Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Department of Transportation Revises Its Rules Affecting Environmental Review of Transportation Projects

December 04, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On October 29, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) published a final rule in the Federal Register which amends and revises the environmental National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures rules employed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). There is a renewed interest in transportation infrastructure projects, and recent legislation is intended to accelerate required environmental reviews. 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

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/1/24) – Hybrid Work Technologies, AI in Construction and the Market for Office Buildings

November 05, 2024 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In our latest roundup, commercial mortgage bond market in trouble, commercial real estate investments, pressure on mortgage REITs, and more!

Short-term issues facing U.S. commercial real estate have made it an investment opportunity and values have bottomed out. (CNBC)
As organizations report plans to shake up their real estate portfolios, the flight to quality spurs interest in space planning, amenities and hybrid work technologies. (Joe Burns, Facilities Dive)
The conversation about AI’s potential benefits and risks has been a common refrain in construction recently. (Matthew Thibault, Construction Dive)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

Avoid L&I Violations by Following Appropriate Safety Procedures

November 07, 2022 — Reeya Patel - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Department of Labor and Industries of the State of Washington v. Roof Doctor, Inc. d/b/a Roof Doctors, Inc. of Tacoma (Unpublished opinion) Roof Doctor, a company engaging maintenance of roofs, was hired to complete work for a commercial building in Tacoma in February 2018. During the job, Roof Doctor was cited for two violations by a Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ (L&I) compliance inspector and seven additional asbestos violations. Each citation was rated with a probability of 1 – 3 to determine the likelihood of injury, illness, or disease. The ratings allowed issuance of an appropriate monetary penalty. The disputes among the parties on appeal were as follows: First, L&I and Roof Doctor disputed the asbestos probability ratings and calculated penalties. L&I produced as evidence, the fact that nine employees were physically hanging roofing material with asbestos, but none had training or knew that the material contained asbestos. L&I did agree that that most of the employees were experienced in handling roofing material and knew of the dangers that asbestos presented. Roof Doctor explained that because the employees were working outdoors, the danger of asbestos exposure was mitigated due to a low probability that a high concentration of asbestos could be inhaled by the employees when outdoors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC

Nevada HOA Criminal Investigation Moving Slowly

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Six years have passed since the FBI started investigating “allegations of the sweeping scheme to take over valley homeowners associations” in Nevada, according to Jeff German writing for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, however, “the public still doesn’t have the full story of how the scheme unfolded.” Defendants who plead guilty are still awaiting sentencing and no trial has been set for “former construction company boss Leon Benzer, the accused mastermind of the scheme” despite that he and ten others have already been indicted. The trial had been set for March, however, defense lawyers stated “they were overwhelmed by the massive amount of evidence and won’t be prepared for trial until well into 2015.” Benzer, Nancy Quon (late construction defect attorney), and others allegedly “funneled more than $8 million through secret bank accounts to land the lucrative legal and construction defect contracts from the homeowners associations,” according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Quon committed suicide in 2012, and therefore was never charged in the case. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Failing to Adopt a Comprehensive Cyber Plan Can Lead to Disaster

January 13, 2020 — Richard Volack - Construction Executive
Despite being aware of cyber risk, and even frightened by it, a shocking number of companies in the construction industry have neither a cyber insurance policy nor a basic cyber security plan to deal with a hack or breach into their computer systems. Once breached, companies with no plan in place become, essentially, a rudderless ship subject to the whims of criminal tides. A proper cyber plan lays out at least the following:

the criteria for when a plan would be triggered (i.e., in the event of a breach or a hack);
which persons inside the company (in-house counsel, IT personnel, executive, project managers) and which persons outside the company (attorney with knowledge of cyber issues and ideally construction law as well; forensic computer experts, crisis management experts; and an insurance broker familiar with cyber policies) should be involved;
the chain of command and communication in this type of situation and the distinct roles each of the above players will fulfill (Note: this is not the same as the normal corporate chain of command); and
the various available options to address the breach situation, which will all depend upon the facts at issue—such as the type and extent of the breach and how much of what particular kind of information was lost, stolen or exfiltrated.

Reprinted courtesy of Richard Volack, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Volack may be contacted at rvolack@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Of Pavement and Pandemic: Liability and Regulatory Hurdles for Taking It Outside

September 21, 2020 — Jeff Clare - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to ravage the U.S. economy, restaurateurs and bar owners are feeling the brunt of business closures and adaptations necessary to combat the disease. Where cozy and intimate dining was once de rigueur for the restaurant industry, these businesses must now shift to outdoor dining with adequate space and airflow between parties. In response to these concerns, many cities across the country who once fought against the loss of any parking have turned to a post-automobile tactic: outdoor dining in thoroughfares and parking lots. While at first glance it might seem a simple enough prospect—throw some chairs and a table out front, and voilà—property owners and restaurateurs must remain cognizant of various liability and regulatory hurdles for operating outside. With Great Space Comes Great … Potential Liability. One of the largest concerns for landowners in operating in a new space for business is liability. Who is on the hook if someone gets hurt dining in an impromptu dining space in a parking lot? Prior to beginning new outdoor dining operations, landowners and restaurateurs should contact their insurance providers to ensure that the new space is included in their insurance coverage. This is a particular concern for larger commercial landowners who may have various businesses vying to use their parking lot for business. Many leases have carefully crafted clauses limiting where a business may operate and where their liability ceases. Landowners and business owners should review their leases for any such clauses and negotiate with one another to ensure that liability in these new spaces is clearly defined. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Clare, Pillsbury
Mr. Clare may be contacted at jeff.clare@pillsburylaw.com

What Happens When a Secured Creditor Files a Late Claim in an Equity Receivership?

September 28, 2017 — Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Pitting a receivership court’s inherent equitable powers against pre-existing property rights can lead to some pretty interesting questions. In SEC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 848 F.3d 1339, 1343-44 (11th Cir. 2017), the Eleventh Circuit recently examined whether a district court’s inherent authority to establish a claims submission process allowed the court to extinguish a security interest in real property based solely upon an untimely proof of claim. Much to the relief of secured creditors, the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred, as a matter of law, by extinguishing the creditor’s pre-existing property rights under those circumstances. Introduction Equity vests a district court with “‘broad powers and wide discretion to determine relief in an equity receivership.’” Wells Fargo, 848 F.3d at 1343-44 (quoting SEC v. Elliot, 953 F.2d 1560, 1566 (11th Cir. 1992)). These powers include: (i) establishing procedures for the submission of claims to a receiver, and (ii) setting a claims bar date. Id. at 1344 (citing SEC v. Tipco, Inc., 554 F.2d 710, 711 (5th Cir. 1977)). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

How One Squirrel Taught us a Surprising Amount about Insurance Investigation Lessons Learned from the Iowa Supreme Court

April 03, 2019 — Graham C. Mills - Newmeyer & Dillion
A recent decision issued by the Iowa Supreme Court, City of West Liberty, Iowa v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, highlights the importance for a policyholder to investigate a loss fully so that a wide range of evidence can be gathered and presented to show why there is coverage. The facts of City of West Liberty are a little unusual, but its lesson is not limited to Iowa insurance law; the issues litigated in this case show the value of investigating what caused a loss regardless of whether the loss occurred in California, Iowa, or elsewhere. Background on the Case City of West Liberty involved an insurance coverage dispute between a municipality owned electrical power plant and its insurance company. The dispute arose from a single adventurous squirrel who climbed onto an outdoor electrical transformer, touching two different parts of the power plant: a portion of the steel frame and a bare cable clamp. In doing so, the squirrel created a “conductive path,” in the words of the Iowa Supreme Court, between the high voltage clamp and the grounded frame. The path, once created, caused significant damage to the transformer and other electrical equipment at the city’s power plant. The city submitted a claim for the resulting damage, but the insurance company denied it. The insurer denied based on an exclusion in the insurance policy for property damage “caused by arcing or by electrical currents other than lightning.” According to the insurance company, the squirrel had no role in causing the damage; all of the damage resulted from arcing, which was excluded from coverage. The ensuing lawsuit focused upon whether the squirrel had a role in causing the damage. If yes, then there would be coverage according to Iowa insurance law; when a loss results from two causes, one of which is covered and the other is not, then there is coverage if the loss occurs from the covered cause. Due to this legal standard, the city contended that, apart from the arcing causing any damage, the squirrel caused the damage too. Because the insurance policy provided protection against mischievous actions performed by squirrels, the city contended that it was entitled to coverage, even if the excluded arcing contributed to the same damage too. Unfortunately, for the city, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected that argument, finding instead that the property damage resulted only from the arcing, which was excluded from coverage. In reaching its conclusion, the court absolved the squirrel of any wrongdoing, finding that it did not cause any of the property damage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Graham C. Mills, Newmeyer & Dillion
Mr. Mills may be contacted at graham.mills@ndlf.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES