FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Seabold Construction Ties Demise to Dispute with Real Estate Developer

April 29, 2024 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
When Harry W. Seabold, co-founder and CEO of Seabold Construction, died unexpectedly in January 2023 at age 69, the Beaverton, Ore.-based general contractor, which had been in business since 1984, kept chugging along for a year on two adjacent North Portland apartment projects. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story...

---

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa M. Rolle, Eric D. Suben, and Justyn Verzillo Secure Dismissal of All Claims in a Premises Liability Case

November 16, 2023 — Lisa M. Rolle, Eric D. Suben & Justyn Verzillo - Traub Lieberman
On an appeal of an order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint in a slip-and-fall action commenced in Kings County Supreme Court, Traub Lieberman attorneys Lisa M. Rolle, Eric D. Suben, and Justyn Verzillo successfully secured dismissal of all claims by the Appellate Division, Second Department, on behalf of Traub Lieberman’s client. The lawsuit sought to recover damages arising out of injuries the Plaintiff allegedly sustained when she slipped and fell in the shower of a rental property owned by the Defendant, a limited liability company. Plaintiff alleged that the subject shower was defective, and the Defendant negligent, based on the absence of non-slip surfacing and grab bars in the shower. Aside from premises liability (negligence), Plaintiffs asserted eight other causes of action, including gross negligence, breach of warranty of habitability, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, alter-ego liability, loss of consortium, and for declaratory judgment. The judge in Supreme Court denied Traub Lieberman’s motion to dismiss on behalf of Defendant, citing as the sole reason that the affidavits submitted with the motion were unsigned, and ignoring Traub Lieberman’s arguments pointing out the glaring facial deficiencies of Plaintiff’s pleading and that the signed affidavits were in fact submitted before the return date. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman, Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman and Justyn Verzillo, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com Mr. Verzillo may be contacted at jverzillo@tlsslaw.com Read the full story...

---

Veolia Agrees to $25M Settlement in Flint Water Crisis Case

February 19, 2024 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
Engineering firm Veolia North America agreed to a $25-million settlement to resolve a federal class action case related to its work for the city of Flint, Mich., during the city’s lead-in-water crisis, the company and attorneys for the plaintiffs announced Feb. 1. Veolia is the second engineering firm that worked for the city to settle with city residents, and the deal came ahead of a class-action trial scheduled to start later this month. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story...

---

The Three L’s of Real Estate Have New, Urgent Meaning

April 15, 2024 — Mark Gongloff - Bloomberg
What will it take to make Americans stop rushing headlong into climate peril? Cheaper housing in safer places, for one thing. But maybe big red flags on property listings will help, too. Redfin Corp., the digital real estate company, last week added air-quality data to its listings as part of its “climate risks” feature, which aims to warn homebuyers of the chances their dream home could succumb to a global-warming nightmare. Using data from the climate research firm First Street Foundation, Redfin estimates a property’s current and predicted risk levels for flooding, wildfires, extreme heat, high winds — and now days when the Environmental Protection Agency’s Air Quality Index tops 100, a category known as “unhealthy for sensitive groups.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mark Gongloff, Bloomberg

---

Missouri Protects Subrogation Rights

April 15, 2024 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
The point at which an insurance carrier possesses the equitable right of subrogation is an issue on which the states have differed. Some allow carriers to pursue rights of subrogation immediately upon payment and some have taken stricter approaches. Missouri falls into the latter group. By not allowing the carrier the right to file suit against third-party tortfeasors until the insured provides its carrier with an assignment of all its rights, Missouri’s approach has opened the door for challenges to subrogation rights. In Megown v. Auto Club Fam. Ins. Co., 2024 Mo. App. LEXIS 82, the plaintiff-insureds Michael and Jane Megown (the Megowns) suffered a house fire on February 8, 2016. Their insurance carrier, Auto Club Family Insurance Company (Auto Club) reimbursed the Megowns for their property damage in the amount of $722,433.56. Subsequently, the Megowns sued Auto Club for breach of contract and later amended their complaint to add claims against Tyberius Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Crag Electric (Craig Electric), the third-party tortfeasor, for direct negligence, alleging both property damage and personal injuries. Auto Club intervened in the Megowns’ claim against Craig Electric to protect its interest as subrogee for its property damage payment to the Megowns. Craig Electric settled prior to trial, paying $1,000,000.00 to both the Megowns and Auto Club, to be allocated at a later date. After a bench trial that apportioned the settlement with $722,433.56 paid to Auto Club and $277,566.44 paid to Megowns – and a jury trial awarding no further damages – the Megowns appealed. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

---

It Pays to Review the ‘Review the Contract Documents’ Clause Before You Sign the Contract

March 11, 2024 — Alan Winkler - ConsensusDocs
It is fairly common for a construction contract to include a provision requiring the contractor to perform some level of review of the plans and specifications and perhaps other contract documents as part of their responsibilities. Typically, this provision is found in a section of the contract on the contractor’s responsibilities, although it can be anywhere. Owners and contractors are, with reason, focused on three main issues in reviewing contracts: (1) price, costs, and payments, (2) time and scheduling, and (3) scope of the work. Eyes may glaze over the contractor’s responsibilities section. Not only does it seem to be boilerplate, but industry professionals know what a contractor is supposed to do; in a nutshell, build the project. An old school type of contractor may regard this role as strictly following the plans and specifications, no matter what they provide. That could lead to a situation where construction comes to a complete stop because, for example, two elements are totally incompatible with each other. If that happens, the contractor would then turn to the owner and architect to ask for a corrective plan and instructions on how to proceed. That may also be accompanied by a request for more time and money while the problem is resolved. The ‘review the contract documents’ clause is designed to avoid this. It is intended to address an understanding that everyone makes mistakes, even architects and engineers whose job it is to design a buildable, functional project. The clause also addresses the understanding that a contractor is more than a rote implementer of plans and specifications because its expertise in building necessarily means the contractor has expertise in understanding the documents that define the construction and how things are put together. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alan Winkler, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Winkler may be contacted at awinkler@pecklaw.com

---

CGL Policy May Not Cover Cybersecurity and Data-Related Losses

March 25, 2024 — Susana Arce - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The construction industry, like many other industries, has experienced an increased reliance on, and implementation of, technology in the past few years. Smart phones and tablets are used on most project sites, computers are an integral part of the planning process, and various software programs are used throughout the construction process. Likewise, much of the machinery and equipment used during construction (e.g., total stations, trucks, tower cranes) is interconnected, and in some cases, operated or monitored remotely.1 With an increase in technology comes a risk of cybersecurity and data-related losses. Many large businesses purchase Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) insurance and assume cybersecurity and data-related losses are covered. Unfortunately, this is generally not the case. CGL policies typically cover three general types of damage: bodily injury, property damage, and advertising injury. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Susana Arce, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Arce may be contacted at SArce@sdvlaw.com

---

Hirer Not Liable Under Privette Doctrine Where Hirer Had Knowledge of Condition, but not that Condition Posed a Concealed Hazard

December 11, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The Privette doctrine, so-called because of a case of the same name, Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 698 (1993), provides a rebuttable presumption that a hirer is not liable for workplace injuries sustained by employees of hired parties. In other words, if a property owner hires a contractor, and one of the contractor’s employees gets injured while working on the property, there is a rebuttable presumption that the property owner is not liable for the employee’s injuries, the rationale being that because the contractor is required to carry workers’ compensation insurance the contractor is in the better position to absorb losses incurred a workplace injury. There are, however, two widely recognized exceptions to the Privette doctrine. The first, is the Hooker exception, again named after a case of the same name, Hooker v. Department of Transportation, 27 Cal.th 198 (2002), which provides that a hirer is liable for injuries to a hired parties’ employees, if the hirer retained control over the work being performed, negligently exercised that control, and the negative exercise of that control contributed to the employee’s injury. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---