FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Are Untimely Repairs an “Occurrence” Triggering CGL Coverage?

November 16, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
All Class A commercial contractors in Virginia are required to have a minimum level of Commercial General Liability (CGL) coverage. As a general rule, this insurance is there for damage to property or persons arising from an “occurrence” that is covered by the policy. Many cases that are litigated relating to coverage for certain events under a CGL policy turn on the definition of “occurrence” and whether the event leading to a request for coverage constitutes an “occurrence.” A recent case in Fairfax County, Virginia, Erie Insurance Exchange v. Spalding Enterprises, et al., is just such a case. In the Spalding Enterprises case, the Court considered the following scenario. A homeowner, Mr. Yen contracted with Spalding Enterprises to fix some fire damage at his home. Spalding promised the repairs would be complete in October of 2019. However, after Mr. Yen paid a $300,000.00 deposit, Spalding Enterprises stated that the work would not be completed until November of 2019. Yen then fired Spalding Enterprises and sued for breach of contract, constructive fraud, and violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. Spalding Enterprises sought coverage from Erie Insurance for the claim and Erie denied coverage and sought a declaratory judgment that the events alleged in the Complaint by Mr. Yen did not fall under the definition of “occurrence” in the CGL policy held by Spalding Enterprises. 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

---

Seeking the Urban Lifestyle in the Suburbs

March 05, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
As the ‘burbs become more urbanized, the definition of city is changing. Builder Magazine reported that while builders have responded to buyers who wanted an urban lifestyle, “what nearly all of them have learned in the process is that ‘city’ doesn’t mean what it used to. Neither does ‘suburb.’ In fact, nearly every builder that added a post-recession ‘urban’ division has found that home buyers in search of an urban lifestyle aren’t married to living downtown. For many, it seems it’s not ‘the city’ they want at all—it’s the lifestyle.” Leigh Gallagher, assistant managing editor of Fortune and author of The End of the Suburbs: Where the American Dream is Moving, told Builder, “People don’t necessarily want to live in Manhattan. They want a little bit of Manhattan sprinkled right near them.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound to Arbitration Award

December 29, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Here is an interesting case binding a Miller Act payment bond surety to an arbitration award against its prime contractor (bond principal) that it received sufficient notice of. Notice is the operative word. The surety could have participated in the arbitration, elected not to, and when its prime contractor (bond principal) lost the arbitration, it was NOT given another bite out of the apple to litigate facts already been decided. In BRC Uluslararasi Taahut VE Ticaret A.S. v. Lexon Ins. Co., 2020 WL 6801933 (D. Maryland 2020), a prime contractor was hired by the federal government to make security upgrades and interior renovations to a United States embassy in the Czech Republic. The prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform all of the installed contract work. The prime contractor terminated the subcontractor for default during the course of construction. The subcontractor demanded arbitration in accordance with the subcontract claiming it was wrongfully terminated. The subcontractor also filed a lawsuit asserting a Miller Act payment bond claim against the prime contractor’s surety (as well as a breach of contract action against the prime contractor). The subcontractor made clear it intended to pursue its claims in arbitration and hold the payment bond surety jointly and severally liable. The parties agreed to stay the lawsuit since the facts were identical to those being arbitrated. The arbitration went forward and an award was entered in favor of the subcontractor and against the prime contractor for approximately $2.3 Million. 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

---

Traub Lieberman Partners Lenhardt and Smith Obtain Directed Verdict in Broward County Failed Repair Sinkhole Trial

September 03, 2019 — Michael Francis Lenhardt & Burks A. Smith, III - Traub Lieberman
On Tuesday, July 16, 2019, Traub Lieberman Partners Michael Lenhardt and Burks Smith won a Directed Verdict at trial in a dispute over Sinkhole Loss coverage in Broward County Circuit Court. The lawsuit arose out of a claim for Breach of Contract involving an alleged “failed repair” of a 2005 sinkhole at the insureds’ property. The Plaintiffs argued that their Policy Limits did not apply because the carrier allegedly undertook the subsurface repairs, relying on Drew v. Mobile USA Ins. Co., 920 So.2d 832 (Fla. 4thDCA 2006). The Plaintiffs asserted that because the insurance company allegedly hired the below ground repair company, a “new contract” was formed, and the Plaintiffs should be entitled to limitless repairs to their home, notwithstanding the Policy Limits. This argument obviously presented the carrier with very significant exposure. Attorneys Lenhardt and Smith provided a vigorous defense for the insurance company at trial, during which they presented the jury with evidence that the carrier did not, in fact, hire the subsurface repair company. They further established to the jury that the insureds actually signed a contract with the repair company directly, and that the defendant did not invoke the Our Option repair clause of the Policy. After the Plaintiffs rested their case, Mr. Lenhardt and Mr. Smith moved the Court for entry of a directed verdict. The defense argued to the Court that the Plaintiffs could not prove their case to the jury based upon the facts presented as a matter of law, thus entitling the insurance company to a defense verdict. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Francis Lenhardt, Traub Lieberman and Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman Mr. Lenhardt may be contacted at mlenhardt@tlsslaw.com Mr. Smith may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Include Contract Clauses for Protection Against Ever-Evolving Construction Challenges

May 30, 2022 — Michael Henry & Kevin J. Riexinger - Construction Executive
The first quarter of 2022 provided a valuable glimpse into some of the major issues the construction industry can expect to continue impacting jobsites for the rest of the year. Early in the pandemic, construction was not immune from the shut-downs that swept across market sectors. Workers were staying home to shield themselves and their families from the COVID-19 virus (and variants). This caused delays with construction projects and failures to meet negotiated benchmarks or deadlines. Contractors were left to wonder whether they remained obligated to perform under their contracts, or whether COVID-19 allowed them to invoke force majeure clauses. Over the past two years, there has been much debate about whether force majeure clauses encompass COVID-19 risks. Traditionally, force majeure is only invoked for significant weather events or natural disasters. Unsurprisingly, outcomes of legal actions regarding COVID-19 and force majeure varied by state and by contract. It didn’t take long for contractors to seek a more predictable and certain solution. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Henry & Kevin J. Riexinger, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Riexinger may be contacted at kriexinger@gllawgroup.com Mr. Henry may be contacted at MbHenry@tcco.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Hunton Insurance Practice, Partners Recognized by The Legal 500

July 16, 2023 — Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP’s insurance practice was recognized among the top policyholder insurance practices nationally, receiving a Band 2 national ranking in the 2023 United States Edition of The Legal 500 for Advice to Policyholders. The Legal 500 ranks the nation’s top law firms, practices, and lawyers, highlighting those that consistently provide “the most cutting edge and innovative advice to corporate counsel … based on feedback from 300,000 clients worldwide, submissions from law firms and interviews with leading private practice lawyers, and a team of researchers who have unrivalled experience in the legal market.” Bolstering the team’s national recognition, two of its partners received individual accolades. Lorie Masters was named in The Legal 500 Hall of Fame and Andi DeField was named a Next Generation Partner, while team head Syed Ahmad and partners Walter Andrews, Michael Levine and Geoffrey Fehling also were recognized. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

---

“Unwinnable”: Newark Trial Team Obtains Unanimous “No Cause” Verdict in Challenging Matter on Behalf of NYC Mutual Housing Association

May 15, 2023 — Lewis Brisbois
Newark, N.J. (May 8, 2023) – Newark Partner Afsha Noran and New Jersey Managing Partner Colin P. Hackett recently obtained a “no cause” verdict on behalf of multi-unit apartment owners and managers, notwithstanding that the trial judge initially deemed the matter an “unwinnable case” for the defense. In this matter, Lewis Brisbois represented a large New York City mutual housing association that owned and managed a single multi-unit apartment building in Paterson, New Jersey. The plaintiffs – a mother and her two children – alleged that the housing association failed to maintain the property, which led to defective conditions and mold throughout their apartment. They further contended that the mold caused multiple pulmonary, nasal, and skin injuries. Despite the shortage of trial judges in New Jersey, this case proceeded to trial, with the plaintiffs’ significant six-figure demand in place. Over the course of the four-day trial, the plaintiffs presented five witnesses: the plaintiff mother, the plaintiff 18-year-old child, the liability expert, and two medical experts. The client chose not to retain either liability or damages experts to counter those of the plaintiffs. As such, Lewis Brisbois’ trial team was left to defend the matter with an opening statement, a cross-examination of the plaintiffs and their experts, the testimony of the client’s property manager, and a closing argument. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Someone Who Hires an Independent Contractor May Still Be Liable, But Not in This Case

April 18, 2023 — Katherine Dempsey - The Subrogation Strategist
In Allstate Veh. & Prop. Ins. Co. v. Glitz Constr. Corp., 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1180, 2023 NY Slip Op 01171, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department (Appellate Court), considered whether a contractor could be found liable for its subcontractor’s alleged negligence in causing injury to a homeowner’s property. The homeowner’s insurer, as subrogee of the homeowner, sought to recover damages from the contractor despite an allegation that the subcontractor – an independent contractor – caused the injury to the homeowner’s property. Finding that there was no evidence that any of the exceptions to the non-liability rule related to hiring independent contractors applied, the Appellate Court affirmed the lower court’s decision granting judgment in favor of the contractor. In this case, the homeowner hired the contractor (defendant) to convert her garage area into a bedroom and an office. The defendant later hired a subcontractor to perform the electrical rough-in work. At trial, the homeowner’s insurer (plaintiff) presented evidence that the subcontractor, who damaged an existing wire with a drill bit, caused an electrical failure that resulted in a fire. The defendant argued that it could not be held liable for the subcontractor’s alleged negligence because the subcontractor was an independent contractor and, on appeal, the Appellate Court agreed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Katherine Dempsey, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Dempsey may be contacted at dempseyk@whiteandwilliams.com

---