Connecticut Crumbling Concrete Cases Not Covered Under "Collapse" Provision in Homeowner's Policy
July 01, 2019 —
Kerianne E. Kane - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.What do you do when your house falls out from underneath you? Over the last few years, homeowners in northeastern Connecticut have been suing their insurers for denying coverage for claims based on deteriorating foundations in their homes. The lawsuits, which have come to be known as the “crumbling concrete cases,” stem from the use of faulty concrete to pour foundations of approximately 35,000 homes built during the 1980s and 1990s. In order to save their homes, thousands of homeowners have been left with no other choice but to lift their homes off the crumbling foundations, tear out the defective concrete and replace it. The process typically costs between $150,000 to $350,000 per home, and homeowner’s insurers are refusing to cover the costs. As a result, dozens of lawsuits have been filed by Connecticut homeowners in both state and federal court.
Of those cases, three related lawsuits against Allstate Insurance Company were the first to make it to the federal appellate level.1 The Second Circuit Court of Appeals was tasked with deciding one common issue: whether the “collapse” provision in the Allstate homeowner’s policy affords coverage for gradually deteriorating basement walls that remain standing.
The Allstate policies at issue were “all-risk” policies, meaning they covered “sudden and accidental direct physical losses” to residential properties. While “collapse” losses were generally excluded, the policies did provide coverage for a limited class of “sudden and accidental” collapses, including those caused by “hidden decay,” and/or “defective methods or materials used in construction, repair or renovations.” Covered collapses did not include instances of “settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Kane may be contacted at
kek@sdvlaw.com
Helsinki is Building a Digital Twin of the City
May 20, 2019 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessThe capital of Finland first tested city modeling as long back as 1987. But the most recent model of the Kalasatama district demonstrates the new state-of-the-art possibilities of this technology: creation of a highly accurate digital twin of the city.
My hosts, Helsinki’s city modeling specialists Jarmo Suomisto and Enni Airaksinen, showed me their latest projects. One of them offered a glimpse of history through a lens of the future.
With 3D glasses on, I was able to experience the unrealized city plan made by Eliel Saarinen, the father of the world-renowned architect Eero Saarinen. The virtual model in question was a digitized version of a huge physical model from 1915. Being able to stroll the streets and fly over the roofs of the imagined city really made me understand how awesome the original design was. I had seen a scale model of this same plan while it was laid in the foyer of the Museum of Finnish Architecture many years ago, but this experience was quite different.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Court Rules on a Long List of Motions in Illinois National Insurance Co v Nordic PCL
May 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe case Illinois National Insurance Co. v Nordic PCL, et al. “involves a dispute about whether insurance benefits are available to a general contractor who built structures that allegedly have construction defects. Plaintiffs Illinois National Insurance Company (‘Illinois National’) and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (‘National Union’) (collectively, the ‘Insurers’), commenced this action for declaratory relief against Defendant Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., f/k/a Nordic Construction, Ltd. ("Nordic"), on August 23, 2011.”
The court was asked to rule on a long list of motions: “Counterclaim Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Their (1) Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim and (2) Motion to Strike Portions of the Counterclaim, ECF No. 16 (‘Request for Judicial Notice’); Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim Filed October 24, 2011, ECF No. 14 (‘Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim’); Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of the Counterclaim Filed October 24, 2011, ECF No. 15 (‘Motion to Strike’); Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings in Favor of Pending State Action, ECF No. 33 (‘Marsh’s Motion To Dismiss Or Stay’); Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., f/k/a Nordic Construction Ltd.’s Substantive Joinder to Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings in Favor of Pending State Action, ECF No. 36 (‘Nordic’s Joinder’); and Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Counts V and VI of Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Nordic PCL Construction, Inc.’s Third-Party Complaint, ECF No. 29 (‘Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings’).”
In result, the court reached the following decisions: “The court GRANTS IN RELEVANT PART the Insurers’ Request for Judicial Notice to the extent it covers matters relevant to these motions; GRANTS IN PART the Insurers’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, but gives Nordic leave to amend the Counterclaim in certain respects; DENIES the Insurers’ Motion to Strike; DENIES Marsh’s Motion To Dismiss Or Stay and Nordic’s Joinder; and GRANTS Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.”
The court provides a bit of background on the case: “This action arises out of alleged construction defects involving two projects on which Nordic acted as the general contractor. Nordic is a defendant in a pending state court action with respect to one of the projects and says it spent more than $400,000 on repairs with respect to the other project. Nordic tendered the defense of the pending state court action to the Insurers and sought reimbursement of the cost of repairs already performed. The Insurers responded by filing this action to determine their rights under the insurance policies issued to Nordic.”
Furthermore, the court presented a brief procedural history: “The Insurers commenced this declaratory action in this court on August 23, 2011. The Complaint asserts two claims, one seeking a declaration that the Insurers have no duty to provide a defense or indemnification regarding the Safeway Action, the other seeking such a declaration regarding the Moanalua Claims. Along with its Answer, Nordic filed a Counterclaim against the Insurers. The Counterclaim asserts breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, misrepresentations and omissions of material fact, and bad faith, and seeks declaratory relief against the Insurers.”
The procedural history continues: “Nordic also filed a Third-Party Complaint against Marsh, the broker that had procured the Policies from the Insurers for Nordic. Nordic alleges that it reasonably believed that the Policies would provide completed operations insurance coverage for the types of construction defects alleged in the Safeway Action and Moanalua Claims. The Third-Party Complaint asserts breach of contract, negligence, promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duties, implied indemnity, and contribution and equitable subrogation.”
In conclusion, “The court GRANTS IN RELEVANT PART the Insurers’ Request for Judicial Notice. With regard to the Insurers’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, the court GRANTS the motion as to Count I (breach of contract), Count II (duty of good faith and fair dealing), Count III (fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation), the portion of Count IV (bad faith) premised on fraud, and Count IV (declaratory relief). The court DENIES the motion as to Count IV (bad faith) that is not premised on fraud. Except with respect to the "occurrence" issue, which the court disposes of here on the merits, and Count V, which concerns only a form of relief, Nordic is given leave to amend its Counterclaim within three weeks of the date of this order. The court DENIES the Insurers’ Motion to Strike, DENIES Marsh’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Nordic’s Joinder, and GRANTS Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with respect to Counts V and VI of the Third-Party Complaint.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nine Haight Attorneys Selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2021
September 14, 2020 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPNine Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys were selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2021. Congratulations to
Courtney Arbucci,
Frances Brower,
James de los Reyes,
Kyle DiNicola,
Arezoo Jamshidi,
Kristian Moriarty,
Beth Obra-White,
Casey Otis and
Kaitlin Preston!
Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. Almost 94,000 industry leading lawyers are eligible to vote (from around the world), and Best Lawyers has received over 11 million evaluations on the legal abilities of other lawyers based on their specific practice areas around the world. Lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed; therefore inclusion in Best Lawyers is considered a singular honor. Corporate Counsel magazine has called Best Lawyers “the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
McGraw Hill to Sell off Construction-Data Unit
March 19, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFMcGraw Hill Financial announced “plans to sell a construction-data unit concentrated on the U.S. market” according to The Wall Street Journal. This follows McGraw Hill’s determination to “focus on global operations and cutting costs.”
“The construction division ‘is not a business linked to the global markets,’” Douglas L. Peterson, McGraw Hill’s Chief Executive said to The Wall Street Journal. “’It's very different’ than its other units, such as Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, J.D. Power or S&P Capital IQ, with the potential for larger international footprints.”
McGraw Hill’s construction division “sells commercial-real-estate information to developers and manufacturers” and “generates about $170 million in annual revenue.” The division “employs about 650 people.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas Federal Court Upholds Professional Services Exclusion to Preclude Duty to Defend
March 16, 2020 —
Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn Project Surveillance, Inc. v. The Travelers Indemnity Company, No. 4:19-CV-03324, 2020 WL 292247 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2020), a Texas federal court held that a professional services exclusion in a commercial general liability policy precluded Travelers’ duty to defend its insured.
The underlying lawsuit was a wrongful death action brought by the family of a worker killed on a construction site. Project Surveillance was present at the construction site “to provide safety supervision or other services.” The underlying lawsuit alleged that Project Surveillance negligently failed to inspect or adequately inspect the project and failed to warn or adequately warn the decedent of a dangerous condition. The underlying lawsuit also alleged that Project Surveillance was negligent in failing to stop work.
At the time of the incident, Project Surveillance had commercial general liability insurance through Travelers and professional liability insurance through RLI. RLI agreed to defend Project Surveillance in the underlying lawsuit. Travelers, however, denied owing a duty to defend or indemnify based on an exclusion for “bodily injury” arising out of the rendering or failure to render any “professional service.” The Traveler policy defined the term “professional services” to mean any service requiring specialized skill or training, including “failure to prepare [. . .] any warning,” “supervision,” “inspection,” “control,” “surveying activity or service,” “job site safety,” “construction administration,” and “monitoring [. . .] necessary to perform and of [those] services.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub LiebermanMr. Macklin may be contacted at
jmacklin@tlsslaw.com
Barratt Said to Suspend Staff as Contract Probe Continues
January 26, 2017 —
Jack Sidders - BloombergBarratt Developments Plc suspended at least three more employees within its London business as part of an ongoing probe into potential misconduct in the awarding of contracts, according to two people familiar with the decision.
The people asked not to be named because a police investigation is ongoing. The suspensions follow that of London regional managing director Alastair Baird, who was arrested in October. He was released on bail until April, along with a 47-year-old woman, according to a Metropolitan Police spokesman, who was unable to immediately respond to a request for comment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jack Sidders, BloombergMr. Sidders may be followed on Twitter @JackSidders
White House’s New Draft Guidance Limiting NEPA Review of Greenhouse Gas Impacts Is Not So New or Limiting
September 09, 2019 —
Norman F. Carlin & Eric Moorman - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogOn June 21, 2019, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued draft guidance clarifying the treatment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in environmental impact reviews of federal projects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Those wishing to comment on the draft must submit comments within 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
The draft guidance is part of the Trump Administration’s continuing efforts to streamline the permitting and environmental review process for infrastructure and energy projects. It replaces NEPA guidance on climate impacts issued in 2016 by the Obama administration, which was rescinded by President Trump’s Executive Order 13783 early in 2017. Although some initial reports suggest that the new draft guidance significantly pulls back from the Obama administration’s approach, on closer comparison it does not depart that much from the major recommendations of the rescinded guidance.
In general, NEPA requires federal agencies proposing to undertake, approve or fund a major federal action to evaluate its environmental impacts, including both direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect effects; to consider alternatives and mitigation; and to discuss cumulative impacts resulting from the incremental effects of the project when added to those of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The new draft and the rescinded 2016 guidance contain similar recommendations regarding an agency’s obligations to consider indirect and cumulative GHG impacts, as well as on the use of cost-benefit analysis and the contentious Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) metric.
Reprinted courtesy of
Norman F. Carlin, Pillsbury and
Eric Moorman, Pillsbury
Mr. Carlin may be contacted at norman.carlin@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Moorman may be contacted at eric.moorman@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
