FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

TV Kitchen Remodelers Sued for Shoddy Work

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Their remodels may dazzle on television, but someone who hired Bunelleschi Construction, the company owned by “Kitchen Cousins” stars John Colaneri and Anthony Carrino, wasn’t quite so dazzled. And now Robert and Peng Avery are suing the two men and their company for a kitchen remodel gone awry. They claim that the company left their Tenafly, New Jersey home uninhabitable. According to the couple, the Brunelleschi’s work included “numerous gaps in sheetrock” and improper installation of ductwork, plumbing, and doors. They also claim that Brunelleschi Construction falsely claimed the work had passed final building and electrical inspections. When the company stopped work, the couple was unable to obtain a certificate of occupancy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

McCarthy Workers Test Fall-Protection Harnesses Designed to Better Fit Women

November 09, 2020 — Corinne Grinapol - Engineering News-Record
At project sites in Dallas, Houston and Atlanta, 27 McCarthy Building Co. women employees are testing a harness better suited to fit a diversity of body types than the more ubiquitous harnesses generally available at construction sites. Reprinted courtesy of Corinne Grinapol, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Residential Construction: Shrinking Now, Growing Later?

August 17, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Jim Haugey, the Chief Economist for Reed Construction Data noted that new residential construction spending fell 0.2% in June and a slightly larger drop of 0.5% in residential remodeling. While economic growth is still low, Haugey states that homebuilders have “record low inventories.” He forecasts a shrinkage of 1.5% in 2011, followed by about 20% growth in 2012.

Read the full story…

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

---

Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?

March 16, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

A recent post to the Markusson, Green, Jarvis Blog reports on an important appeals decision which promises to impact construction defect litigation in Colorado.



The post provides analysis on the recovery of inconvenience damages. The focus of the piece is centered on Hildebrand v. New Vista Homes II, LLC, 08CA2645, 2010 WL 4492356 (Colo. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2010), wherein it was held that " the plain language of Construction Defect Action Reform Act permits recovery of damages for inconvenience, and that the trial court did not err by allowing inconvenience damages to go to the jury".



According to the MGJ Blog "The Hildebrand decision is important because it provides Construction Defect Plaintiffs with a foothold for collecting emotional damages. While several questions of law remain as to who or under exactly what circumstances a Plaintiff may recover these types of damages, the Hildebrand case has clearly set forth that emotional damages may be considered as part of actual damages pursuant to CDARA."



Read Full Story...

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

---

Product Manufacturers Beware: You May Be Subject to Jurisdiction in Massachusetts

July 05, 2023 — Timothy Keough & Audrey Schoenike - White and Williams LLP
Say you are a Floridian product manufacturer that does business in Massachusetts and you receive a Complaint filed in Massachusetts that alleges your product injured a Nova Scotian resident in Nova Scotia. You know that the only time that product was in Massachusetts was during its transport up the eastern seaboard to its final destination at a retailer in Nova Scotia. Can you be hailed into a Massachusetts court for this accident? The answer is seemingly not so simple following the Supreme Judicial Court’s holding in Doucet v. FCA US LLC. On June 8th, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in Doucet v. FCA US LLC, held that FCA US LLC is subject to jurisdiction in Massachusetts for a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred in New Hampshire. No. SJC-13354, slip. op. (Mass. June 8, 2023). The vehicle had been purchased in New Hampshire by a New Hampshire resident. The Court explained that federal due process does not require a causal connection between a company’s business dealings with the jurisdiction and the injury; instead, a mere relationship between the business dealings and the injury will suffice to establish jurisdiction. Because the vehicle at issue was first sold in Massachusetts and FCA US LLC had extensive business dealings unrelated to the vehicle in question in Massachusetts, the Court concluded that a strong enough relationship existed between FCA US LLC, Massachusetts, and the litigation for jurisdiction to exist. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Keough, White and Williams LLP and Audrey Schoenike, White and Williams LLP Mr. Keough may be contacted at keought@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Schoenike may be contacted at schoenikea@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Two Worthy Insurance Topics: (1) Bad Faith, And (2) Settling Without Insurer’s Consent

February 20, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The recent Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision, American Builders Insurance Company v. Southern-Owners Insurance Company, 56 F.4th 938 (11th Cir. 2023), is an insurer versus insurer case that touches on two important insurance topics: (1) common law bad faith against an insurance company, and (2) an insurer’s affirmative defense that an insured settled a claim without its consent. The Eleventh Circuit provides invaluable legal discussion on these topics that any insured (and an insured’s counsel) need to know and appreciate. While this article won’t go into the granular facts as referenced in the opinion, it will go into the law because it is the law the facts of a case MUST cater to and address. In this case, a person performing subcontracting work fell from a roof without fall protection and became paralyzed from the waist down. The general contractor had a primary liability policy and an excess policy. The general contractor’s primary liability insurer investigated the accident and assessed the claim. The subcontractor’s liability insurer, which was the primary insurance policy (the general contractor was an additional insured for work the subcontractor performed for the general contractor), did little to investigate and assess the claim and then refused to pay any amount to settle the underlying claim or honor its defense and indemnity obligation to the general contractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Several Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine’s 2023 Top Lawyers!

October 30, 2023 — Wilke Fleury LLP
Wilke Fleury is extremely proud of its incredibly talented attorneys! Congratulations to Steven Williamson, Islam Ahmad, Matthew Powell, Adriana Cervantes, Daniel Foster, Neal Lutterman, Aaron Claxton, George Guthrie, Trevor Stapleton, David Frenznick, Michael Polis, Daniel Egan, and Stephen Marmaduke, who are all featured in Sacramento Magazine’s 2023 List of Top Lawyers! Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
The Supreme Court of Oregon has concluded in an en banc decision that a motion to reconsider a summary judgment is not a motion for a new trial. In coming to their conclusion the court overturned an earlier Oregon Supreme Court case, Carter v. U.S. National Bank. Although the decision does not bear on construction defects, the underlying case did. Due to the decision, these claims can now be evaluated in a trial. The case, Association of Unit Owners of Timbercrest Condominiums v. Warren, came about after an apartment complex was converted into condominium units. The developers hired Big Al’s Construction for some of the remodeling work. The condominium association later sued the developer and the contractor over claims of construction defects. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted. But that wasn’t the end of things. The plaintiff soon filed a “motion to reconsider,” noting that the summary judgment seemed to be in conflict with both law and other recent rulings, and additionally, the grounds for the decision were not in the order. The judge then notified the parties that the court had “pulled the trigger too quickly” and had seven questions for the parties to answer. The court dismissed all claims against the defendants. The defendants filed their responses, objecting that that “‘there is no such thing’ as a motion for reconsideration.” Further, while “the rules do allow for post-judgment review of pre-judgment rulings through a motion for a new trial,” the plaintiffs had not filed for a new trial. But did they need one? They did file an appeal. The judge in the case admitted that there was no such thing as a motion to reconsider, and felt bad about prematurely signing the judgment. The case was sent to the Court of Appeals to determine if the motion to reconsider was a request for a new trial. The Court of Appeals concurred. In reviewing the decision, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that there were a maximum of three questions to address. Was the motion for reconsideration a motion for a new trial? If so, was the later notice of appeal premature? And if so, was the plaintiff required to file a new appeal? The court determined that the answer to the first question was no. Prior decisions pointed to the conclusion “that a motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment amounts to a motion for a new trial,” but here the court concluded that “our prior cases erred,” and turned to the summary judgment rule for clarification. The court noted that “the rule contemplates that summary judgment and trial are separate and distinct events.” With this conclusion, the Oregon Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---