FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Mediating is Eye Opening

September 17, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
As anyone that reads this construction law blog on any sort of regular basis knows, I am a big advocate for mediation in most cases (construction or otherwise). I took this truly to heard about four years ago when I decided to go through the training and mentorship to become a certified mediator here in Virginia. This training led to many opportunities to act as a mediator in the General District Courts here in Virginia and has recently given me the great privilege of helping parties that were not court referred resolve their disputes. I’ve discussed this first category of mediations at other times here at Musings, but it is the second category that has opened my eyes lately. The non-court referred mediations are those where the parties actively seek out the assistance of a mediator because they, like me, know that more often than not the control and ability to come to some form of negotiated solution (not to mention short circuiting the litigation process in a way that saves money) is a better way to go than to go through the expensive (though as a construction attorney I acknowledge sometimes necessary) process of litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Insurer’s Optional Appeals Process Does Not Toll Statute of Limitations Following Unequivocal Written Denial

September 22, 2016 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Vishva Dev, M.D., Inc. v. Blue Shield of Cal. (No. B270094, filed 8/31/16), a California appeals court confirmed that the unequivocal denial of a claim, in whole or in part, commences the running of the statute of limitations for suit on the claim, notwithstanding the insurer’s offer to reconsider on new or additional evidence. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

WSDOT Excludes Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs from Participation Goals

June 15, 2017 — Ellie Perka - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
A drastic change has been implemented by the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) to the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”) Program in Washington. Effective June 1, 2017, WSDOT has implemented a “waiver” to exclude women-owned DBEs[i] from qualifying toward Condition of Award (“COA”) Goals on federally-funded projects. This move is significant. It will likely result in long-lasting detrimental impacts on the DBE community, women-owned businesses, and the entire construction community in Washington. The construction industry should be in an uproar over this change. Instead, it has largely gone unnoticed (likely because its impacts have not yet been felt). It is a de facto exclusion of women-owned businesses from the DBE program, and the severity of this change cannot be overstated. Under the waiver, women-owned businesses no longer satisfy COA Goals on federally-funded projects (i.e., projects receiving funding from the Federal Highway Administration) advertised after June 1, 2017. Existing contracts are not impacted and may continue to utilize women-owned DBEs to satisfy COA Goals until the project is complete. The waiver is not retroactive. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ellie Perka, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Ms. Perka may be contacted at eperka@ac-lawyers.com

---

Car Crashes Through Restaurant Window. Result: Lesson in the History of Additional Insured Coverage

December 29, 2020 — Randy J. Maniloff - White and Williams LLP
Back in the day, additional insureds were oftentimes afforded coverage for liability “arising out of” the named insured’s work for the additional insured. When confronted with such language, courts often concluded that it dictated “but for” causation. In other words, but for the named insured doing the work for the additional insured, the additional insured would not be in the liability-facing situation that it is in. The result in some cases: additional insureds were entitled to coverage for their sole negligence. Decisions reaching such a conclusion were generally not well-received by insurers. This was especially so when you consider that the premium received by insurers, for the AI coverage, may not have been enough to buy a package of Twizzlers. Insurer frustration with such decisions -- which insurers did not believe expressed the intent of additional insured coverage -- led ISO to make revisions to additional insured forms in 2004 (later revisions followed). At the heart of these revisions was an attempt to require fault on the part of the named insured before coverage could be afforded to the additional insured. (This is a very brief and simple history of this complex issue.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Randy J. Maniloff, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Maniloff may be contacted at maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Denies Bad Faith Claim in HO Policy Dispute

September 24, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Patrick Nugent of Saul Ewing LLP’s article in JD Supra Business Advisor, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered a summary judgment for the insurer on a statutory bad faith claim in a coverage dispute under a homeowner’s policy. The coverage dispute was over “the collapse of a wall in the plaintiffs’ home.” The Plaintiffs alleged that “the collapse resulted from excessive rainfall during a storm in March 2011.” However, Metropolitan Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Company’s engineer concluded that the collapse “resulted from long-term and on-going water infiltration attributable to poor maintenance.” Water damage had occurred a year prior to the collapse, but had not been repaired. In response, “Plaintiffs filed a complaint in Pennsylvania state court alleging breach of contract and statutory bad faith.” The court “determined that Metropolitan’s denial of benefits ‘was not only reasonable, but correct under the Policy language,’” and “ruled that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that Metropolitan lacked a reasonable basis for denying their claim and entered summary judgment for Metropolitan on the plaintiffs’ bad faith claim.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion

May 20, 2019 — Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine & Alexander D. Russo - Hunton Andrews Kurth
The Southern District of Georgia recently ruled that Evanston Insurance Company is not entitled to summary judgment on whether its policies’ pollution exclusion bars coverage for the release of nitrogen into a warehouse. The case stems from an incident at Xytex Tissue Services, LLC’s warehouse, where Xytex stored biological material at low temperatures. Xytex used an on-site “liquid nitrogen delivery system” to keep the material properly cooled. This system releases liquid nitrogen, which would vaporize into nitrogen gas and cool the biological material. On February 5, 2017, a Xytex employee, Deputy Greg Meagher, entered the warehouse to investigate activated motion detectors and burglar alarms. Deputy Meagher was overcome by nitrogen gas and died as a result. Following Deputy Meagher’s death, his heirs filed suit against Xytex and other defendants. Evanston denied coverage based on the pollution exclusion in its policy. Evanston then brought a declaratory judgment action to confirm its coverage position. In denying Evanston’s summary judgment motion, the Southern District of Georgia reasoned that the type of injury sustained is essential in analyzing whether the pollution exclusion applies. Specifically, Xytex argued, and the court agreed, that the underlying lawsuit alleged that the bodily injury was caused by a lack of oxygen, not exposure to nitrogen. The court also distinguished prior decisions, explaining that injury caused by a lack of oxygen is not a contamination or irritation of the body in the same way as injury resulting from exposure to carbon monoxide or lead. The court also found that Xytex “reasonably expected that liability related to a nitrogen leak would be insured.” Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine and Alexander D. Russo Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Russo may be contacted at arusso@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Attorneys' Fee Clauses are Engraved Invitations to Sue

April 19, 2021 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
As we start another trip around the sun, hopefully you are in the process of updating your form contracts, including purchase and sale agreements and express written warranties. Because the law and litigation landscape continually changes, it is a good practice to periodically update the forms you use in order to give yourself a fighting chance if and when the plaintiffs' attorneys come knocking on your door. As you engage in this process, I hope that you will take a critical look at whether your contracts include a prevailing party attorneys' fees clause and, if so, whether you should leave it in there. In Colorado, parties are entitled to recover attorneys' fees only if provided for by statute or by contract. Historically, plaintiffs' attorneys relied on two statutes, the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and Colorado's Statutory Interest statute, to recover attorneys’ fees in construction defect cases. In 2003, the Colorado legislature capped treble damages and attorneys' fees under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act at $250,000, effectively restricting plaintiffs' attorneys from relying on the CCPA to recoup their attorneys' fees, especially in large cases. In 2008, the Colorado Supreme Court issued its decision in Goodyear v. Holmes, stating that plaintiffs can only claim prejudgment interest under Colorado's Statutory Interest statute, in cases where they have already spent money on repairs, not when they are suing for an estimate of what repairs will cost in the future. Without either the CCPA or the prejudgment interest statute to recover attorneys' fees, plaintiffs' attorneys most often now rely on the prevailing party attorney fee clause in contracts between the owner and builder, or in the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions in situations where a claim is prosecuted by an HOA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

Businesspeople to Nevada: Revoke the Construction Defect Laws

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Nevada chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses has said that Nevada’s construction defect and minimum wage laws are hampering job growth. The organization conducted a survey, and although only about two percent of the members responded, they passed the opinions of the group on to Governor Brian Sandoval. Sandoval has said, according to the report by Fox News Reno, that he wants the state to be more business friendly. He supports reforms to Nevada’s construction defect laws, saying that he’d “like to see some reform” on the issue of mandatory attorney’s fees.



Randi Thompson, the spokesperson for the Nevada chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, said that members of her organization would like to see current Nevada construction defect law revoked. She described current law as “driven towards lawyers and not toward protecting consumers.”

Read the full story…

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

---