Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Google’s Floating Mystery Boxes Solved?

March 12, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Garret Murai, on his California Construction Law blog, reported how “a four story structure made up of shipping containers” had been mysteriously erected on a barge in the middle of San Francisco Bay. Later, it was determined that Google was behind the strange structure, though they were keeping silent as to what the building-on-the-barge would be used for. Construction stopped after the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission determined that the mysterious barge required a permit—which would require Google to file “publicly available documents.” Google chose to move the barge to Stockton, California rather than obtain a permit. Google finally released a comment stating that they are “exploring using the barge as an interactive space where people can learn about new technology.” However, Murai believes that this statement may be a “distraction device” and the true use of the barge has yet to be revealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Conflict in Successive Representation of a Closely-Held Company and Its Insiders Where Insiders Already Possess Company’s Confidential Information

August 02, 2017 — Renata L. Hoddinott, David W. Evans, & Howard M. Garfield - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Beachcomber Management Crystal Cove, LLC v. Superior Court (Salisbury) (No. G054078, filed June 28, 2017; pub. and mod. order July 28, 2017), the Fourth Appellate District granted a writ of mandate vacating a trial court’s order disqualifying defendants’ counsel. In Beachcomber, plaintiffs filed a shareholder derivative action against defendants Beachcomber Management and Douglas Cavanaugh (collectively, “defendants”) alleging defendants abused their position and mismanaged nominal defendant and similarly named Beachcomber at Crystal Cove (“Beachcomber”). Between 2009 and 2011, defendants and Beachcomber had each hired Kohut & Kohut LLP (“Kohut”) to represent them on at least four different occasions. In the underlying action, defendants hired Kohut again to represent them, while Beachcomber hired another law firm to represent it. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Renata L. Hoddinott, David W. Evans and Howard M. Garfield Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

School Blown Down by Wind Still Set to Open on Schedule

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The framing was going up for a new elementary school in Pasco, Ohio, when winds of about 60 miles per hour ripped the area. The winds brought down part of the structure. School district officials met with the contractor, Fowler Construction. John Morgan, the assistant director of operations for the Pasco School District, said that they did not “anticipate any delay in the opening of the new school.” Groundbreaking at the school happened in June and the school is scheduled to be open in the fall. The damage had not yet been determined. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Up in Northern Ohio

October 02, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Crain’s Cleveland Business reports that both commercial and residential construction have seen spending increases in the last twelve months. The gain was only 5.4%, but it’s still welcome in the area. “It’s been quiet so long, it wouldn’t take much to generate an upturn,” according to Tom Laird, of Gilbane Building Co. Some of the upturn comes from new building at universities and hospitals, but the corporate sector is also starting new project. Finally, the city of Cleveland is looking for proposals to develop parcels on their waterfront. Still, some are wary. “It might just be a bubble,” said Jason Jones, the general manager of Turner Construction’s Cleveland office. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Coverage Issues: When You Need Your Own Lawyer in a Construction Defect Suit

October 16, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
When an insurer hires an attorney on behalf of a client in a construction defect suit, that attorney is the client’s lawyer, but as Mike Curry writes on the website of Pendleton Wilson Hennessey & Crow, PC, a point may come when you need to hire your own additional attorney. Even though an insurance company client may refer to the lawyer as “the insurance carrier’s attorney,” Mr. Curry cites the words of the Colorado Bar Association’s ethics committee, “the insured is the client to whom the lawyer’s duty of loyalty is owed, regardless of any retention agreement the lawyer may have with the carrier.” Mr. Curry then offers the example of what happens when the insurance company advises its client that it may not cover. “You presumably call your attorney and ask him to explain what’s going on, what the letter means, and what to do next.” All the attorney can say is “I cannot offer legal advice on coverage issues.” This is the limitation of what Mr. Curry refers to as “the tripartite relationship.” The attorney has been retained for issues related to the construction defect dispute between the insured and the plaintiff. Not between the insurer and its insured. The attorney has, as he points out, a fiduciary obligation to the insurance company. When coverage issues arise, “an independent attorney — one you hire — can help you with the coverage issues that your insurance-assigned attorney simply cannot address.” He further notes that “personal counsel owes no fiduciary obligation to the insurance company,” and can be “utilized to persuade the carrier to provide coverage or settle the case.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer’s Consent Not Needed for Settlement

October 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Texas Supreme Court has concluded in Lennar Corp. v. Markel Am. Ins. Co. that “the costs incurred by a builder to locate and repair damage caused by the builder’s defective product are covered under its general liability insurance policy.” Hunton & Williams have issued a Client Alert discussing the case. For the background of the case, Lennar built about 800 homes using EIFS. The EIFS trapped water and the homes suffered from rot, structural damage, mold, mildew, and termites. Lennar fixed all the homes so built, avoiding litigation. Lennar “notifed its insurers of the defects and invited its insurers to participate in the proactive remediation program.” A lower court had agreed with Markel, one of Lennar’s insurers, that the losses were not “caused by property damage,” and that Lennar should not have made “voluntary payments without Markel’s consent.” The Texas Supreme Court granted review, rejecting Markel’s argument and affirming the jury’s finding. According to Hunton & Williams, the implications of the Texas Lennar decision is that it “confirms that all insurers with policy in effect at the time of property damage are responsible for all sums for which the policyholder is liable.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 3- The Last Straw

January 28, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Over the past two weeks here at Construction Law Musings, I’ve discussed the first two stages of a typical construction dispute (if such a thing exists): the claim, and how to bring heat short of litigation/arbitration. As promised, this week I’ll be discussing the next step or “last straw” in a construction dispute, namely, arbitration or litigation to enforce all of those rights that you preserved in the first two stages. Construction litigation is expensive, time consuming, and, quite frankly, a pain in the neck. Because of this fact, I almost always recommend that my construction clients exhaust all of the non-litigation methods (including mediation of course) of resolving their disputes prior to “going nuclear” and filing suit. Unfortunately, even the most diligent attempts at less formal resolution means can be unfruitful and more formal means become necessary. 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

Auburn Woods Homeowners Association v. State Farm General Insurance Company

January 11, 2021 — Michael Velladao - Lewis Brisbois
In Auburn Woods HOA v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 56 Cal.App.5th 717 (October 28,2020) (certified for partial publication), the California Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm”) regarding a lawsuit for breach of contract and bad faith brought by Auburn Woods Homeowners Association (“HOA”) and property manager, Frei Real Estate Services (“FRES”) against State Farm and the HOA’s broker, Frank Lewis. The parties’ dispute arose out of the tender of two different lawsuits filed against the HOA and FRES by Marva Beadle (“Beadle”). The first lawsuit was filed by Beadle as the owner of a condominium unit against the HOA and FRES for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and an accounting related to amounts allegedly owed by Beadle to the HOA as association fees. The second lawsuit filed by Beadle was for the purpose of setting aside a foreclosure sale, cancelling the trustee’s deed and quieting title, and for an accounting and injunctive relief against an unlawful detainer action filed by Sutter Group, LP against Beadle. The complaint filed in the second lawsuit alleged that Allied Trustee Services caused Beadle’s property to be sold at auction and that Sutter Capital Group, LP purchased the unit and obtained a trustee’s deed upon sale. Beadle claimed the assessments against her were improper and the trustee’s deed upon sale was wrongfully executed. Beadle sought an order restoring possession of her unit and damages. The HOA and FRES tendered both lawsuits to State Farm. As respects the first lawsuit, State Farm denied coverage of the lawsuit based on the absence of alleged “damages” covered by the policy issued to the HOA affording liability and directors and officers (“D&O”) coverages. State Farm agreed to defend the HOA under the D&O coverage in the second lawsuit. However, State Farm denied coverage of FRES in both lawsuits as it did not qualify as an insured under the State Farm policy issued to the HOA. Subsequently, the HOA and FRES filed an action against State Farm arguing that a duty to defend was triggered under its policy for the first lawsuit and a duty to defend FRES was also owed under the D&O policy for the second lawsuit. After a bench trial, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of State Farm based on the failure of the first lawsuit to allege damages covered by the State Farm policy under the liability and D&O coverages afforded by the policy. As respects the second lawsuit, the trial court held that FRES did not qualify as an insured and State Farm did not act in bad faith by refusing to pay the HOA’s alleged defense costs in the second lawsuit before it agreed to defend the HOA against such lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Velladao, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Velladao may be contacted at Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES