Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Alabama Court Determines No Coverage For Insured's Faulty Workmanship

June 28, 2013 — Tred Eyerly
The Alabama Supreme Court found there was no coverage for the insured cabinet maker for claims arising from alleged faulty workmanship. Shane Traylor Cabinetmaker, L.L.C. v. Am. Resources Ins. Co., Inc., 2013 Ala. LEXIS 42 (May 3, 2013). The insured was sued by a homeowner for property damage caused by faulty workmanship. The insurer refused to defend, contending there was no "occurrence." The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Anatomy of an Indemnity Provision

January 28, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Indemnity clauses are one of the most negotiated (and litigated) provisions in a construction contract. They are also one of the most least understood. But we’re here to dissect it for you, so to speak. What is an indemnity clause? An indemnity clause is simply a risk transfer provision that seeks to transfer risk from one party to another party. 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

Never, Ever, Ever Assume! (Or, How a Stuck Shoe is Like a Construction Project Assumption)

October 21, 2019 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
This summer, I had the fortune of taking a trip to Europe. The first place I visited was Amsterdam. A lovely town with a lot of culture and more canals than you can shake a stick at. I was meeting family there, but had hours to kill ahead of time. So, I decided to take the train from the airport into the City Centre, leave my bags at the train station luggage locker, and begin exploring. My plan took its first misstep when I attempted to board the train. Not being in a hurry, I let the other passengers get on first. Sure, I noticed the train conductor blowing his whistle while I stepped onto the train, but figured I was fine since I was already on the steps up. Until, that is, the door began to close, with me in the doorway, suitcase in the train, one foot inside, and one foot mid step up to the cabin. The door closed on my backpack (which was still on my back), but I managed to force it into the train compartment. My shoe, however, was not quite as lucky. Part of my shoe made it inside, and part was outside the door. No worry– just look for the door release mechanism, right? Wrong! There was none. The train started up, with my shoe still halfway in and halfway out of the train. (Luckily my foot itself made it inside all in one piece). The conductor came along to scold me, and told me that he could *probably* rescue my shoe once we got to Central Station. In the meantime, I sat on a nearby jump seat, keeping tabs on my shoe and fuming that this was *not* the way I planned to start my vacation. Long story short– the train conductor was able to salvage my shoe, but not without a lot of commentary on how I should never have boarded the train after the whistle blew. Lesson learned. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

Not All Work is Covered Under the Federal Miller Act

May 24, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The recent opinion out of the Eastern District Court of Virginia, Dickson v. Forney Enterprises, Inc., 2021 WL 1536574 (E.D.Virginia 2021), demonstrates that the federal Miller Act is not designed to protect ALL that perform work on a federal construction project. This is because NOT ALL work is covered under the Miller Act. In this case, a professional engineer was subcontracted by a prime contractor to serve on site in a project management / superintendent capacity. The prime contractor’s scope of work was completed by January 31, 2019. However, the prime contractor was still required to inventory certain materials on site, which was performed by the engineer. The engineer claimed it was owed in excess of $400,000 and filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit on February 5, 2020 (more than a year after the project was completed). 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

Three-Year Delay Not “Prompt Notice,” But Insurer Not “Appreciably Prejudiced” Either, New Jersey Court Holds

November 04, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
In Harleysville Preferred Insurance Company v. East Coast Painting & Maintenance, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135295 (D.N.J. Aug. 12, 2019) (East Coast Painting), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that an insurer, which received notice of a bodily injury accident three years after it happened, was not “appreciably prejudiced” by such late notice, even as the court acknowledged notice three years later did not satisfy the policy’s “prompt notice” condition. The court also held that the policy’s “Operational Exclusion,” which excluded coverage for bodily injury arising out of the operation of “cherry pickers and similar devices,” did not apply because the accident arose out of the use of a “scissor lift,” which is not a device similar to a cherry picker. East Coast Painting arose out of a Queens, New York bridge-painting project, during which an employee of the insured, East Coast Painting and Maintenance LLC was injured while “standing on a scissor lift mounted to the back of a truck,” owned and operated by East Coast. The employee sued various project-related entities which, in turn, joined East Coast as a defendant. East Coast sought coverage under its business auto policy, and the insurer agreed to defend the insured under a reservation of rights. The insurer subsequently sought a declaration that it did not owe coverage based on, among other things, the policy’s “Operational Exclusion,” and the insured’s failure to satisfy the policy’s “prompt notice” condition. The insurer moved for summary judgment on both of those bases, but the court in East Coast Painting denied the motion. As for the insurer’s “prompt notice” defense, the court in East Coast Painting concluded that, the insured’s notice to the insurer was not prompt because it did not receive notice until three years after the accident. But, the court added, the inquiry does not end there. “[T]his Court must determine whether [the insurer] was appreciably prejudiced by that delay.” Reviewing the facts, the court held that the insurer was not “appreciably prejudiced,” even though during the three-year delay the lift truck was “not properly maintained” or “in the same condition it was at the time of the Accident.” The court observed that the insurer had “ample other evidence with which it can defend itself,” such as experts who inspected the lift truck and opined about the cause of the accident.” [Emphasis added.] Further, “there are multiple contemporaneous accident reports,” “a list of the East Coast employees on site at the time,” “photographs of the lift truck and its location when [the employee] was injured,” and “depositions of [the employee] and others regarding the events at issue.” Thus, the court held, the insurer was not prejudiced and summary judgment was inappropriate. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

In One of the First Civil Jury Trials to Proceed Live in Los Angeles Superior Court During Covid, Aneta Freeman Successfully Prevailed on Behalf of our Client and Obtained a Directed Verdict and Non-Suit

July 05, 2021 — Aneta B. Freeman – Chapman Glucksman Dean & Roeb News Alert
In one of the first civil jury trials to proceed live in Los Angeles Superior Court during Covid, Aneta Freeman obtained a rare directed verdict and nonsuit in a complex, high exposure action, after seven days of trial. The dismissal was obtained after the parties rested after the liability phase of the bifurcated trial. Ms. Freeman represented a general contractor in an action in which Plaintiff alleged that the general contractor and the County of Los Angeles (which was dismissed earlier on statutory immunity grounds) created a dangerous condition when they allegedly allowed mosquitos to breed in 2015 during construction at a flood retention basin in Marina Del Rey. Plaintiff contracted West Nile Virus, and subsequently developed myasthenia gravis and a myriad of other conditions and ailments. Plaintiff relied heavily on a 2015 report from the Los Angeles West Vector Control District which suggested that the construction was the source of mosquitos which resulted in a “cluster” of West Nile Virus cases in the Marina Del Rey and surrounding areas. In pretrial motions, Ms. Freeman successfully excluded that report, opinion testimony from the vector control former executive director, narrowed the scope of plaintiff’s entomologist testimony, and excluded Brad Avrit from testifying for the Plaintiff on construction standard of care. The matter proceeded with a stipulated a 10 person jury, and all participants socially distanced and masked throughout the trial. Witnesses appeared live, with the exception of Plaintiff’s entomologist, portions of whose video deposition were played. Following seven days of trial after both parties rested, Judge Mark Young granted the general contractor’s nonsuit and also, in the alternative, a directed a verdict for our client. Plaintiff had demanded $10,000,000 of the County and the general contractor globally prior to trial, and $5,000,000 from the general contractor. The general contractor issued two CCP 998s, which were ignored by Plaintiff. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aneta B. Freeman, Chapman Glucksman Dean & Roeb
Ms. Freeman may be contacted at afreeman@cgdrlaw.com

Lakewood First City in Colorado to Pass Ordinance Limiting State Construction Defect Law

October 15, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Denver Post reported that the Lakewood City Council passed an ordinance “designed to soften the effects of Colorado's controversial construction-defects law.” Specifically, the ordinance “gives developers and builders a ‘right to repair’ defects before facing litigation and would require condominium association boards to get consent from a majority of homeowners — rather than just the majority of the board — before filing suit.” Not all residents are in favor of the ordinance. "It protects builders and big business at the expense of homeowners," Chad Otto, former president of the Grant Ranch homeowners association, told the crowd, as quoted by the Denver Post. "Does Lakewood want to be known as the mecca of poorly built condos?" Proponents of the measure, including Lakewood Mayor Bob Murphy, claim that “Colorado's defects law…has forced up insurance premiums on new condo projects to the point where they are no longer feasible to build.” Furthermore, according to the Denver Post, “Condos represented only 4.6 percent of total new home starts in metro Denver in the second quarter of 2014, versus more than 26 percent in 2008, according to Metrostudy.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

D.R. Horton Profit Beats Estimates as Home Sales Jumped

January 28, 2015 — John Gittelsohn and Prashant Gopal – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- D.R. Horton Inc., the largest U.S. homebuilder by revenue, reported fiscal first-quarter earnings that beat estimates as sales jumped. The shares rose the most since October. Net income was $142.5 million, or 39 cents a share, for the three months ended Dec. 31, compared with $123.2 million, or 36 cents, a year earlier, the Fort Worth, Texas-based company said Monday in a statement. The average of 14 analyst estimates was 35 cents a share, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Results for the quarter included $6 million in inventory and land option charges, according to the statement. Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg reporters Prashant Gopal and John Gittelsohn Mr. Gittlesohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net; Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES