FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Illinois Court Addresses Coverage Owed For Subcontractor’s Defective Work

May 06, 2019 — Brian Bassett - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In Acuity Ins. Co. v. 950 W. Huron Condo. Assoc’n, 2019 IL App (1st) 180743, the Illinois Court of Appeals held that a claim against a subcontractor for damage caused to property outside the scope of its work satisfied the insuring agreement of a CGL policy. The condominium association for the building located at 950 West Huron Street in Chicago, Illinois (“the Association”), sued its general contractor and construction manager Belgravia Group, Ltd., and Belgravia Construction Corporation (collectively “Belgravia”). The Association sought to recover for alleged defects from Belgravia’s unworkmanlike construction of the building that permitted water to permeate and cause damage. In the Association’s complaint, it alleged that in June 2002, after the Association took possession of the building but prior to the completion of construction, Belgravia became aware of numerous conditions and defects, including extensive water infiltration of the building. After discussing the issues with Belgravia, the Association claimed that Belgravia retained contractors to provide cosmetic fixes. However, this did not address the problems and defects. The Association alleged that it spent a substantial amount of money to identify and correct the damage and that it would incur additional costs for future repairs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Bassett, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Bassett may be contacted at bbassett@tlsslaw.com

---

Detect and Prevent Construction Fraud

August 28, 2018 — Tiffany Couch - Construction Executive
With construction ramping up in many markets, construction firms plan to hire more workers, indicating the industry's continued optimism about a healthy economy. It's news that is both exciting and perhaps a little daunting: hiring competent, qualified tradespeople is challenging under any conditions. No one wants to hire a poor employee—or worse, someone who turns out to be a thief. While no industry is immune to occupational fraud, the construction industry is one of the harder hit. The average construction fraud scheme costs business owners $227,000 before it is detected. Worse, the fraudster is very often someone the employer implicitly trusts, making it even harder to believe the company has been the victim of insider theft. Fraud can hurt a business's reputation, cost thousands and betray trust. It may seem uncontrollable and unforeseeable unless employers know how to detect and deter fraudulent behavior. Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Couch, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Ms. Couch may be contacted at tcouch@acuityforensics.com

---

A Loud Boom, But No Serious Injuries in World Trade Center Accident

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Wall Street Journal reports that nearly twenty tons of steel fell forty stories at the World Trade Center site on February 16. One person was checked by medical personnel. One person who works in the Financial District said it was “almost like thunder.” Frank Pensabene, one of the ironworkers on the site said that after “loud boom,” “all hell broke loose.” The steel beams and cables fell onto a flatbed truck, which was not occupied at the time.

Read the full story…

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

---

New York Court Rules on Architect's Duty Under Contract and Tort Principles

November 05, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP's blog, in a recent case, "which involved a five story expansion/conversion of an existing one story commercial building located in Brooklyn, New York," the architect was retained with obligations among five construction phases. Later, the condominium board alleged that construction defects existed and filed suit against contractors, engineers, and the architect. The Court granted the Architect's motion to dismiss the complaint, holding "that the allegations of negligence under the circumstances were based on construction defects and 'as such, sound in breach of contract rather than tort.' This was so, even though plaintiff alleged 'breach of a duty of care,' a traditional tort liability concept. The Court dismissed the breach of contract claim as well, holding that a 'successor in interest' argument should not be permitted to erode the firmly established privity requirement for an architect’s contract-based liability." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

"My Bad, I Thought It Was in Good Faith" is Not Good Enough - Contractor Ordered to Pay Prompt Payment Penalties

February 23, 2016 — David A. Harris & Jesse M. Sullivan – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Retention clauses are almost always included in California construction contracts and permit an Owner to withhold a portion of what is owed to the General Contractor as security to ensure the proper completion of the work. General Contractors pass the withholding of retention down to the subcontractors. Thus, if the subcontractor fails to complete its work, or fails to correct deficiencies, the Owner/General Contractor can use the retention to pay the costs of completing or correcting the subcontractor’s work. The contractor must release any retention it receives from the owner within ten days unless a “good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and the subcontractor.” (Civil Code section 8814.) Where there is a good faith dispute, the contractor “may withhold from the retention to the subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount.” (Civil Code section 8814(c).) If the contractor wrongfully withholds retention, it must not only pay the retention but must also pay the subcontractor “a penalty of 2 percent per month on the amount wrongfully withheld.” The contractor must also pay the subcontractor’s costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in collecting the retention. (Civil Code section 8818.) Reprinted courtesy of David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Big Bertha Lawsuits—Hitachi Zosen Weighs In

January 31, 2018 — John P. Ahlers – Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In a recent article published by Seattle Business Magazine, the Japanese manufacturer of the much-maligned tunnel machine (nicknamed “Bertha”) provided its version of events and its position to the public. The interview took place after executives from Hitachi Zosen were not invited to the ceremony celebrating Bertha’s breakthrough at the end of its two-mile journey underground Seattle. Ultimately, apparently, Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), the general contractor for the project, and Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) agreed that Hitachi Zosen executives could attend the event, but they were not allowed to stand with other dignitaries on a specially-built viewing platform. The $3.2 billion Alaska Way Viaduct replacement project is embroiled in a number of legal controversies. Now that the tunnel is finished, Hitachi Zosen has finally decided to tell its side of the story. Hitachi’s problems started on December 5, 2013, three days after the tunnel-boring machine (“TBM”) hit a 120-foot long, eight-inch diameter steel well casing (the project DRB has determined that the pipe was a differing site condition), the TBM overheated and ground to a halt. The project was shut down almost two years while the TBM was being repaired. According to Hitachi Zosen, it always worked hard to get the job done. “We wanted to finish the tunnel and make Seattle happy with the results,” said Hidetoshi Hirata, the general manager for Hitachi Zosen. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

---

Despite Misapplying California Law, Federal Court Acknowledges Virus May Cause Physical Alteration to Property

October 26, 2020 — Scott P. DeVries, Michael S. Levine & Michael L. Huggins - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
On August 28, Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California, entered the latest ruling in the ongoing saga of the COVID-19 business interruption coverage dispute between celebrity plaintiff’s attorney Mark Geragos and Insurer Travelers. The case, 10E, LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecticut, was filed in state court. Travelers removed to federal court, where Geragos sought remand and Travelers moved to dismiss. Judge Wilson denied remand and granted the Motion to Dismiss, finding plaintiff did not satisfactorily allege the actual presence of COVID-19 on insured property or physical damage to its property. This holding is inconsistent with long standing principles of California insurance law and appears to improperly enhance the minimal pleading threshold under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need only allege a claim “that is plausible on its face.”). After rejecting Geragos’ attempt to have the case remanded based on a finding that Geragos had fraudulently joined a defendant to avoid removal, the Judge proceeded to the Motion to Dismiss which raised three issues: (1) the effect of the Virus Exclusion in the Travelers’ Policy, (2) whether plaintiff failed to allege that the governmental orders prohibited access to its property, and (3) whether plaintiff could “‘plausibly allege that it suffered ‘direct physical loss or damage to property’ as required for civil authority coverage.’” Rather than address the effect of the exclusion, which would be the narrowest issue (this exclusion is not present in all policies), the Court proceeded directly to the third issue, which has the broadest potential application. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Trends: “Nearshoring” Opportunities for the Construction Industry

July 22, 2024 — Jerry P. Brodsky & Roberto Hernandez - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
“Nearshoring” is a hot topic throughout Latin America and is receiving increasing attention in the United States. We offer this introduction to “Nearshoring” and the opportunities it presents for your reference. “Nearshoring” has become increasingly relevant in the context of the globalized economy. This phenomenon describes relocating production and service operations to countries geographically close to consumer markets, instead of opting for more distant locations as in traditional “offshoring”, considering, as dominant criteria, production conditions and costs. Mexico, for example, given its strategic geographic closeness to the United States and its highly skilled labor force, is an attractive location for companies in a wide range of industries which are considering relocation or construction of new facilities and seeking to optimize costs, maintain efficiency and mitigate supply chain risks. Reprinted courtesy of Jerry P. Brodsky, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Roberto Hernandez, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Brodsky may be contacted at jbrodsky@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---