FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

The “Builder’s Remedy” Looms Over Bay Area Cities

February 20, 2023 — Allan C. Van Vliet, Cara M. MacDonald, Robert G. Howard & Robert C. Herr - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Cities in the San Francisco Bay Area are frantically working to finalize their state-mandated “housing elements” in their General Plans by the January 31, 2023, deadline imposed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). For Bay Area cities like San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose and Berkeley, the plans must be approved by HCD on or before January 31, 2023. California municipalities have extra incentive to get their housing elements approved this year, because the failure to meet the deadline may subject them to a remedy known as the “builder’s remedy.” The failure of cities in California to adopt and implement adequate housing elements as part of their General Plans has contributed to the state’s serious housing affordability crisis. The “builder’s remedy” incentivizes cities to meet housing element deadlines, because failure to do so could cause cities to lose control over certain land use entitlement decisions for projects that include housing under the state’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA). Reprinted courtesy of Allan C. Van Vliet, Pillsbury, Cara M. MacDonald, Pillsbury, Robert G. Howard, Pillsbury and Robert C. Herr, Pillsbury Mr. Van Vliet may be contacted at allan.vanvliet@pillsburylaw.com Ms. MacDonald may be contacted at cara.macdonald@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Howard may be contacted at robert.howard@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Herr may be contacted at robert.herr@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Named Insured’s Liability Found Irrelevant to Additional Insured’s Coverage Under a Landlords and Lessors Additional Insured Endorsement

November 16, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Truck Ins. Exchange v. AMCO Ins. Co. (No. B298798, filed 10/26/20), a California appeals court held that even though the named insured restaurant-lessee was found not liable for premises liability to injured restaurant patrons, the respective liability of the named and additional insured was irrelevant to the landlord-lessor’s coverage for injuries “arising out of” the lessee’s “use” of the premises under a landlords, managers or lessors of premises additional insured endorsement on the lessee’s general liability policy. In Truck v. AMCO, restaurant patrons were injured when a vehicle crashed into the restaurant while they were dining. The landlord was aware of a similar accident that happened several years before, but the current lessee operating the restaurant was not. The patrons sued the lessee, alleging negligence and premises liability for failing to take precautionary measures and safeguard the patrons. On learning of the prior incident, the patrons added the landlord, alleging that it should have protected the property from a recurrence by reinforcing the door and installing bollards by the street. 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

---

New Jersey Supreme Court Rules that Subcontractor Work with Resultant Damage is both an “Occurrence” and “Property Damage” under a Standard Form CGL Policy

September 01, 2016 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to a client alert by the firm Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (P&A), “In a recent significant decision, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that defective work of a subcontractor that causes consequential property damage is both an ‘occurrence’ and ‘property damage’ under the terms of a standard form commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy.” Patrick J. Greene, Jr., and Frank A. Hess of P&A wrote that the Cypress Point Condominium Assoc., Inc. v Adria Towers, LLC, 2016 N.J. Lexis 847 (Aug.4,2016) “decision is important in New Jersey and in other jurisdictions that had relied upon the influential New Jersey case, Weedo v. Stone–E–Brick, Inc., 81 N.J. 233 (1979), that had determined that such claims involved non-insured ‘business risks.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Trucks looking for Defects Create Social Media Frenzy

July 23, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Willits News, slow-moving trucks with cameras attached rolled through Fort Briggs, attracting attention from homeowners in the community. People began mentioning the trucks on social media sites, with questions regarding what the cameras on the trucks were recording. Osmose Utilities General Manager, Jason Milligan, told Willits News that the trucks were “surveying overhead power poles and lines for PG&E.” "We're not looking for anything but what's overhead," Mulligan said, according to Willits News. "We find defects or issues with construction ... 20 or 30 feet off the ground, which are safety issues. We don't scan anything down towards people's homes." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: The Duty to Defend

February 28, 2022 — Lorelie S. Masters, Patrick M. McDermott & Rachel E. Hudgins - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
This post in our Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series discusses the Montana Supreme Court’s consideration of an insurer’s duty to defend in National Indemnity Co. v. State, 499 P.3d 516 (Mont. 2021). For 67 years, W.R. Grace & Company’s mining operations spread asbestos through the town of Libby, Montana, causing elevated rates of asbestosis and asbestos-related cancer in Libby residents – even among those who never worked in the mine. The Environmental Protection Agency deemed the Libby Mine the “most significant single source of asbestos exposure” in US history. In 2000, Libby residents began filing lawsuits against the State of Montana, alleging that the State had failed to warn them about the mine’s danger, and this failure contributed to their bodily injuries. Id. at 521-22. The Libby plaintiffs’ asbestos exposures and related injuries had occurred decades earlier, and so the State searched its storage units for records of any potentially applicable insurance policies. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Need to Be Specific and Precise in Drafting Settling Agreements

December 30, 2013 — W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
The case of Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Corp., 2013 WL 452374 (D. Colo. February 6, 2013) is instructive as an example of both the confusion and resulting escalation of litigation that can result from a lack of clarity in settlement negotiations. This is particularly true where parties settle outside of their insurance coverage, and/or without notifying their insurer(s), which have denied coverage. The case involved coverage litigation following settlement of a multi-party construction defect case involving the Rivergate multi-family residential development in Durango, Colorado. The condominium owners association sued, among others, the developer (Rivergate Lofts Partners, hereafter “RLP”) and the general contractor (Genex Construction, LLC, hereafter “Genex”). This follow-on case involved the insurers for RLP (“Hartford”) and Genex (“Bituminous”). The coverage dispute was complicated by the Bituminous allegations that Hartford insured Genex in its alleged role as a manager for RLP, as part of Hartford’s insurance of RLP more generally. The underlying facts were that Hartford denied insurance coverage and defense to Genex/Bituminous. The underlying construction defect case went to mediation, with the COA, RLP, and Genex all in attendance with their respective insurer representatives, and coverage counsel. While the evolving facts of that mediation were later disputed as to their motives, intentions, and the contemporaneous knowledge of the parties, the facts reflected in documents were fairly clear. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. can be contacted at mann@hhmrlaw.com

---

US Proposes Energy Efficiency Standards for Federal Buildings

January 04, 2023 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
The U.S. government is looking to its own buildings as a source for cutting carbon emissions with a new energy and climate performance standard. Additionally, federal officials announced a proposed rule that would eliminate energy-related emissions from new and renovated federal buildings. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Employees in Construction Industry Entitled to Compensation for Time Spent Complying with Employer-Mandated Security Protocols

August 19, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Wage and hour laws dictating how employers must compensate their employees for time worked can, given the innumerable ways that employees perform their jobs, raise a number of questions. The next case, Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, 15 Cal.5th 908 (2024) – which I won’t spend a lot of time discussing since I think it applies in somewhat limited situations – addresses whether employees are entitled to be paid while waiting to enter and exit worksites and for meal periods when they are not allowed to exit a worksite. The Huerta Case The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals requested that the California Supreme Court address three questions related to whether employees should be compensated under California wage and hour laws for time spent waiting to enter and exit worksites and for meal periods when they are not allowed to exit a worksite:

1. Whether employees should be paid for time spent waiting in a personal vehicle to be scanned in and out of a worksite;
2. Whether employees should be paid for time spent traveling in a personal vehicle from a security gate to employee parking lots; and
3. Whether employees should be paid during meal periods if they are not permitted to leave a worksite.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---