FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Jet Crash Blamed on Runway Construction Defect

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Old Republic Insurance Company is suing Macon, Georgia, claiming that the runway was improperly built, leading to the crash of the corporate jet of one of their clients. The insurer paid out $1 million to the owner of the jet. Now it seeks to recover that from the city, claiming the runway was both too short and built in a manner that caused rainwater to pool. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

A Court-Side Seat: NWP 12 and the Dakota Access Pipeline Easement Get Forced Vacations, while a Potential Violation of the Eighth Amendment Isn’t Going Anywhere

August 10, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Here’s a report on several new decisions made over the past few days. U.S. SUPREME COURT U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Northern Plains Resources Council On July 8, 2020, the Court has issued a partial stay of the decision of the U.S. District Court for Montana, which had held that the nationwide use by the Corps of Engineers of its Nationwide Permit 12 to permit oil and gas pipelines must be vacated because the Corps, when it reissued these permits in 2012, failed to follow the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The breadth of this ruling seems to have surprised and alarmed many past and perspective permittees of the Corps. The stay will not apply to the ongoing Ninth Circuit litigation. FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL Vega, et al. v. Semple (The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) On June 29, 2020, the court refused to dismiss a putative class action by past and present inmates of Connecticut’s Garner Correctional Institution who alleged that state correctional officials exposed them to excessive amounts of radon gas in violation of the Eighth Amendment. These officials are alleged to have been “deliberately indifferent” to inmate safety. A 1993 Supreme Court decision, Helling v. McKiney, clearly established the law in this area, and the Garner facility opened in 1992. The defense clams of limited immunity as to federal law violations were rejected. 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

---

Supreme Court’s New York Harbor Case Isn’t a ‘Sopranos’ Episode

August 03, 2022 — Stephen L. Carter - Bloomberg
The long-simmering harbor dispute between New York and New Jersey has observers reaching for illustrations from “The Sopranos” and “On the Waterfront.” But now that the US Supreme Court has agreed to adjudicate the spat, I wonder whether a more useful resource might be “The Paper Chase.” The disagreement stems from New Jersey’s determination to exit the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, an entity established by the two states back in 1953 in response to news reports of widespread corruption and violence among those who loaded and unloaded ships. New Jersey argues that as a sovereign state, it can’t be forced to remain in the pact forever. New York replies that the deal has the force of law and neither state can quit without the permission of the other. (And Congress!) The Supreme Court is now involved because that’s the venue the Constitution prescribes when one state sues another. Four days before New Jersey’s announced departure date of March 28, the justices issued an injunction preventing the move. This week they agreed to adjudicate the dispute and set an accelerated schedule for briefs and oral argument. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephen L. Carter, Bloomberg

---

Texas Supreme Court Defines ‘Plaintiff’ in 3rd-Party Claims Against Design Professionals

September 10, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to attorney Matthew J. Mussalli, writing in Texas Lawyer, “In Jaster v. Comet II Construction on July 3, the Texas Supreme Court ruled how to construe the term ‘plaintiff’ in the context of claims against design professionals and under what circumstances a Certificate of Merit (COM) is required.” Mussalli explained that “the court narrowly construed the relevant statute contained in Chapter 150 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code and held that the plaintiff is just that—the plaintiff; not a defendant/third-party plaintiff nor a cross-claimant. Accordingly, builders, contractors and others who find themselves in the position of defending breach of contract, negligence or other claims and who seek to implead design professionals, need not file a COM with their third-party petitions or cross-claims against architects, engineers or other design professionals.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Contract Construction Smarts: Helpful Provisions for Dispute Resolution

June 03, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday, Musings welcomes back Doug Reiser (@douglasreiser), though from new digs. Doug is a construction attorney, LEED AP and the principal at Reiser Legal LLC in Seattle, WA. His office provides effective construction counsel for businesses in the construction industry. He also runs the Builders Counsel Blog, a blog focused on progressive issues in Washington construction law. Doug is a former partner/member at Wolfe Law Group LLC and former owner and director of Express Lien Inc. There are many types of attorneys out there, but there are certainly two styles: ones looking for the fight and ones trying to prevent the fight. I take the preventative approach. Client funds do not grow on trees. That old saying “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” should say a “ton of cure.” It’s that valuable. Sometimes the problem for prevention attorneys is trying to relay that message to a construction business. The cost of smart prevention is mainly thought of as just that – a cost. But when it buys you a cure for pennies on the dollar, it’s worth it. You will know it’s worth it when you finally become engaged in a costly three year long legal proceeding over a construction dispute. 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

---

Insurance Law Client Alert: California FAIR Plan Limited to Coverage Provided by Statutory Fire Insurance Policy

February 07, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In St. Cyr v. California Fair Plan Association (No. B243159, filed 1/31/14), a California appeals court held that the state's high risk property insurance plan is not obligated to provide any greater coverage than that mandated for the state's statutory fire insurance policy. The plaintiff-policyholders lived in high fire risk areas and were insured under the California FAIR Plan, which provides property insurance to the otherwise uninsurable. Following loss of their homes and other property in wildfires, the policyholders were paid the full amount of their policy limits, but contended that they were entitled to additional payments. Specifically, the policyholders alleged that the FAIR plan provided less protection than statutorily mandated by Insurance Code sections 10090 through 10100.2, which spells out the "Basic Property Insurance Inspection and Placement Plan" of the FAIR program. The policyholders contended that FAIR was required to issue a policy not only in accordance with the standard form fire insurance policy set forth in Insurance Code section 2071, but also the "'Basic Property Insurance' written in the normal market . . . known as the 'HO-3'," referring to the copywrited homeowners policy form promulgated by the Insurance Services Office (ISO). Reprinted Courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP and Chris Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com and Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Woodbridge II and the Nuanced Meaning of “Adverse Use” in Hostile Property Rights Cases in Colorado

November 23, 2020 — Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Earlier this year, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued an opinion addressing at length “whether the requirement that the use be ‘adverse’ in the adverse possession context is coextensive with adverse use in the prescriptive easement context.” See Woodbridge Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Lo Viento Blanco, LLC, 2020 COA 34 (Woodbridge II), ¶ 2, cert. granted, No. 20SC292, 2020 WL 5405376 (Colo. Sept. 8, 2020). As detailed below, the Woodbridge II court concluded that the meanings of “adverse” in these two contexts are not coextensive—while “hostility” in the adverse possession context requires a claim of exclusive ownership of the property, a party claiming a prescriptive easement is only required to “show a nonpermissive or otherwise unauthorized use of property that interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Thus, the Woodbridge II court reasoned a claimants’ acknowledgement or recognition of an owner’s title alone is insufficient to defeat “adverse use” in the prescriptive easement context. This significant ruling is at odds with a prior division’s broad statement, while considering a prescriptive easement claim, that “[i]n general, when an adverse occupier acknowledges or recognizes the title of the owner during the occupant’s claimed prescriptive period, the occupant interrupts the prescriptive use.” See Trask v. Nozisko, 134 P.3d 544, 553 (Colo. App. 2006). Perhaps for that reason, Woodbridge II is currently pending certiorari review before the Colorado Supreme Court in a case that should provide some much-needed clarity on what constitutes “adverse use” in the context of a prescriptive easement. As we await the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, I thought it worthwhile to provide a brief analysis of the Woodbridge II court’s deep dive into the nuances of “adverse use” in this field of Colorado law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

---

Kahana Feld Welcomes Six Attorneys to the Firm in Q4 of 2023

January 16, 2024 — Linda Carter - Kahana Feld
Kahana Feld is pleased to announce the addition of six attorneys to the team in the fourth quarter of 2023. We are excited to have each of these individuals on the team. In our Houston office, Kahana Feld welcomes Partner Donald Loving II and Attorney Elliott Wright. Mr. Loving is a member of the General Liability and Trucking & Transportation practice groups. He earned his Juris Doctor from the University of Houston and has over 30 years of litigation and trial experience, including working as staff & corporate counsel for several prominent insurance carriers including GEICO, Progressive, USAA and Travelers. Mr. Wright is a member of the Construction Defect, General Liability, and Trucking & Transportation practice groups. He earned his Juris Doctor from SMU Dedman School of Law, and has extensive litigation and insurance defense experience. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Linda Carter, Kahana Feld
Ms. Carter may be contacted at lcarter@kahanafeld.com

---