construction industry today looks nothing like it did [in 2007.” Among the changes are several terminology changes (“constructor” instead of “contractor” for instance), the addition of mandatory green building design as a basic service (these forms already have a Green Building Addendum) if included in the Owner’s plan and the ability to provide for prevailing party attorney fees (before both sides of a dispute bore their own fees). 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

---

Colorado Legislative Update: HB 20-1155, HB 20-1290, and HB 20-1348

August 03, 2020 — Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction Litigation
This year’s Colorado State Legislative session was cut short. However, in the period of time Colorado’s Legislature was in session, it passed and evaluated important legislation for Colorado homebuilders. This article highlights relevant legislation for Colorado homebuilders. 1. HB 20-1155 This Bill creates new requirements on new homebuilders to offer renewable energy systems to the buyer of a new home. Specifically, the Bill requires homebuilders to offer each of the following:

• A solar panel system, a solar thermal system, or both;
• Prewiring or pre-plumbing for the above solar systems; and,
• A chase or conduit for future installation of such systems.

The Bill further requires Colorado homebuilders to offer homebuyers one of the following:

• An electric vehicle charging system;
• Prewiring for the future installation for such a system; or,
• A plug-in receptacle in a place accessible to a vehicle parking area.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Meyer may be contacted at meyer@hhmrlaw.com

---

New Jersey Legislation Would Bar Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause in Homeowners' Policies

June 08, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
A bill prohibiting the use of anti-concurrent causation clauses in homeowners' insurance policies has been introduced before the New Jersey legislature. The bill is here. Under an anti-concurrent causation clause, the policy bars coverage if two perils (i.e., wind and water damage) contribute to a loss and one peril is excluded from coverage. For example, wind damage alone may be covered, while water damage is excluded. If both wind and water contribute to the loss, regardless of the degree to which each peril contributes, the anti-concurrent causation clause would bar coverage. New Jersey S 217 states,

An insurer authorized to transact the business of homeowners insurance in this state shall not exclude coverage in a homeowners insurance policy for loss or damage caused by a peril insured against under the terms of the policy on the grounds that the loss or damage occurred concurrently or in any sequence with a peril not insured against under the terms of the policy. Any such provision to exclude coverage shall be void and unenforceable.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---