FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Florida Adopts Less Stringent Summary Judgment Standard

January 25, 2021 — John A. Rine & Sarah Hock - Lewis Brisbois
On New Year’s Eve, Florida’s Supreme Court issued an amendment to essentially apply the federal summary judgment standard to cases in Florida state courts starting on May 1, 2021. See In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, No. SC20 1490 (Fla. Dec. 31, 2020) (per curiam). This change brings Florida in line with the majority of states (38). Summary judgment is easier to obtain under the federal standard. A moving party need only show that the opposing party lacks the evidence to support its case at trial. Under the soon-to-be obsolete Florida standard, however, moving parties had to entirely “disprove the nonmovant’s theory of the case in order to eliminate any issue of fact." See id. at 3. The nonmoving party could defeat a summary judgment motion by showing that there was a slight doubt on any material fact. See id. at 4-5. This change is good news for defendants and their insurers. With summary judgment easier to obtain, weak claims can be defended prior to trial. Claims may be resolved more quickly and economically. The threat of summary judgment also gives defendants powerful leverage in settlement discussions. The shift may also reduce the backlog of cases accumulated during the suspension of jury trials over the past summer. Reprinted courtesy of John A. Rine, Lewis Brisbois and Sarah Hock, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Rine may be contacted at John.Rine@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Hock may be contacted at Sarah.Hock@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .

June 21, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Recently, I was talking with my friend Matt Hundley about a recent case he had in the Charlottesville, VA Circuit Court. It was a relatively straightforward (or so he and I would have thought) breach of contract matter involving a fixed price contract between his (and an associate of his Laura Hooe) client James River Stucco and the Montecello Overlook Owners’ Association. I believe that you will see the reason for the title of the post once you hear the facts and read the opinion. In James River Stucco, Inc. v. Monticello Overlook Owners’ Ass’n, the Court considered Janes River Stucco’s Motion for Summary Judgment countering two arguments made by the Association. The first Association argument was that the word “employ” in the contract meant that James River Stucco was required to use its own forces (as opposed to subcontractors) to perform the work. The second argument was that James River overcharged for the work. This second argument was made without any allegation of fraud or that the work was not 100% performed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Buffalo-Area Roof Collapses Threaten Lives, Businesses After Historic Snowfall

December 05, 2022 — Thomas Leffler - AccuWeather
After a historical snowfall event in the Buffalo area this past week, residents weren’t just taking to the driveways and sidewalks to clear snow. In the Buffalo suburb of Orchard Park, New York (home to the NFL’s Buffalo Bills), the 80 inches of snow that accumulated was also cleared off local roofs in order to prevent a major danger to homes. Snow as deep and heavy as the recent lake-effect snowstorm can cause roofs to collapse, threatening the lives of people who live inside. An unfortunate scenario befell Buffalo in November 2014, when a 6-foot snow event known as “Snowvember” led to emergency calls for numerous collapsed roofs around the region. One Orchard Park business, Graffiti Grafix & Signs, had its roof collapse in 2014 and had about a third of the roof come down once again this past week, according to The Buffalo News. Orchard Park Police Chief Patrick Fitzgerald noted in an email that three commercial properties in Orchard Park, including Graffiti Grafix & Signs, suffered damage from roof collapse. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of AccuWeather

---

Minnesota Senate Office Building Called Unconstitutional

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The state of Minnesota has plans for a $63 million Senate office building. Not so fast, says a former member of the Minnesota House. Jim Knoblach, the former representative for St. Cloud, has filed a lawsuit claiming that the appropriation for the building violated the state’s constitution. Funding for the senate office building was included in a tax bill, and Mr. Knoblach claims that violates the state’s requirement that laws have only a single subject. “It was buried deep in the tax bill and passed on the chaotic last day of session,” said Mr. Knoblach. In Minnesota, public works projects must reach 60% approval in both houses, while the tax bill only required 50% approval. State Republicans oppose the building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Commonwealth Court Holds That Award of Attorney's Fees and Penalties is Mandatory Under the Procurement Code Upon a Finding of Bad Faith

October 29, 2014 — William J. Taylor and Michael Jervis – White and Willams LLP
In a decision regarding a payment claim by a highway contractor against the City of Allentown, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has held that an award of attorney's fees and penalties is mandatory under the terms of the Pennsylvania Procurement Code, 62 Pa.C.S. § 3901 et seq., upon a finding of bad faith by the non-paying government agency, even though the statute only states that a court “may” award such fees and penalties. In A. Scott Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Allentown, Cmwlth. Ct. No. 2163 C.D. 2013, the plaintiff, A. Scott Enterprises, Inc. (Scott), won a contract with the City of Allentown (City) to construct a one mile roadway. Several weeks after commencing work, Scott learned that soil at the construction site was potentially contaminated with arsenic, and was instructed by the City to suspend its work. Because of the soil contamination, additional work would be required to complete the project and Scott submitted proposals for the additional work plus its suspension costs. However, the City never approved the additional work and the project was never completed. The City never paid Scott for costs incurred due to the suspension of the work and Scott filed suit to recover its losses. The jury found that the City had breached the contract with Scott and had acted in bad faith in violation of the Procurement Code, and awarded damages to Scott for its unreimbursed suspension costs. However, the trial court denied Scott’s request for an award of attorney's fees and penalty interest. Both Scott and the City appealed the final judgment to the Commonwealth Court, which reversed the trial court’s refusal to award attorney's fees and penalties. Reprinted courtesy of William J. Taylor, White and Williams LLP and Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

No Duty To Defend Additional Insured When Bodily Injury Not Caused by Insured

July 26, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found there was no duty to defend a suit for bodily injury against the additional insured where the injury was not caused by the insured. Consigli Constr. Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95339 (D. Mass. June 21, 2017). Consigli was the general contractor for a renovation project at a high school. Among the subcontractors was American Environmental, Inc., who was responsible for demolishing concrete floors within the existing structures, and Costa Brothers, who did the masonry work. Wellington M. Ely was an employee of Costa Brothers and worked as a mason on the project. Costa Brothers had a CGL policy with Travelers. As a subcontractor, Costa Brothers agreed to name Consigli as an additional insured on its policy. 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

---

Hurry Up and Wait! Cal/OSHA Hits Pause on Emergency Temporary Standards for COVID-19 Prevention

June 14, 2021 — Michael Studenka & Jasmine Shams - Newmeyer Dillion
Employers scrambling to prepare for the June 15th Reopening announced by Governor Newsom have spent the last week pouring over the revised Emergency Temporary Standards for COVID-19 Prevention (“Revised ETS”) approved by the Cal/OSHA Standards Board on June 3, 2021. After last night’s meeting of the Standards Board, however, it’s time to hit pause. Last night, the Cal OSHA Standards Board held a specialty meeting to reconsider its Revised ETS in light of the latest guidance on face coverings issued by the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) on June 7, 2021. Following a presentation by the CDPH and extensive public comment, the Cal OSHA Standards Board voted unanimously to withdraw the Revised ETS and to take up the issue again at its next scheduled meeting on June 17, 2021. The net result in the interim is that California employers who intend to reopen on June 15 must initially comply with all of the requirements of the Cal/OSHA Standards Board Emergency Temporary Standards for COVID-19 Prevention as originally issued on November 20, 2020, including but not limited to, its social distancing, physical partitioning and mask wearing requirements. Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Studenka, Newmeyer Dillion and Jasmine Shams, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Studenka may be contacted at michael.studenka@ndlf.com Ms. Shams may be contacted at jasmine.shams@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Recent Third Circuit OSHA Decision Sounds Alarm for Employers and Their Officers

October 14, 2019 — John Baker - White and Williams LLP
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion that should serve as a warning not only to employers, but to their corporate officers. The case against Altor, Inc., a New Jersey-based construction company, began in 2012 when the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) directed Altor and its sole director and officer to pay a $412,000 penalty (Payment Order) to OSHA for several violations, including the failure to comply with fall protection standards. The company refused to pay, arguing that it did not possess sufficient assets. The Secretary of Labor filed a Petition for Civil Contempt against Altor and its President, Vasilios Saites. The court acknowledged that the company and Mr. Saites could defend against a contempt finding by showing that he and the company were unable to comply with the Payment Order. Beyond merely stating that they could not pay, the court required that they must show that they made good faith efforts to comply with the Order. After considering all of the evidence, the court ultimately relied on Altor’s bank records, which reflected that the company ended each month during a two-year period after the violations with a positive bank balance. Thus, the court determined that Altor could have made “at least relatively modest” payments and emphasized that the company never attempted to negotiate a reduced sum or a payment plan. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Baker, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Baker may be contacted at bakerj@whiteandwilliams.com

---