FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Reject Collapse Coverage Denied

November 24, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment seeking to reject the insured's collapse claim. Gnannn v. United Servs. Auto, Ass'n, 2019 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1955 (Conn. Super Ct. July 11, 2019). The insureds' home was built in 1985 and they purchased their home in 1993. A home inspection reported that some settlement and curing related cracks existed in the slab floor, but no signs of abnormal settlement were noticed. The concrete walls were in overall good condition. In 2015, the insureds became aware of abnormal cracking in the basement. USAA was informed of the claim but denied coverage in October 2015. The insureds sued USAA. After suit was filed, the insureds hired an engineer, David Grandpre, to inspect their home. He observed severe cracking in the basement walls caused by an expansive chemical reaction within the concrete. The structure was not in imminent peril of falling down, and it continued as insureds' residence. But Mr. Grandpre noticed bulging and bowing, evidence that the concrete basement walls had failed and had begun to move inward due to the lateral pressure of the soil outside the home. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Construction Defect Coverage Barred Under Business Risk Exclusion in Colorado

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A federal court in Colorado recently applied the business risk exclusion to a construction defect case. Aaron Mandel and Stevi Raab of Sedgwick Law discuss this in Construction Defect Coverage Quarterly. The court found that the business risk exclusion barred coverage for an underlying construction defect. In the construction defect case, the Creek Side at Parker homeowners association sued the developer and builder. One such alleged defect was that “the plumbing contractor’s faulty installation of sewer and water lines damaged the lines themselves, caused surrounding asphalt and concrete to crack and deteriorate, and resulted in water intrusion.” The court concluded that this damage to non-defective work was an occurrence, but the exclusion in the contract covered only property damage that occurred “while the work is ongoing.” The court concluded that the business risk exclusion barred coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Mortar Insufficient to Insure Summary Judgment in Construction Defect Case

January 06, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The US District Court of Nevada issued a summary judgment in the case of R&O Construction Company V. Rox Pro International Group, Ltd. on December 19, 2011. The case involved the installation of stone veneer at a Home Depot location (Home Depot was not involved in the case). R&O’s subcontractor, New Creation Masonry, purchased the stone veneer from Arizona Stone. Judge Larry Hicks noted that “the stone veneer failed and R&O was forced to make substantial structural repairs to the Home Depot store.”

Rox Pro asked the court for a summary judgment, which the court granted only in part. The court looked at two issues in the case, whether the installation instructions constituted a breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and whether there was a breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

Judge Hicks found that there was a breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The instructions drafted by Real Stone and distributed by Arizona Stone were not sufficient for affixing the supplied stones, according to R&O’s expert, a claim the plaintiffs dispute. “Because there is an issue of material fact concerning the installation guidelines, the court shall deny Arizona Stone’s motion for a summary judgment on this issue.”

On the other hand, the judge did not find that the instructions had any bearing as to whether R&O bought the stone, since the stone was selected by the shopping center developer. This issue was, in the view of the judge, appropriately dismissed.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

FirstEnergy Fined $3.9M in Scandal Involving Nuke Plants

February 06, 2023 — Annemarie Mannion - Engineering News-Record
Having admitted to participating in the largest energy-involved bribery scandal in Ohio history, provider FirstEnergy Corp., based in Akron, has agreed to pay a $3.9-million fine for withholding lobbying and accounting information from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s enforcement office. Reprinted courtesy of Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-Record Ms. Mannion may be contacted at manniona@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Update Regarding McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct.

April 28, 2016 — Richard H. Glucksman and David A. Napper – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger In Focus
The construction industry continues to await the California Supreme Court's highly anticipated decision regarding McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist.). The Supreme Court will attempt to resolve the conflict presented by the Fourth Appellate District Court's holding in Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 and rejection of the same by the Fifth Appellate District Court in McMillin Albany. The issue is whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2013. CGDRB has been closely monitoring the progress of the case and understands that the real parties in interest have submitted their opening brief on the merits. The Court granted Petitioners a further and final extension to file the answer brief on the merits. The answer deadline is Monday April 25, 2016. Stay tuned. Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and David A. Napper, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Defect Settlement in Seattle

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that a settlement has been reached in the Mosler Lofts construction defect claim. The settlement received by the homeowners was for about $8.5 million, which will used for repairs of the construction defects and for paying their legal costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Express Warranty Trumping Spearin’s Implied Warranty

March 06, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Be mindful of that express warranty provision in your contract. It could result in an outcome that you did not consider or factor when submitting your proposal or agreeing to your contract amount. An express warranty could have the effect of eviscerating the argument that you performed your scope of work pursuant to the plans and specifications. In other words, the applicability of the Spearin doctrine could be rendered moot based on express warranty language in your contract that is fully within your control because you do not have to agree to that language. Under the Spearin doctrine:

[W]hen a ‘contractor is bound to build according to plans and specifications prepared by the owner, the contractor will not be responsible for the consequences of defects in the plans and specification.’ Spearin and its progeny set forth a default rule of fundamental fairness that when a general contractor requires a subcontractor to follow certain plans and specifications, the general contractor impliedly warrants that those plans and specifications are ‘free from design defects.’ Put simply, Spearin protects subcontractors from liability for simply following the general contractor’s direction and requirements. However, the implied warranty set forth in Spearin and its progeny may be overcome by express agreement. Where a general contractor and subcontractor expressly agree to allocate the risk of a defective product to the subcontractor, that express agreement must prevail over Spearin’s implied warranty. Lighting Retrofit International, LLC v. Consellation NewEnergy, Inc., 2022 WL 541156 (D. Md. 2022) (internal citations omitted).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Exclusion for Construction of Condominiums Includes Faulty Construction of Retaining Wall

August 04, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The exclusion for suits arising out of construction of condominiums encompassed the underlying claim for faulty construction of a retaining wall. HT Serv., LLC v. Western Heritage Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 16259 (10th Cir. June 1, 2021). HT Services was a land developer. HT Services designed and constructed a residential community. The AOAO sued HT Services for negligent design and construction of a retaining wall. When its carrier, Western Heritage Insurance Company, denied coverage, HT Services sued. The district court granted summary judgment to Western. The exclusion eliminated coverage for claims or suits "arising out of, relating to or in any way connected with 'your operations' . . . involving the development [or] construction . . . of . . . condominiums . . . or . . . residential structures." HT Services argued that a retaining wall was not a "residential structure." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---