FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Panel Declares Colorado Construction Defect Laws Reason for Lack of Multifamily Developments

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Dennis Huspeni writing for the Denver Business Journal provided reactions from panelists at a ULI Colorado event on January 9th at the Embassy Suites Denver – Downtown/Convention Center hotel regarding a report on “Emerging Trends in Real Estate.” According to Huspeni’s article, panelists discussed “the lack of for-sale multifamily development and attributed it to Colorado’s construction defect laws.” John Beeble, chairman and CEO of Saunders Construction, one of the panelists, said that Saunders does not build condos because of Denver’s construction defect laws: “We’ve been in business for 42 years and never been sued for construction defects,” Beeble said, according to the Denver Business Journal. “But the odds are close to 100 percent that we’d be in court defending ourselves if we did condos.” Jeff Hawks, principal at ARA Colorado, claimed, “Colorado has some of the worst construction defect laws in the country. It’s stupid to try and build a condo development until that changes,” as reported by the Denver Business Journal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

More Hensel Phelps Ripples in the Statute of Limitations Pond?

February 03, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As is always the case when I attend the Virginia State Bar’s annual construction law seminar, I come away from it with a few posts on recent cases and their implications. The first of these is not a construction case, but has implications relating to the state project related statute of limitations and indemnification issues for construction contracts brought out in stark relief in the now infamous Hensel Phelps case. In Radiance Capital Receivables Fourteen, LLC v. Foster the Court considered a waiver of the statute of limitations found in a loan contract. The operative facts are that the waiver was found in a Continuing Guaranty contract and that the default happened more than 5 years prior to the date that Radiance filed suit to enforce its rights. When the defendants filed a plea in bar stating that the statute of limitations had run and therefore the claim was barred, Radiance of course argued that the defendants had waived their right to bring such a defense. The defendants responded that the waiver was invalid in that it violated the terms of Va. Code 8.01-232 that states among other things:

an unwritten promise not to plead the statute shall be void, and a written promise not to plead such statute shall be valid when (i) it is made to avoid or defer litigation pending settlement of any case, (ii) it is not made contemporaneously with any other contract, and (iii) it is made for an additional term not longer than the applicable limitations period.

The Circuit Court and ultimately the Supreme Court agreed with the defendants. In doing so, the Virginia Supreme Court rejected arguments of estoppel and an argument that a “waiver” is not a “promise not to plead.” 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

---

KY Mining Accident Not a Covered Occurrence Under Commercial General Liability Policy

December 04, 2018 — Phillip A. Perez - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In Am. Mining Ins. Co. v. Peters Farms, LLC,1 the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that a mining error was not a covered accident under a commercial general liability insurance policy. The central issue was whether an insured mining company’s unauthorized removal of minerals from a neighboring property was an “occurrence” that unintentionally caused “property damage” as defined by the mining company’s commercial general liability policy (“CGL Policy”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Phillip A. Perez, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Perez may be contacted at pap@sdvlaw.com

---

Design Immunity of Public Entities: Sometimes Designs, Like Recipes, are Best Left Alone

October 21, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
April 23, 1985 will live in infamy. The Coca Cola Company, responding to diminishing sales as its “sweeter” rival Pepsi-Cola gained market share, announced that it was changing its “secret” recipe and introducing a new kind of Coke, referred to by the public simply as, “new Coke.” The reaction was unexpected. People around the world began hoarding “old Coke.” Protest groups, such as the Society for the Preservation of the Real Thing and Old Cola Drinkers of America, sprang up around the county. Angry letters addressed to “Chief Dodo” were sent to Coca-Cola’s chief executive officer. And even Fidel Castro, a longtime Coca-Cola drinker, joined the backlash calling “new Coke” a “sign of American capital decadence.” By July it was over. Coca-Cola announced that it would once again produce “old Coke,” and in a sign (I’m sure Fidel Castro would say) of American arrogance, announced that “old Coke” would be produced under the name “Coca-Cola Classic” alongside “new Coke” which would continue to be called “Coca-Cola” suggesting that “new Coke” would be the Coke of today as well as the future. By 1992, however, “new Coke” whose sales dwindled to 3% of market share was demoted to “Coke II” and by 2002 was discontinued entirely. The moral of the story: Change the recipe at your own risk. Castro v. City of Thousand Oaks In the next case, Castro v. City of Thousand Oaks, Case No. B258649, California Court of Appeals for the Second District (August 31, 2015), the corollary might well be change the recipe design at your own risk. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

A Closer Look at an HOA Board Member’s Duty to Homeowners

October 10, 2013 — Derek Lindenschmidt — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
Whenever a homeowner association (HOA) starts thinking in terms of a construction defect lawsuit against its developer and/or builder, its board members will inevitably be confronted with the purported risk and liability to their homeowners if they do not pursue the alleged defects and deficiencies brought to their attention. Not surprisingly, the board members are on occasion led to believe that pursuing such claims is synonymous with acting in the homeowners’ “best interests.” Further—and unfortunately—board members often feel as though they will breach their obligation to the homeowners if theydon’t agree to proceed with such claims. Nevertheless, how well do we really know what the board members’ duty actually consists of, when it applies, and what potential liability exists for a board member’s breach of same? The answers might surprise you. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lindenschmidt
Derek Lindenschmidt can be contacted at lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com

---

Patagonia Will Start Paying for Homeowners' Solar Panels

October 15, 2014 — Caroline Winter – Bloomberg Businessweek
Patagonia plans to use state and federal tax credits to invest $13 million in the construction of solar panels on 1,000 homes in Hawaii, turning the eco-conscious retailer into the financial backer of a green electrical utility. With the announcement on Wednesday, Patagonia hopes companies across America will follow suit with similar efforts. “Any U.S. public or private company who pays their fair share of taxes can use this strategy to speed up the development of new energy infrastructure,” Rose Marcario, Patagonia’s chief executive, said in an interview. “And they can make money doing it and create jobs.” Patagonia is joining forces with a tiny solar-financing company, Kina’ole Capital Partners, as well as a local Hawaiian bank to create a $27 million fund to pay for rooftop installation and upkeep. Starting in Hawaii makes sense because of its abundant sunshine and sky-high electrical rates; Hawaiians currently pay three times the U.S. average for electricity. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Caroline Winter, Bloomberg Businessweek
Ms. Winter may be contacted at cwinter10@bloomberg.net

---

Court Reminds Insurer that the Mere Possibility Of Coverage at the Time of Tender Triggers a Duty to Defend in a Defect Action

October 04, 2021 — Jatin Patel - Newmeyer Dillion
It has long been the law in California that an insurer’s duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and that the mere possibility of coverage triggers a duty to defend. Nevertheless, insurers still periodically ignore this clear principle and attempt to narrow the scope of the duty to defend. Recently, a Federal District Court issued a reminder to a wayward insurer. In Pacific Bay Masonry, Inc., v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, (N.D. Cal., Sept. 16, 2021, No. C 20-07376 WHA, 2021 WL 4221747 (“Pacific”)), the Court was asked to assess whether a tender of defense by a concrete masonry subcontractor to its insurer for a construction defect action required a defense. Pacific Bay Masonry, Inc. (“PBM”) installed concrete masonry units (also known as “CMUs”) at a new retail shopping center in Oakland, California. The subsequent owner of the retail center filed suit against the general contractor for alleged construction defects, including “efflorescence of roof deck at CMU wall” and “improper waterproofing and flashing of the CMU block wall." The general contractor filed a cross-complaint against PBM. PBM tendered the defense of the case to Navigators Specialty Insurance Company (“Navigators”) along with copies of a preliminary defect list, a description of defects, interrogatory responses and an expert witness damage analysis. Navigators denied coverage and a duty to defend citing to the work product exclusion of the policy. PBM asked Navigators to reconsider. Navigators held firm on its denial. Two years later, PBM filed suit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jatin Patel, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Patel may be contacted at jatin.patel@ndlf.com

---

South Carolina Court of Appeals Diverges from Damico Opinion, Sending Recent Construction Defects Cases to Arbitration

October 24, 2023 — Laura Paris Paton - Gordon Rees Construction Law Blog
Could the latest opinion from the South Carolina Court of Appeals be the distant ringing of a death knell for runaway construction defects verdicts? On the heels of the Damico ruling earlier this year, the courts have issued several opinions distinguishing various arbitration agreements from the one analyzed in Damico and have sent subsequent cases to arbitration. This summer, the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals compelled arbitration in Cleo Sanders v. Savannah Highway Automotive Company, et al. Appellate Case No. 2021-000137 / Opinion No. 28168 (petition for rehearing pending) and Joseph Abruzzo v. Bravo Media Productions, et al. Appellate Case No. 2020-001095 / Opinion 6004. Now, in the matter of Jonathan Mart, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Respondent, v. Great Southern Homes, Inc., Appellant, Appellate Case No. 2018-001598, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s order denying a homebuilder’s motion to dismiss and compelled arbitration in this action, which was brought by the homeowner, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated homeowners. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Laura Paris Paton, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Ms. Paton may be contacted at lpaton@grsm.com

---