FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Who's Who Legal Recognizes Two White and Williams Lawyers as Thought/Global Leaders in Insurance and Reinsurance

August 28, 2023 — White and Williams LLP
Who's Who Legal (WWL), in association with Thought Leaders: USA - Insurance and Reinsurance 2023, has recognized two White and Williams lawyers as leading practitioners in their field. WWL’s research process uses a combination of proprietary digital and in-person qualitative techniques and interviews. WWL named Patricia B. Santelle and Randy J. Maniloff as Thought Leaders in Insurance and Reinsurance 2023. Thought Leaders base their results on recommendations and feedback from private practitioners in the industry, as well as from corporate counsel or other clients who have worked closely with the nominees. Both Patricia and Randy have also been recommended as Global Leaders in their field. Patti is recognized by her clients and peers as a leading attorney in the field of complex insurance coverage, having devoted more than 30 years to the representation of insurance company clients. She is also a leader in the legal and business community, having served as the first female chair of a major law firm in Philadelphia. An advocate of community engagement, Patti supports a large number of business, community, law school and pro bono/volunteer initiatives in the region. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

---

COVID-19 Impacts on Subcontractor Default Insurance and Ripple Effects

April 20, 2020 — Smith Currie
Subcontractor default insurance (“SDI”) may be described as an alternative to bonding subcontractors. SDI is first-party insurance that compensates the general contractor insured in the event a covered subcontractor fails to fulfill its contractual obligations. Under SDI policies, general contractor insureds are obligated to develop and implement rigorous subcontractor prequalification procedures. Basic questions and answers about how SDI might come into play and impact the construction industry in response to COVID-19 follow: Who may make a claim on an SDI policy? The general contractor may make a claim. An Owner may make a claim if the general contractor becomes insolvent in many cases. Subcontractors may not make claims on SDI policies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Smith Currie
The Smith Currie firm may be contacted at info@smithcurrie.com

---

Alabama Limits Duty to Defend for Construction Defects

October 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
While supreme courts in several states have expanded what is covered under a commercial general liability policy, Alabama has bucked the trend. Martha P. Brown and David L. Brown discuss this in a post on the site of their firm, Nelson Levine de Luca & Hamilton. They note that in a recent case, Owners Insurance Company v. Jim Carr Homebuilders, “the court held that liability for defective construction resulting in water intrusion damage to otherwise properly constructed component parts is not covered under a general contractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy because such damages are not caused by an ‘occurrence.’” The background of Owners v. Jim Carr was that the work of the subcontractors was found not only to be defective, but responsible for damage to correctly performed work. The court held, however, that it was all part of the same project. The court “distinguished the present case from a situation where the insured’s work results in damages to other property outside the scope of the insured’s work,” which they noted could be covered under a CGL policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Negligent Construction an Occurrence Says Ninth Circuit

June 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

One June 27, the US Court of Appeals has rejected an appeal from Mid-Continent Casualty Company. Mid-Continent had appealed a summary judgment granted to Titan Construction Company.



Titan Construction had built condominiums for the Williamsburg Condominium Association, which later filed a construction defect lawsuit against Titan and other defendants. Titan settled with the developer, Kennydale, assigning its rights against Mid-Continent to Kennydale. Mid-Continent filed suit, claiming that “it had no obligation to indemnify or defend Titan, Kennydale, or various other defendants.” The district court found in favor of Mid-Continent, granting a summary judgment, concluding that Titan’s insurance covered “occurrences,” and none had taken place.



On appeal, the court found that the negligent construction of the condominiums constituted an “occurrence” The case was remanded and the district court this time found in favor of Titan, “concluding that Mid-Continent failed to raise a triable issue as to the applicability of the remaining policy exclusions.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has now affirmed that decision and Titan’s summary judgment stands.

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court Bars Licensed Contractor From Seeking Compensation for Work Performed by Unlicensed Sub

June 06, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It all started with a tree. A eucalyptus tree to be exact. What followed is one of the more important cases to be decided under Business and Professions Code section 7031 in recent years. Yes, that Section 7031. The statute variously described by the state’s courts as “harsh[ ],” draconian” and “unjust,” but, importantly, nevertheless valid. Under Section 7031, an unlicensed contractor is barred from seeking compensation for work requiring a contractor’s license. This has been called the “shield.” However, in addition to the “shield,” project owners can also employ Section 7031’s “sword,” and seek disgorgement of all monies paid to an unlicensed contractor. Section 7031’s “shield” and “sword” applies even if the project owner knew that the contractor was unlicensed. They also apply even if the unlicensed contractor’s work was flawless. And they also apply even if a contractor was unlicensed during a portion of its work. This is because, as courts have stated, Section 7031 is a consumer protection statute intended to protect the public from unlicensed contractors and applies irrespective of the equities. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

UCP Buys Citizen Homes

March 31, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
UCP, a home builder and land developer based in San Jose, California, has purchased “Charlotte-based Southeast regional home building venture Citizens Homes, whose chairman is well-known home building industry veteran Tony Mon, and whose president and chief operating officer is third-generation home builder Scott Thorson,” according to Big Builder. According to a UCP press statement, as quoted by Big Builder, “[t]he purchase price, estimated to be approximately $15 million, is based on the total assets of Citizens at the closing of the acquisition, less cash and cash equivalents, and less certain assumed trade payables. In addition, Citizens is eligible to receive earnout payments from UCP of up to $6 million in the aggregate based on performance over the next five years.” The acquisition is expected to close during the second quarter of 2014. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Failure to Meet Code Case Remanded to Lower Court for Attorney Fees

May 24, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Judge Patricia J. Cottrell, ruling on the case Roger Wilkes, et al. v. Shaw Enterprises, LLC, in the Tennessee Court of Appeals, upheld the trial court’s conclusion that “the builder constructed the house in accordance with good building practices even though it was not in strict conformance with the building code.” However, Judge Cottrell directed the lower court to “award to Appellants reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in their first appeal, as determined by the trial court.”

Judge Cottrell cited in her opinion the contract which specified that the house would be constructed “in accordance with good building practices.” However, after the Wilkes discovered water leakage, the inspections revealed that “that Shaw had not installed through-wall flashing and weep holes when the house was built.” The trial court concluded that:

“Separate and apart from the flashing and weep holes, the trial court concluded the Wilkeses were entitled to recover damages for the other defects they proved based on the cost of repair estimates introduced during the first and second trials, which the court adjusted for credibility reasons. Thus, the trial court recalculated the amount the Wilkeses were entitled to recover and concluded they were entitled to $17,721 for the value of repairs for defects in violation of good business practices, and an additional 15%, or $2,658.15, for management, overhead, and profit of a licensed contractor. This resulted in a judgment in the amount of $20,370.15. The trial court awarded the Wilkeses attorneys” fees through the Page 9 first trial in the amount of $5,094.78 and discretionary costs in the amount of $1,500. The total judgment following the second trial totaled $26,973.93.”

In this second appeal, Judge Cottrell concluded, that “the trial court thus did not have the authority to decide the Wilkeses were not entitled to their attorneys” fees and costs incurred in the first appeal.”

Read the court’s decision

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Paycheck Protection Flexibility Act Of 2020: What You Need to Know

July 20, 2020 — Amy R. Patton & Rana Ayazi - Payne & Fears
On June 5, 2020, President Trump signed into legislation the bipartisan bill titled the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (PPPFA). The PPPFA modifies the Paycheck Protection Program, which was first introduced under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The modifications provide borrowers more control over the use of funds and make it easier to obtain forgiveness. The following is a summary of the key changes. 1. Extended Maturity Date From 2 Years to 5 Years Under the CARES Act, the minimum maturity date for loan amounts after the forgiveness period was not defined. The Small Business Administration (SBA) then released an Interim Final Rule clarifying that the minimum maturity date was two years. The PPPFA has extended the term to five years: “The covered loan shall have a minimum maturity of 5 years and a maximum maturity of 10 years from the date on which the borrower applies for loan forgiveness under that section.” 2. Extension of Covered Period From Eight Weeks to a Maximum of 24 Weeks Under the CARES Act, the covered period of the loan (i.e., the time period in which you may spend the loan funds) was February 15, 2020 to June 30, 2020, an eight-week period. The PPPFA extended the covered period to 24 weeks from the origination date of the loan, or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier. Reprinted courtesy of Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and Rana Ayazi, Payne & Fears Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Ms. Ayazi may be contacted at ra@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---