Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Congratulations to Wilke Fleury’s 2024 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars!!

July 15, 2024 — Wilke Fleury LLP
Wilke Fleury is extremely proud that several of its incredible attorneys have been selected as 2024 Northern California Super Lawyers or Rising Stars! Super Lawyers rates attorneys in each state using a patented selection process and publishes a yearly magazine issue that produces award-winning features on selected attorneys. Congratulations to this talented group: 2024 Super Lawyers:

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury LLP

Significant Ruling in PFAS Litigation Could Impact Insurance Coverage

October 10, 2022 — Sara C. Tilitz & Lynndon K. Groff - White and Williams LLP
Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS, have served as a key component in numerous industrial and consumer products for decades. These “forever chemicals,” which have been associated with environmental contamination and adverse health outcomes, have garnered steadily-growing attention from regulatory authorities, the plaintiffs’ bar, and, by extension, the insurance industry. The current “case to watch” regarding PFAS is the multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Judge Gergel presiding. The MDL is comprised of well over 2,000 cases brought by both individual plaintiffs and state and local governments arising out of the manufacturing and/or use of aqueous film forming foam, also known as AFFF. The use of AFFF, which was historically employed in firefighting operations, including those undertaken by the United States military, allegedly causes the release of two types of PFAS into the environment – PFOS and PFOA. On September 16, 2022, Judge Gergel denied a motion for partial summary judgment filed by defendant 3M Company and other AFFF defendant manufacturers on the government contractor immunity defense. Although not an insurance coverage decision, the ruling is significant in the context of PFAS litigation and could have insurance coverage implications. Reprinted courtesy of Sara C. Tilitz, White and Williams LLP and Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams LLP Ms. Tilitz may be contacted at tilitzs@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Rise in Home Building Helps Other Job Sectors

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
With home building on the rebound, the latest jobs report shows that the construction industry has added 17,000 jobs in the last year. But that’s not the only increase in employment that can be credited to the homebuilding industry. Most homes are built out of wood. That’s why the timber industry was able to create 2,200 new jobs. According to the Wall Street Journal’s Marketwatch, that’s the biggest jump in 16 years. Moving closer to homes, the makers of wood products have added 600 jobs, with five months of increasing employment. Finally, someone has to sell those homes. There are 2,100 more people working in real estate. Neal Dutta, head of economics at Renaissance Macro Research notes that “from the production of building materials to the construction of homes to the sales of homes, there was a confirmation of an ongoing housing recovery and all despite a sharp back-up in rates.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence

August 17, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Miller v. Lankow that Mr. Miller was within his rights to remediate his home, even though doing so destroyed the evidence of water intrusion.

Linda Lankow built a home in 1992. In 2001 or 2002, Lankow discovered a stucco problem at the garage which she attributed to moisture intrusion. She asked the original contractor to fix the wall. In 2003, Lankow attempted to sell her home, but the home inspection revealed fungal growth in the basement. Lankow made further repairs, including alterations to the landscaping.

In 2004, Lankow put her house on the market once again and entered into an agreement with David Miller. Miller declined to have an independent inspection, as the home had been repaired by professional contractors.

In 2005, Miller put the house on the market. A prospective buyer requested a moisture inspection. The inspection firm, Private Eye, Inc. found “significant moisture intrusion problems.”

Miller hired an attorney who sent letters to the contractors and to Lankow and her husband. Lankow’s husband, Jim Betz, an attorney, represented his wife and sent a letter to Miller’s attorney that Miller had declined an opportunity to inspect the home.

In 2007, Miller’s new attorney sent letters to all parties that Miller had decided to begin remediation work on the house. All stucco was removed. Miller then filed a lawsuit against the prior owners, the builders, and the realtors.

Two of the contractors and the prior owners moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Miller had spoliated evidence by removing the stucco. They requested that Miller’s expert reports be excluded. The district court found for the defendants and imposed sanctions on Miller.

The Minnesota Supreme court found that “a custodial party’s duty to preserve evidence is not boundless,” stating that “it may be particularly import to allow remediation in cases such as the one before us.” Their reasoning was that “remediation of the moisture intrusion problem in the home may be necessary, even essential, to address immediate health concerns.”

Given that Miller needed to remediate the problem in order to continue living there, and that he had given the other parties a “full and fair opportunity to inspect,” the court found that he was within his rights. The court reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded it to them for review.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Bidders Shortlisted as Oroville Dam Work Schedule is Set

April 13, 2017 — JT Long - Engineering News-Record
In a race to fix the damaged Oroville Dam’s main spillway by November, the California Dept. of Water Resources, the operator of the country’s tallest dam, is going to bid with a 65%-complete design that breaks recovery efforts into three parts, with an ultimate goal of doubling the main spillway’s release capacity to 270,000 cu ft per second. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of JT Long, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

July 31, 2013 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
An issue that has plagued builders in Colorado construction defect litigation is the difficulty of getting additional insured carriers to fully participate in the builder’s defense, oftentimes leaving the builder to fund its own defense during the course of the litigation. Many additional insurers offer a variety of positions regarding why they will not pay for fees and costs during the course of a lawsuit. Some insurers argue that, until after trial, it is impossible to determine its proper share of the defense, and therefore cannot make any payments until the liability is determined as to all of the potentially contributing policies. (This is often referred to as the “defense follows indemnity” approach.) Others may make an opening contribution to defense fees and costs, but fall silent as fees and costs accumulate. In such an event, the builder may be forced to fund all or part of its own defense, while the uncooperative additional insured carrier waits for the end of the lawsuit or is faced with other legal action before it makes other contributions. Recent orders in two, currently ongoing, U.S. District Court cases provide clarity on the duty to defend in Colorado, holding that multiple insurers’ duty to defend is joint and several. The insured does not have to go without a defense while the various insurers argue amongst themselves as to which insurer pays what share. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Texas Court Construes Breach of Contract Exclusion Narrowly in Duty-to-Defend Case

September 10, 2018 — Lorelie S. Masters & Tae Andrews - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In a victory for policyholders, a recent decision from the Western District of Texas narrowly construed a common breach-of-contract exclusion and held that the insurer had a duty to defend its insured against an underlying lawsuit over construction defects. The allegations potentially supported a covered claim, as the conduct of the insured’s subcontractor could have been an independent, “but for” cause of the property damage at issue, thereby triggering the insurer’s duty to defend. In Slay, the insured – a construction company – was hired by a city to design and construct a municipal sports complex, including Little League baseball fields, a softball field, parking lots, and a swimming pool. The construction company hired a subcontractor to perform various services on the project, including paving parking lots and laying the cement for the pool. After completing the project, one of the construction company’s employees noticed cracking in the parking lot and the pool. The construction company notified the city and tried to work out a repair plan, but the city refused and eventually sued, alleging construction defects and asserting claims for breach of contract and negligence. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Tae Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Andrews may be contacted at tandrews@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Connecticutt Class Action on Collapse Claims Faces Motion to Dismiss

January 02, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court dismissed some insurers from a class action suit alleging failure to provide coverage for collapse claims. Halloran v. Harleysville Preferred Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179807 (D. Conn. Oct. 19, 2018). A class of homeowners brought suit in 2016 against their homeowners insurance companies ("defendants") for failure to cover collapse claims. Plaintiffs alleged they bought their homes between 1984 and 2015. Each of the homes had basement walls that were "crumbling and cracking due to the oxidation of certain minerals contained in the concrete." As a result of the deteriorating concrete, plaintiffs claimed that their basement walls were in a state of collapse. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES