FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Chambers USA 2021 Recognizes Five Partners and Two Practices at Lewis Brisbois

June 07, 2021 — Lewis Brisbois
Five Lewis Brisbois partners and two Lewis Brisbois practices were recently ranked by Chambers in its 2021 USA rankings list. Kansas City and Wichita Managing Partner Alan L. Rupe and Phoenix Managing Partner Carl F. Mariano were both ranked Band 1 for “Labor & Employment – Kansas” and “Insurance – Arizona,” respectively, while Minneapolis Partner Tina A. Syring was ranked Band 4 for “Labor & Employment – Minnesota,” and Washington D.C. Managing Partner Jane C. Luxton and Partner Karen C. Bennett were ranked Band 5 for “Environment – District of Columbia.” Significantly, Chambers also ranked Lewis Brisbois’ Kansas Labor & Employment Practice Band 2 and the firm’s Washington D.C. Environmental Practice Band 4. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

January 10, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii

While building's first collapse was not covered, there were disputed facts regarding the second collapse, leading to a reversal of the order granting summary judgment to the insurer on both collapses. Intergroup Int'l Ltd. v. Cincinnati Ins. Cos, 2017 Ohio app. LEXIS 5099 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2017). Intergroup bought a building after it was inspected. While leaks on the roof were repaired and a roof truss that was sagging was replaced, the inspector found the roof to be in good shape.

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

---

PA Superior Court Provides Clarification on Definition of CGL “Occurrence” When Property Damage Is Caused by Faulty Building Conditions

September 30, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Konrad R. Krebs - White and Williams LLP
The standard for an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy has been addressed on several occasions by Pennsylvania courts when an insured has allegedly performed faulty workmanship on a construction project. Specifically, in Pennsylvania, a claim for damages arising from an insured’s performance of faulty workmanship pursuant to a construction contract, where the only damage is to property supplied by the insured or worked on by the insured, does not constitute an “occurrence” under the standard commercial general liability insurance policy definition. But what about the circumstance when the insured has failed to perform contractual duties where the claim is for property damage to property not supplied by the insured or unrelated to the service the insured contracted to provide? The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently addressed this question in Pennsylvania Manufacturers Indemnity Co. v. Pottstown Industrial Complex LP, No. 3489 EDA 2018, 2019 Pa. Super. 223, 2019 Pa. Super. LEXIS 729* (Pa. Super. 2019). Pottstown Industrial Complex arose out of an underlying dispute between a landlord and a commercial tenant who had leased space to store its product inventory. The tenant alleged that the landlord was responsible under the lease for keeping the roof “in serviceable condition in repair.” Notwithstanding this responsibility, the tenant alleged that the landlord failed to properly maintain and repair the roof, resulting in leaks and flooding during four separate rainstorms, destroying over $700,000 in inventory. The tenant specifically alleged that the floods were caused by poor caulking of the roof, gaps and separations in the roofing membrane, undersized drain openings, and accumulated debris and clogged drains. The insurer filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a determination that there was no coverage under a commercial general liability policy issued to the landlord. Following a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the trial court entered an order in favor of the insurer, holding that allegations of inadequate roof repairs were claims for faulty workmanship and were not covered under Kvaerner Metals Division of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., 908 A.2d 888 (Pa. 2006) and Millers Capital Insurance Co. v. Gambone Brothers Development Co., 941 A.2d 706 (Pa. Super. 2007). Reprinted courtesy of Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Konrad Krebs, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Krebs may be contacted at krebsk@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Weyerhaeuser Leaving Home Building Business

November 13, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Washington-based timber giant, Weyerhaeuser, has announced that has sold off its homebuilding business. The division went by the name of WRECO (Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company) and comprised five home builders, Maracay Homes, Pardee Homes, Quadrant Homes, Trendmaker Homes, and Winchester Homes. The division was bought by TRI Pointe Homes for about $2.7 billion of which $700 million was paid in cash. Weyerhaeuser intends to focus on their core business of timber products. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Neighbors Fight to Halt Construction after Asbestos found on Property

October 15, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
SI Live reported that residents spoke out at the Staten Island, New York community board meeting to try to halt “construction taking place at former Mount Manresa Jesuit Retreat House property in Fort Wadsworth.” Barbara Sanchez, secretary of the Committee to Save Mount Manresa, stated that halting the construction is urgent now that asbestos has been discovered on the property. "We want a full stop-work order ... Everything being done around those buildings is being blown into our homes,” Sanchez said in the meeting, according to SI Live. “So I want testing for ... everything touched by the asbestos -- and our homes, before the work continues at Mount Manresa!" Jeanna Massimi, a resident of Fort Wadsworth, stated that people in the community are already dealing with health problems due to the construction work: “A lot of people where I live [are having] X-rays and are being tested for asbestos exposure. They can't have their bedroom windows open anymore. The dust is like soot -- it's thick. It's everywhere in the home. People are coughing, wheezing and hoarse. You end up feeling lethargic.” Mike Gilsenan, assistant deputy commissioner at the Department of Environmental Protection, said it was “highly unlikely any dust or fibers migrated off that site. That is the best I can tell you.” But SI Live reported that he added “that the process is ‘not foolproof.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Contract Basics: No Damages for Delay

May 06, 2024 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
After WAY too long a hiatus, I am back with another in my series of “Construction Contract Basics” posts. In past posts, I’ve covered venue provisions, attorney fee provisions, and indemnity clauses. In this post, I’ll share a few thoughts (or “musings”) on the topic of so-called “no damages for delay” clauses. These clauses essentially state that a subcontractor’s only remedy for a delay caused by any factor beyond its control (including the fault of the general contractor), after proper notice to the owner or general contractor, is an extension of time to complete the work. These types of clauses generally make it impossible for a subcontractor (if found in a Subcontract) or Contractor (if found in a Prime Contract) that is delayed through no fault of its own to recover any damages relating to the expenses that are inevitably caused by such delays. Such expenses/damages could include additional supervisory time (including more high-dollar superintendent payments), acceleration costs, demobilization/mobilization costs, and other related expenses. These can add up to real money. Couple that with the inevitable liquidated damages or delay damages that will occur should a contractor or subcontractor cause any delay, and this becomes a very one-sided proposition. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Now Available: Seyfarth’s 50 State Lien Law Notice Requirements Guide (2023-2024 Edition)

December 23, 2023 — Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Seyfarth’s Construction team is pleased to announce the release of our 2023-2024 edition of the 50 State Lien Law Notice Requirements Guide. The Guide provides the general time requirements for filing lien notices in each state, plus Washington, DC. Reprinted courtesy of Seyfarth Shaw LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Statute of Limitations and Bad Faith Claims: Factors to Consider

May 16, 2022 — Anastasiya Collins - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
How much time do our clients have to bring a bad faith action against an insurer? Although we are not frequently asked this question, it is one that we constantly analyze before asserting a bad faith claim. To answer this question, we look to the statute of limitations, which is a law passed by a state legislative body that sets the maximum amount of time for a party to bring a claim based upon a particular cause of action. For policyholders, knowing which statute of limitations applies to their bad faith claim is critical because it indicates whether it is possible to initiate legal proceedings. In addition, it determines the amount in damages available in case of a successful resolution. Statute of Limitations in Breach of Contract vs. Tort Claims One key determinant of a statute of limitations for bad faith is whether the claim is brought as a tort or a breach of contract action. The consequence of framing bad faith as a tort is that a policyholder is not just limited to contract damages. The policyholder can also receive recourse for emotional distress, pain, suffering, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and other damages that the court may consider appropriate. Unfortunately, however, not every jurisdiction allows plaintiffs to bring bad faith actions as tort claims. While, for example, courts in California, Colorado, and Connecticut allow bad faith claims sounding in tort, courts in jurisdictions such as Tennessee do not. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anastasiya Collins, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Collins may be contacted at ACollins@sdvlaw.com

---