Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Houston Home Sales Fall for the First Time in Six Months

March 19, 2015 — John Gittelsohn and Prashant Gopal - Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- Houston home sales fell in February for the first time in six months, a sign lower oil prices are spooking buyers. Sales of single-family houses dropped 5.8 percent from a year earlier to 4,521 homes, the Houston Association of Realtors reported Wednesday. Purchases fell among residences costing less than $150,000 because of tight supply, and among properties selling for more than $500,000 as wealthier buyers paused amid economic uncertainty, said James Gaines, research economist at Texas A&M University’s real estate center. “They don’t know what the real impact of falling oil prices is,” Gaines said in a telephone interview from College Station, Texas. “We’re living in the twilight of uncertainty.” Reprinted courtesy of John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg and Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Number of Occurrences Depends on Who is Sued

August 20, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to David L. Beck of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (as published by Association of Corporate Counsel), an Oregon court “held that property damage incurred to a condominium project resulting from a myriad of construction defects constituted just one occurrence under the relevant excess general liability policy.” In Chartis Specialty Ins. Co. v. American Contractors Ins. Co Risk Retention Group, et al., Chartis argued that “[b]ecause there were multiple defects/conditions resulting in property damage” there were also “multiple occurrences.” However, “[t]he court disagreed, finding that despite various defects, the property damages at issue arose from just one occurrence: the developers' failure to perform its duties.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

"Ordinance or Law" Provision Mandates Coverage for Roof Repair

May 16, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Tennessee Court of Appeals found that the insured was entitled to coverage under the policy's "ordinance or law" provision for repairs to prevent a future collapse of both the damaged and undamaged portions of the building. Jefferson Cnty. Schools v. Tenn. Risk Mgmt. Trust, 2018 Tenn. app. LEXIS 138 (Tenn. Ct. App. March 15, 2018). A major rainstorm caused a portion of Building 8, an aging vocation building at a high school, to collapse. Building 8 was covered through Tennessee Risk Management up to $100,000. Excess claims were covered by Travelers Indemnity Company. The policy included an "ordinance or law" provision providing for coverage of expenses "caused by the enforcement of any ordinance or law." Further, the insurer agreed to pay for the loss to any undamaged portions of a building caused by the enforcement of any ordinance or law that required the construction or repair of buildings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Security on Large Construction Projects. The Payment Remedy You Probably Never Heard of

May 07, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
California has a number of statutory payment remedies available on construction projects. Some, such as the mechanics lien, are relatively well known and often utilized. Others, such as the stop payment notice, are somewhat less so. However, there’s one statutory payment remedy you may not have heard of at all. And that is, security requirements for large projects. What is security for large projects? Security is required on certain large construction projects to guarantee the payment by owners to direct contractors, and applies if either: 1. Fee Interest and Contract of Greater Than $5 million: The owner contracting for a work of improvement holds a fee interest in the property being improved and enters into a construction contract for the improvement of the property greater than $5 million; or 2. Less Than Fee Interest, Including Leasehold Interest, and Contract of Greater Than $1 million: The owner contracting for a work of improvement holds less than a fee interest (including a leasehold interest) in the property being improved and enters into a construction contract for the improvement of the property greater than $1 million. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Additional Insured Not Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs Paid by Other Insurers

October 21, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Con Edison ("Con Ed") was unsuccessful in arguing for defense costs that had already been paid by other insurers. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121573 (S.D. N.Y. Sept. 9, 2015). Team, Inc. was under contract with Con Ed to provide repairs to the steam system running below the streets of New York City. The contract required Team to indemnify Con Ed for all claims resulting from personal injury or property damage connected to Team's work. Team also obtained a CGL policy naming Con Ed as an additional insured. The policy was to provide primary coverage. Any insured was responsible for the first $250,000 of costs for investigation and/or defense. On July 1, 2007, a steam distribution main, on which Team had finished working, ruptured, creating a huge crater and sending steam and debris, including asbestos insulation, into the surrounding area. The rupture caused substantial damage to nearby buildings, vehicles and underground infrastructure. It also caused personal injury, including two individuals in a tow truck that fell into the crater and a woman who suffered a fatal heart attack while running from the explosion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

California Supreme Court Rejects Insurers' Bid for Horizontal Exhaustion Rule in New Montrose Decision

April 20, 2020 — J. Kelby Van Patten - Payne & Fears
In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 1671560 (April 6, 2020), the California Supreme Court held that, when one primary policy exhausts in a continuing injury claim, the excess insurer sitting above that policy must drop down and provide coverage for the entire claim (up to its policy limits), even if primary policies in other years remain unexhausted. Montrose was sued for environmental contamination between 1947 and 1982. In many years, Montrose had primary insurance as well as multiple layers of excess coverage. Montrose’s excess insurers argued for a “horizontal exhaustion” rule, which would have required that all implicated primary policies exhaust before any excess insurers provide coverage. The California Supreme Court rejected the insurers’ arguments and found that Montrose was entitled to coverage from an excess insurer once the specific primary policy sitting below that insurer was exhausted. The Supreme Court also confirmed that, under California’s “all sums” rule, each excess insurer must provide coverage for the entire amount of the loss (up to its policy limits). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of J. Kelby Van Patten, Payne & Fears
Mr. Van Patten may be contacted at kvp@paynefears.com

NYC Hires Engineer LERA for Parking Garage Collapse Probe

January 29, 2024 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
The investigation into the collapse of a Lower Manhattan parking garage last April is still underway. A Jan. 2 notice published in The City Record identified LERA Consulting Structural Engineers RLLP as the engineering firm assisting with the probe. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Brief Discussion of Enforceability of Anti-Indemnity Statutes in California

September 10, 2014 — William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers Blog
California Civil Code Section 2782 has been amended numerous times over the last several years. Essentially, Anti-indemnity statutes may not be fully effective for contracts entered into before January 1, 2009. Some developers and general contractors attempted to comply with the new law, and changed the indemnity provisions of their contracts post January 1, 2006. The time bracket, or zone of danger if you will, is between 1/1/06 and 1/1/09—during those three years California Civil Code §2782 was amended several times. After 1/1/09 Type I indemnity is gone in a residential construction context. The 2005 amendment to Civil Code §2782 rendered residential construction contracts entered into after 1/1/06 containing a Type I indemnity provision in favor of builders unenforceable; The 2007 amendment added contractors not affiliated with the builder to the list of contracting parties who could not take advantage of a Type I indemnity provision; However, the 2008 amendment changed the effective date to 1/1/09, dropped any mention of 2006, and added GCs, other subs, their agents and servants, etc., to the list of possible contracting parties who could not take advantage of a Type I indemnity provision[.] Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES