Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Hilti Partners with Canvas, a Construction Robotics Company

April 03, 2023 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Hilti announced a strategic partnership with Canvas, a construction robotics company that has developed a robotic drywalling solution. The partnership allows Canvas to scale globally. Hilti launched its Jaibot, the world’s first semi-autonomous ceiling-drilling robot, in 2020. As part of the partnership, Hilti will assume the manufacturing responsibilities for future Canvas systems. They will be based on the Jaibot platform, giving Canvas a reliable and scalable global supply to meet the huge demand for its finishing robots. The partnering companies share a common vision: that robotic tools will unlock vastly untapped potential and drive a new era of productivity and safety for skilled trade workers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Sometimes You Get Away with Unwritten Contracts. . .

July 28, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have spoken often regarding the need for a well written construction contract that sets out the “terms of engagement” for your construction project. A written construction contract sets expectations and allows the parties to the contract to determine the “law” of their project. An unwritten “gentleman’s agreement” can lead to confusion, faulty memories, and more money paid to construction counsel than you would like as we lawyers play around in the grey areas. One other area where the written versus unwritten distinction makes a difference is in the calculation of the statute of limitations. In Virginia, a 5 year statute of limitations applies to written contracts while a 3 year statute of limitations applies to unwritten contracts. This distinction came into stark relief in the case of M&C Hauling & Constr. Inc. v. Wilbur Hale in the Fairfax, Virginia Circuit Court. In M&C Hauling, M&C provided hauling services to the defendant through a subcontract with Hauling Unlimited in 2014, the last of which was in July. M&C provided over 2000 hours of hauling and provided time tickets (that were passed to Mr. Hale on Hauling Unlimited letterhead and signed by Mr. Hale or his agent) and an invoice stating the price term of $75.00 per hour. No separate written contract between M&C and Hauling Unlimited or Mr. Hale existed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

To Sea or Not to Sea: Fifth Circuit Applies Maritime Law to Offshore Service Contract, Spares Indemnity Provision from Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act

March 29, 2017 — Richard W. Brown & Afua Akoto – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Faced with the issue of whether maritime or state law should be applied to determine the validity of an indemnity clause in a Master Services Contract (MSC), the Fifth Circuit affirmed that where there is no historical treatment of the contract in question (1), it would consider six factors established in Davis (2). In Doiron, the Apache Corporation and STS (3) entered a broad-form blanket MSC, under which STS agreed to perform flow-back services, a process designed to dislodge solid objects from inside a well, on Apache’s well located off shore of Louisiana. The MSC also contained an indemnification provision, which required STS to defend and indemnify Apache and its company groups against all claims of property injury or bodily injury. During the flow-back operation, Larry Doiron Inc. (LDI), one of the Apache Company groups, supplied a crane barge for use by STS employees. Subsequently, the crane knocked over an STS employee, causing him to suffer severe injuries. LDI then made a formal demand to STS for defense and indemnification. STS rejected the demand and argued that the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act applied to the MSC instead of maritime law. Pursuant to the Act, indemnity clauses in agreements pertaining to wells for oil, gas or water are void as against public policy. But, under maritime law, the enforcement of such provisions is not barred. Therefore, if the MSC was construed under the Act, STS had no duty to defend or indemnify LDI. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Afua S. Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read 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 Blog
In 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 decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

Just Because You Caused it, Doesn’t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine

March 06, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
We’ve written before about the Privette doctrine, which establishes a presumption that a hirer of an independent contractor delegates to the contractor all responsibility for workplace safety. In other words, if a general contractor hires a subcontractor, the subcontractor is solely responsible for the safety of its workers. There are two major exceptions to the Privette doctrine. The first, the Hooker exception, holds that a hirer may be liable when it retains control over any part of the independent contractor’s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the worker’s injury. The second, the Kinsman exception, holds that a hirer may be liable for injuries sustained by a worker of an independent contractor if the hirer knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard on the property that the contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered and the hirer failed to warn the contractor of the hazard. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolute Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage For Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

January 24, 2018 — White and Williams LLP
On December 28, 2017, the Ohio Court of Appeals (Eighth District) held in GrafTech International, Ltd., et al. v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., et al., No. 105258 that coverage for alleged injurious exposures to coal tar pitch was barred by a liability insurance policy’s absolute pollution exclusion. Applying Ohio law, the court concluded that Pacific Employers had no duty to defend GrafTech or pay defense costs in connection with claims by dozens of workers at Alcoa smelting plants that they were exposed to hazardous substances in GrafTech products supplied to Alcoa as early as 1942. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams

Third Circuit Follows Pennsylvania Law - Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship Does Not Arise from an Occurrence

May 10, 2013 — Tred Eyerly
The Third Circuit followed Pennsylvania law in determining that damage caused by faulty workmanship did not arise from an occurrence. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. R. M. Shoemaker Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6093 (3d Cir. March 27, 2013). The County sued R. M. Shoemaker, alleging faulty construction of an addition to a correctional institution. The County alleged Shoemaker negligently supervised its subcontractor, thereby permitting the subcontractor to engage in willful misconduct, resulting in damage to structural elements of the correctional institution. The County alleged that Shoemaker's negligence permitted water to intrude, damaging the electrical systems, acoustic ceilings and miscellaneous equipment. Zurich sought a declaratory judgment that it was not required to defend or indemnify Shoemaker. The district court granted Zurich summary judgment. Relying on Pennsylvania law, the district court found that the allegations in the underlying action did not arise from an occurrence. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Liability Insurer Precluded from Intervening in Insured’s Lawsuit

September 17, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There are cases where I honestly do no fully understand the insurer’s position because it cannot have its cake and eat it too. The recent opinion in Houston Specialty Insurance Company v. Vaughn, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1828a (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) is one of those cases because on one hand it tried hard to disclaim coverage and on the other hand tried to intervene in the underlying suit where it was not a named party. This case dealt with a personal injury dispute where a laborer for a pressure washing company fell off of a roof and became a paraplegic. The injured person sued the pressure washing company and its representatives. The company and representatives tendered the case to its general liability insurer and the insurer–although it provided a defense under a reservation of rights—filed a separate action for declaratory relief based on an exclusion in the general liability policy that excluded coverage for the pressure washing company’s employees (because the general liability policy is not a workers compensation policy). This is known as the employer’s liability exclusion that excludes coverage for bodily injury to an employee. The insurer’s declaratory relief action sought a declaration that there was no coverage because the injured laborer was an employee of the pressure washing company. The pressure washing company claimed he was an independent contractor, in which the policy did provide limited coverage pursuant to an endorsement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES