FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Hirer Liable for Injury to Subcontractor’s Employee Due to Failure to Act, Not Just Affirmative Acts, Holds Court of Appeal

December 11, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The Privette doctrine, named after the court case Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, provides that a higher-tiered party such as an owner or general contractor is not liable for injuries sustained by employees of a lower-tiered party such as a subcontractor on a construction project. There are, however, exceptions to the Privette doctrine. One of these exceptions is known as the “retained control doctrine.” Under the retained control doctrine, a higher-tiered party cannot avoid liability under the Privette doctrine if the higher-tiered party: (1) retains control over the conditions of the work; (2) negligently exercises control over such conditions; and (3) its negligent exercise of control contributes to the injuries sustained by the employee of the lower-tiered party. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Antitrust Walker Process Claims Not Covered Under Personal Injury Coverage for Malicious Prosecution

May 18, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. KLA-Tencor Corp. (No. H044890; filed 1/16/20, ord. pub. 2/13/20), a California appeals court ruled that commercial general liability insurance for personal and advertising injury, defined to include malicious prosecution, does not cover a Walker Process antitrust cause of action under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act for using a fraudulently procured patent to attempt to monopolize the market. Travelers insured KLA under commercial liability policies with coverage for personal and advertising injury liability, which was defined as “injury, other than ‘advertising injury’, caused by. . . (2) Malicious prosecution.” 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

---

Indemnification Against Release/“Disposal” of Hazardous Materials

May 18, 2020 — Brian S. Wood & Miranda R. Millerick - ConsensusDocs
It is very common, if not nearly an industry standard, for construction contracts and subcontracts to contain provisions addressing the discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials. Many of these provisions require a contractor or subcontractor to discontinue work where hazardous materials are discovered. An example of such a clause can be found in the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Document A201 (2017), Section 10.3.1, which states in part:

If the Contractor encounters a hazardous material or substance not addressed in the Contract Documents and if reasonable precautions will be inadequate to prevent foreseeable bodily injury or death to persons resulting from a material or substance, including but not limited to asbestos or polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), encountered on the site by the Contractor, the Contractor shall, upon recognizing the condition, immediately stop Work in the affected area and notify the Owner and Architect of the condition.

A similar clause in ConsensusDocs does not require the contractor to stop work, but provides that the “Contractor shall not be obligated to commence or continue work until any Hazardous Material discovered at the Work site has been removed, rendered or determined to be harmless by the Owner as certified by an independent testing laboratory and approved by the appropriate government agency.” Reprinted courtesy of Brian S. Wood, Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP and Miranda R. Millerick, Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP Mr. Wood may be contacted at bswood@smithcurrie.com Ms. Millerick may be contacted at mrmillerick@smithcurrie.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Negligence Against a Construction Manager Agent

March 22, 2018 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates

Can a construction manager-agent / owner’s representative hired directly by the owner be liable to the general contractor in negligence? An argument likely posited by many general contractors on projects gone awry where there is a separate construction manager. Well, here is an interesting case out of Louisiana that supports a negligence claim against a construction manager-agent.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

---

North Carolina Soil & Groundwater Case to be Heard by U.S. Supreme Court

April 09, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In Ashville, North Carolina, property owners have sued CTS Corp for alleged toxic chemicals in the soil and groundwater discovered decades after the company closed its manufacturing plant, according to the Citizen-Times. The contamination wasn’t discovered by the owners until 1999: “That lapse in time will be a primary point of consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court later this month when it hears arguments in a lawsuit brought by 25 Buncombe County property owners against the company.” Citizen-Times declared that the “issue is a North Carolina law establishing a 10-year ‘statute of repose’ that sets a deadline for filing claims related to environmental pollution in cases involving real property, even if the victims weren't aware of the contamination until long after.” However, the law might be “pre-empted by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act passed by Congress in 1980.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Lay Testimony Sufficient to Prove Diminution in Value

September 25, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The trial court erred in excluding lay testimony on diminution of value of the insured's property and by requiring expert testimony. Woodrum v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS 429 (Ga. Ct. App. June 27, 2018). During a thunderstorm, a large tree fell onto the roof the insured's house, causing significant damage. The damage was reported to their insurer, Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company. When there was disagreement on the amount of the loss, an appraisal was invoked. An award was agreed to and payment was made by Georgia Farm. 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

---

Ambiguity in Pennsylvania’s Statute of Repose Finally Cleared up by Superior Court

October 17, 2023 — Mark L. Parisi - White and Williams LLP
In an unpublished opinion from the Pennsylvania Superior Court handed down on August 31, 2023, a long-standing disagreement about the wording of Pennsylvania's Statute of Repose was finally resolved. In Pennsylvania, “a civil action or proceeding brought against any person lawfully performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision or observation of construction or construction of any improvement to real property must be commenced within 12 years after completion of construction of such improvement” to recover most forms of damages that are sought in these kinds of cases. A statute of repose is different than a statute of limitations. A statute of repose is a hard line that does not shift. There is no discovery rule with a statute of repose. Most, if not all, states have statutes of repose for construction. The Pennsylvania statute of repose is among the longest in the country. It can be even longer – up to 14 years – if the injury (including property damage) or wrongful death “shall occur more than 10 and within 12 years after completion of construction.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mark L. Parisi, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Parisi may be contacted at parisim@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Private Statutory Cause of Action Under Florida’s Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act

July 11, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Florida’s Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act is set forth in Florida Statutes Chapter 556. Any owner or operator of underground infrastructure as well as contractors that perform underground excavation and demolition operations are familiar (or, need to be familiar) with this Act and the requirements it imposes on them. In a nutshell, this Act requires excavators to notify operators of underground facilities (e.g., pipelines, cables, sewers) through a notification system before excavating or demolishing an underground location. Then notification system gives the operator of the underground facility two days’ advance notice that an excavation will be taking place. After receiving this notice, the operator of the underground facility must mark the area where its infrastructure is located which could be affected by the underground excavation or demolition operations. The Act further imposes duties on excavators to use increased caution, supervise mechanized equipment, perform excavation and demolition operations in a careful an prudent manner, and to re-notify the notification system if the operator’s marking is no longer visible so the location of the operator’s underground facility can be re-marked. 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

---