FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Former Sponsor of the Lenox Facing Suit in Supreme Court

January 13, 2014 — Melissa Zaya-CDJ STAFF
Lewis Futterman, former sponsor of the Lenox condominium in Harlem, New York, is being sued by the condo board for alleged “building code violations, construction defects, and fraud” according to New York Curbed. The residents claim that Futterman filed for bankruptcy in 2010 to avoid paying for repairs. The Lenox condo board filed suit in the New York Supreme Court last December 31st. The Lenox’s condo board claims that the building has “fundamental structural flaws, a defective roof and pervasive leakage,” reports Rowley Amato of New York Curbed. The board also claims the original offering plans were not the same as the units purchased by residents in 2006. Residents paid an estimated two hundred and sixty thousand to repair defects within the condominium, and they are pursuing a minimum of four million in damages. Katherine Clarke of The Real Deal stated that Futterman would only “say that the issue was between the residents and the construction company which built the project.” Read the full story at New York Curbed... Read the full story at The Real Deal... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Additional Insured Not Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs Paid by Other Insurers

October 21, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Con Edison ("Con Ed") was unsuccessful in arguing for defense costs that had already been paid by other insurers. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121573 (S.D. N.Y. Sept. 9, 2015). Team, Inc. was under contract with Con Ed to provide repairs to the steam system running below the streets of New York City. The contract required Team to indemnify Con Ed for all claims resulting from personal injury or property damage connected to Team's work. Team also obtained a CGL policy naming Con Ed as an additional insured. The policy was to provide primary coverage. Any insured was responsible for the first $250,000 of costs for investigation and/or defense. On July 1, 2007, a steam distribution main, on which Team had finished working, ruptured, creating a huge crater and sending steam and debris, including asbestos insulation, into the surrounding area. The rupture caused substantial damage to nearby buildings, vehicles and underground infrastructure. It also caused personal injury, including two individuals in a tow truck that fell into the crater and a woman who suffered a fatal heart attack while running from the explosion. 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

---

Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect

September 30, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

In yet another recent construction defect case, the Illinois Court of Appeal found for coverage. See Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. v. J.P. Larsen, Inc., 2011 Ill. App. Ct. LEXIS 872 (Ill. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2011).

Weather-Tite, Inc. hired Larson as a subcontractor to apply sealant to windows installed by Weather-Tite in a condominium building. The windows subsequently leaked and caused water damage. The homeowner’s association sued Weather-Tite for breach of express and implied warranties. Weather-Tite filed a third-party complaint against Larsen alleging that, if it was liable to the association for breach of warranty, Larsen was liable for contribution as a joint tortfeasor. Weather-Tite and Larsen both tendered defenses to Milwaukee Insurance. The tenders were denied and Milwaukee Insurance filed suit to determine rights under the policy.

Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed by all parties. The trial court granted Milwaukee Insurance’s summary judgment motion as to Weather-Tite, but granted Larsen’s cross-motion against Milwaukee Insurance.

On appeal, the appellate court considered whether the underlying pleadings alleged facts demonstrating "property damage" resulting from an "occurrence" within the terms of the policy.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

---

Saving Manhattan: Agencies, Consultants, Contractors Join Fight to Keep New York City Above Water

November 27, 2023 — Pam McFarland & Corinne Grinapol - Engineering News-Record
In densely populated cities surrounded on all sides by water—the borough of Manhattan in New York City as a prime example—the risks from sea level rise and climate change are not just hypotheticals; they are existential threats. Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record and Corinne Grinapol, Engineering News-Record Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Brief Discussion of Enforceability of Anti-Indemnity Statutes in California

September 10, 2014 — William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers Blog
California Civil Code Section 2782 has been amended numerous times over the last several years. Essentially, Anti-indemnity statutes may not be fully effective for contracts entered into before January 1, 2009. Some developers and general contractors attempted to comply with the new law, and changed the indemnity provisions of their contracts post January 1, 2006. The time bracket, or zone of danger if you will, is between 1/1/06 and 1/1/09—during those three years California Civil Code §2782 was amended several times. After 1/1/09 Type I indemnity is gone in a residential construction context. The 2005 amendment to Civil Code §2782 rendered residential construction contracts entered into after 1/1/06 containing a Type I indemnity provision in favor of builders unenforceable; The 2007 amendment added contractors not affiliated with the builder to the list of contracting parties who could not take advantage of a Type I indemnity provision; However, the 2008 amendment changed the effective date to 1/1/09, dropped any mention of 2006, and added GCs, other subs, their agents and servants, etc., to the list of possible contracting parties who could not take advantage of a Type I indemnity provision[.] Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Client Alert: California’s Unfair Competition Law (B&P §17200) Preempted by Federal Workplace Safety Law

September 24, 2014 — R. Bryan Martin, Yvette Davis, & Kristian Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Solus Industrial Innovations LLC v. Superior Court (No. G047661, filed 9/22/2014) (“Solus”) the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code §17200) is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“Fed/OSHA”) because the Unfair Competition law, as approved by the United States Secretary of Labor, does not include any provision for civil enforcement of workplace safety standards by a state prosecutor through a complaint for penalties. Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC (“Solus”) is a plastics manufacturer. In 2007, Solus installed a residential water heater at its commercial facility in Orange County. The water heater exploded in March 2009, killing two workers. California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) investigated and determined the explosion was caused by a failed safety valve and lack of any proper safety feature on the water heater. Cal/OSHA charged Solus with five violations of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. Because deaths were involved, Cal/OSHA forwarded the results of its investigation to the Orange County District Attorney. In March 2012, the Orange County District Attorney filed criminal charges against Solus’ plant manager and maintenance supervisor. The District Attorney also filed a civil action against Solus, including two causes of action for violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 – the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). The action sought civil penalties under the UCL in the amount of $2,500 per day, per employee, from November 29, 2007 through March 19, 2009. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin, Yvette Davis and Kristian Moriarty Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Colorado Requires Builders to Accommodate High-Efficiency Devices in New Homes

December 14, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
Starting in 2009, the Colorado Legislature began adding requirements that builders offer certain options to accommodate high-efficiency devices. These requirements started with solar prewire options in 2009, then water-smart home options in 2010. In 2020, the Legislature added requirements for electric vehicle charging and heating systems. These sections apply to unoccupied homes serving as sales inventory or a model home or manufactured homes, as defined by Colorado law. While the Legislature has only required builders to include options to accommodate these devices, it may be just a matter of time until builders must install the prescribed devices themselves. In 2009, the Legislature passed C.R.S. 38-35.7-106, which was amended this year by HB 20-1155. As it now reads, Colorado law requires every builder of single-family detached residences to offer to have the home’s electrical or plumbing system, or both, include:

1. A residential photovoltaic solar generation system or a residential thermal system, or both;
2. Upgrades of wiring or plumbing, or both, planned by the builder to accommodate future installation of such systems; and
3. A chase or conduit, or both, constructed to allow ease of future installation of the necessary wiring or plumbing for such systems.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

Design & Construction Case Expands Florida’s Slavin Doctrine

January 21, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Amanda Baggett of Rogers Towers, Florida’s “Fourth District Court of Appeal appears to have expanded the Slavin doctrine in the context of design professional liability” in the case McIntosh v. Progressive Design and Engineering, Inc. (Jan. 7, 2015). McIntosh, a personal injury case, involved whether the design and construction of an intersection with multiple traffic signals in close proximity created confusion for drivers. Baggett stated that McIntosh expanded the Slavin doctrine in two ways: “first, the ruling eliminates the requirement that the ultimate owner of a project accept the project before the Slavin doctrine may be invoked. Second, the decision applies the Slavin doctrine to completed and accepted design plans without regard to the completion of the project for which they were prepared.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---