FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Sixth Circuit Affirms Liability Insurer's Broad Duty to Defend and Binds Insurer to Judgment Against Landlord

September 07, 2020 — Michael V. Pepe & Janie Reilly Eddy - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
In a victory for policyholders, the Sixth Circuit affirmed that a landlord’s insurer owed a duty to defend the landlord in a bodily injury claim arising out of a fire that killed three and injured one. The Court held that the insurer breached its duty to defend and was bound to the insured’s $3 million consented judgment. Transition Investments LLC, an owner of three properties in the Detroit area, purchased a general liability insurance policy with Hamilton Specialty Insurance Company to insure its properties. At one of the properties, a faulty stove started a fire, destroying the building, injuring one person and killing three others. The estates of the deceased and the injured party sued Transition in Michigan state court. In their complaint, the plaintiffs contended that Transition failed to provide a habitable premise and neglected to maintain the property’s stove, which allegedly caused the fire. The plaintiffs argued that Transition’s negligent maintenance of the property led to the fire and the resulting injuries. Transition subsequently tendered the claim to Hamilton. Hamilton claimed that the insurance policy did not cover the fire’s damages and refused to participate in the state court litigation. Ultimately, Transitions entered into a consent judgment with the plaintiffs for $3 million. Reprinted courtesy of Michael V. Pepe, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Janie Reilly Eddy, Saxe Doernberger & Vita 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

---

Taylor Morrison Home Corp’ New San Jose Development

October 15, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Silicon Valley Business Journal reported that Taylor Morrison Home Corp has made the “biggest land acquisition so far in San Jose” after acquiring “an 8-acre chunk of dirt in the developing Montecito Vista area where it has plans to build out 184 townhomes.” The developer “paid about $32.5 million, or roughly $176,600 per buildable unit, for the land, according to public tax records,” according to the Silicon Valley Business Journal. Construction is scheduled to begin November of 2015 and models should be ready by April of 2016. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Details Matter: The Importance of Strictly Following Public Bid Statutes

September 22, 2016 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
Contractors bidding on public contracts know that failing to strictly following all of the technical aspects contained in the instructions to bidders can mean the difference between a winning and losing bid. In the span of two weeks, I was involved with two cases that underscored the importance of this axiom. Both cases involved New Jersey’s public bid laws. While these cases show the importance of following a specific section of New Jersey’s public bid statute, the take away – that details matter – is universal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

Colorado Hotel Neighbors Sue over Construction Plans

October 02, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Neighbors of the Sky Hotel in Aspen, Colorado, filed suit against the owners “alleging that the construction project will impede access to their units and steal their airspace,” reported the Aspen Daily News Online. The problem, the plaintiff suit alleges, is that the Sky’s plan would close the “east-west alley,” which is also used by the condo complex: “Owners, renters and guests mainly use the alley, which is configured for one-way traffic entering on Durant Avenue and exiting at Original Street, to access their condos in the Chaumont, says the 12-page complaint filed by local attorney Jody Edwards.” The plaintiffs are demanding that the plan be voided or at least require the issues in the suit to be addressed. They are also seeking attorney and other costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court Rejects Efforts to Limit Scope of Judgment Creditor’s Direct Action Under Insurance Code Section 11580

May 01, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Ins. Co. of St. of PA v. Amer. Safety Indemnity Co. (No. B283684, filed 3/1/19) (“ICSOP”), a California appeals court rejected one insurer’s efforts to limit the scope of another insurer’s direct action as a judgment creditor under Insurance Code section 11580(b)(2). In ICSOP, homeowners filed a claim in arbitration against their general contractor alleging damages from subsidence. While the arbitration was pending, the general contractor filed suit against the grading subcontractor seeking indemnity and contribution. The complaint attached the homeowners’ complaint in arbitration pleading damages of $2.3 million, and alleged that the subcontractors had a duty to indemnify for those damages. The arbitrator awarded the homeowners $1.1 million. The general contractor was insured by plaintiff ICSOP, which paid the arbitration award. A default judgment was entered against the grading subcontractor for $1.5 million, that included both the arbitration award plus $356,340 for the general contractor’s attorney’s fees. American Safety insured the grading subcontractor but refused to indemnify ICSOP. ICSOP then sued American Safety on the default judgment, pursuant to Insurance Code section 11580(b). The trial court granted summary judgment for ICSOP and the appeals court affirmed. Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (12/07/22) – Home Sales, EV Charging Infrastructure, and Office Occupancy

December 26, 2022 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
This week’s round-up explores decreasing home sales, electric vehicle charging stations, office occupancy levels, and more.

• With home sales dropping and more buyers abandoning their plans, forecasters have rarely disagreed as much as they are now regarding where the housing market is going next. (Nicole Friedman, Nick Timiraos, The Wall Street Journal)
• Contractors and construction technology firms are watching as skilled workers look for new jobs in a turbulent economy. (Matthew Thibault, Construction Dive)
• The ability to conveniently charge electric vehicles away from home is a top concern for many owners, indicating the strong need for an extensive and reliable external charging infrastructure. (Robert Charette, IEEE Spectrum)

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

---

Construction Law- Where Pragmatism and Law Collide

January 06, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
If there is one “theme” to Construction Law Musings, those that read regularly hopefully see that I take my role as counselor to construction companies seriously. Aside from the fact that litigation and arbitration are both expensive and not a great way for any business, particularly a construction business, to make money, I have found construction professionals to be a pragmatic group of people that would rather solve a problem than go to court. I have also discussed the need for a good foundation for the project in the form of a well drafted and properly negotiated contract. This contract sets out the rights of the parties and essentially makes the “law” for your construction project. Virginia courts will not renegotiate the terms for you and while this can lead to problems where parties either don’t understand the terms or don’t work to level the terms, it does mean that the parties know what the expectations are where the expectations are properly set, preferably with the help of your friendly neighborhood construction attorney and counselor at law. Practical considerations such as your feel for the other party and which terms are worth forgoing the work for should drive your considerations almost as much as the legal implications. 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

---

When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors

August 13, 2019 — Ira M. Schulman & Emily D. Anderson - ConsensusDocs
Payment bonds have been a staple of public construction projects since 1874, when the U.S. Congress first passed the Heard Act, which required that contractors obtain payment bonds for public projects to ensure that subcontractors and material suppliers have a way to recover their damages if an upstream contractor fails to pay for work performed and materials furnished on the project. The 1874 Heard Act has since been replaced by the 1935 Miller Act, and the concept has been expanded to construction projects funded by the states through state statutes known as “Little Miller Acts.” But the structure remains the same: On most public projects where the project’s cost exceeds $100,000, the prime contractor (the bond principal) is required to obtain a payment bond from a surety equal to the contract price to guarantee to subcontractors and material suppliers (the bond obligees) that the surety will pay for labor and materials under certain statutory or contractual conditions should the contractor fail to make payment. A surety is jointly and severally liable with the contractor to the subcontractor, which means that the subcontractor may seek recovery against either the contractor or the surety or both, and the contractor and surety will be liable for the damages together. Put another way, in most states and in federal court, an unpaid subcontractor has the right to sue only the surety on the payment bond without joining the contractor because a contract of suretyship is a direct liability of the surety to the subcontractor.1 When the contractor fails to perform, the surety becomes directly responsible at once — it is unnecessary for the subcontractor to establish that the contractor failed to carry out its contract before the obligation of the surety becomes absolute. Reprinted courtesy of Ira M. Schulman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Emily D. Anderson, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Schulman may be contacted at schulmani@pepperlaw.com Ms. Anderson may be contacted at andersone@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---