Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

New Jersey Law regarding Prior Expert’s Testimony

April 15, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Mary Pat Gallagher writing for the New Jersey Law Journal reported that “[l]awyers who track down an opposing expert's testimony from prior cases must disclose that fact during discovery but need not say whether they plan to use it in cross-examining the expert at trial, a New Jersey appeals court says.” In Dalton v. Crawley, the Appellate Division held that “[d]ecisions about cross-examination ‘involve the attorney's mental processes, so they are inherently work product.’” The issue began when “one of the defense lawyers, Michael McGann, figured out from the deposition questions Mahoney directed at one of his experts that he had transcripts of testimony from earlier cases,” according to the New Jersey Law Journal. “Hit with a notice to produce the transcripts, [Plaintiff attorney Brian] Mahoney refused, saying they were ‘attorney work product and we will not be telling you what we have developed regarding this expert.’" The New Jersey Law Journal declared that the “ruling means both sides will have to indicate what transcripts they have gathered for use—giving the name of each expert as well as the name and docket number of the prior cases where those experts testified. “ Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Homebuilder Immunity Act Dies in Committee. What's Next?

May 07, 2015 — Jesse Howard Witt – Acerbic Witt
For the third straight year, the Colorado legislature has rejected efforts by the homebuilders’ lobby to provide virtual immunity for construction defects and property damage. Late Monday night, the House committee on State, Military, and Veterans Affairs voted down Senate Bill 15-177 on straight party lines. All six Democrats on the committee voted against the bill, while all five Republicans voted for it. Similar bills had died in the Senate in 2013 and 2014. In theory, SB177 would have boosted multifamily construction by shielding builders from liability for negligent work. Unlike the 2013 bill, this version never expressly stated that it was providing homebuilders with immunity, but it would have made it nearly impossible for community associations to take action against a builder who refused to honor a warranty. And even if the homeowners managed to overcome the procedural obstacles, the bill would have forced their claims into costly, private arbitration. Proponents hoped that, by eliminating responsibility for negligent work and property damage, they could entice homebuilders to construct more cheap condominiums. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt
Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.wittlawfirm.net

Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Allegations of Collapse Rejected

August 08, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
In yet another of the collapse cases being litigated in state and federal courts in Connecticut, the federal district court denied the insurer's motion to dismiss. Rosenberger v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95345 (D. Conn. June 6, 2018). The insureds had policies with Amica since 1989. Policies before December 18, 2006, covered collapse caused by hidden decay or other specified causes. "Collapse" was not defined by the policy. These policies did not include any provisions explicitly excluding coverage for a chemical reaction. The post-2006 policies held by the insureds covered collapse, but under a significantly modified definition. The newer policy language stated that "collapse applies only to an abrupt collapse." Further, collapse was defined as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building with the result that the building or part of the building cannot be occupied for its intended purpose." 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

How to Challenge a Project Labor Agreement

May 24, 2018 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
Building and Construction Trades Council of Metropolitan District v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts Rhode Island, Inc Massachusetts Water Resources Authority v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts Rhode Island, Inc, 507 U.S. 218, 113 S.Ct. 1190, 122 L.Ed.2d 565 (1993) , affectionately knows as Boston Harbor, is the seminal Supreme Court decision that held that the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) does not preempt government mandated project labor agreements (“PLAs”) if the government entity is acting as a market participant rather than a market regulator. Boston Harbor has led to many believing that virtually all PLAs are legal when the government agency is a project owner or if the PLA involves a private project. However, does Boston Harbor really cut that far? In short, no. The primary issue in Boston Harbor was one of preemption. The Supreme Court addressed whether the NLRA preempted state and local laws and ordinances mandating PLAs. On that narrow issue, the Supreme Court said there is no preemption if the government is acting as a market participant. What the Court did not address is whether other federal statutes invalidate PLAs. Specifically, whether PLA’s can run afoul of Section 8(e), the so called “hot cargo” provisions, of the NLRA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

The Relevance and Reasonableness of Destructive Testing

August 17, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Destructive testing is a routine investigatory procedure in construction defect disputes. The destructive testing is necessary to determine liability (causation), the extent of damage, and the repair protocol. Destructive testing is designed to answer numerous questions: Why did the building component fail? Was the building component constructed incorrectly? What is the magnitude of the damage caused by the failure? What specifically caused the damage? What is the most effective way to fix the failure and damage? There are different iterations to the same questions, but in many instances, destructive testing is necessary to answer these questions. Claimants sometimes prohibit destructive testing. Of course, destructive testing is intrusive. In many instances, it is very intrusive. But, this testing is a necessary evil. Without this testing, how can a defendant truly analyze their potential exposure and culpability? They need to be in a position to prepare a defense and figure out their liability. This does not mean destructive testing is warranted in every single construction defect dispute. That is not the case. However, to say it is never warranted is irrational. 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

Quick Note: Remember to Timely Foreclose Lien Against Lien Transfer Bond

July 09, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When a construction lien is transferred to a lien transfer bond pursuant to Florida Statute s. 713.24, instead of foreclosing the lien against the real property, you are foreclosing the lien against the lien transfer bond. This is not a bad deal and, oftentimes, is probably ideal. Remember, however, just because a construction lien was transferred to a lien transfer bond (pre-lawsuit) does not mean you get more time to file your lien foreclosure lawsuit. A lawsuit must still be filed within one year (short of that period being specifically shortened under operation of the law). 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

Montana Federal Court Holds that an Interior Department’s Federal Advisory Committee Was Improperly Reestablished

December 09, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On August 13, 2019, in a case that may have an impact on the leasing of federal lands for energy development in the future, the U.S. District Court for the Missoula, Montana Division, issued a ruling in the case of Western Organization of Resource Councils v. Bernhardt, which involves the application of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to the Department of the Interior’s Royalty Policy Committee. This advisory committee, initially established in 1995 to provide advice to the Secretary on issues related to the leasing of federal and Indian lands for energy and mineral resources production, is subject to the provisions of FACA, codified at 5 U.S.C. app. Sections 1-16. The plaintiffs challenged the operations of this advisory committee, which was reestablished for two years beginning in 2017, because it allegedly “acts in secret and works to advance the goals of only one interest: the extractive industries that profit from the development of public gas, oil, and coal.” More specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that this advisory committee violated FACA because: (a) it was not properly established as provided in the implementing GSA rules (which are located at 41 CFR Section 102-3); (b) did not provide public notice of its meetings and publicly disseminate its materials; (c) ensure that its membership was fairly balanced; and (d) failed to exercise independent judgment without inappropriate influences from special interests. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

The 2019 ISO Forms: Additions, Revisions, and Pitfalls

February 24, 2020 — Richard W. Brown, Michael V. Pepe & Janie Reilly Eddy - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) issued several new and revised endorsements for use with Commercial General Liability (CGL) coverage forms, which became effective December 1, 2019, in most jurisdictions. The new ISO endorsements include several notable changes that Policyholders should be aware of, including revisions to existing Additional Insured (AI), Primary and Noncontributory, and Waiver of Subrogation endorsements, as well as a number of new AI and other endorsement forms. A summary of the more significant elements of new ISO endorsements is provided below. NEW ISO FORMS

New AI Endorsements - Automatic Status for Completed Operations

For Contractors, Owners and other construction industry stakeholders, there are two new AI endorsements of note, CG 20 39 12 19 – Additional Insured – Owners, Lessee or Contractors – Automatic Status when Required in Written Construction Agreement with You (Completed Operations) and CG 20 40 12 19 – Additional Insured – Owners Lessees or Contractors – Automatic Status for Other Parties when Required in Written Construction Agreement (Completed Operations). AI coverage for Completed Operations is generally provided under form CG 20 37, which requires each additional insured to be listed in the endorsement schedule. The new ISO endorsements automatically extend AI status for Completed Operations without having to specifically identify each additional insured, thereby mirroring current AI endorsements that confer automatic AI status for Ongoing Operations (e.g. CG 20 33 and CG 20 38). Thus, the CG 20 39 and CG 20 40, correspond with CG 20 33 (ongoing operations), and CG 20 38 (ongoing operations), respectively, to extend AI coverage for Completed Operations. Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. attorneys Richard Brown, Michael V. Pepe and Janie Reilly Eddy Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com Mr. Pepe may be contacted at mvp@sdvlaw.com Ms. Eddy may be contacted at jre@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES