Columbus Ohio Building Expert Directory

Deterioration Known To Insured Forecloses Collapse Coverage

January 28, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer properly denied coverage for collapse of a building when the insured knew from an expert’s examination that the walls of his house were deteriorating. Jaimes v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 2018 U. S. Dust. LEXIS 198224 (D. Colo. Nov. 21, 2018). The insured discovered a crack in the wall of his home. He hired Anchor Engineering to inspect. Anchor found a large bulge in the south wall. Several problems with deterioration were noted in the basement. The structure of the house was unstable and dangerous. The insured filed a claim with his homeowners insurer, Liberty. The claim was denied because damage to the wall was the result of deterioration. The south wall of the house later collapsed. The insured submitted a second claim. Liberty again denied the claim because the collapse was the result of deterioration of the wall. The insured sued. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

New Jersey Senate Advances Bad Faith Legislation

July 18, 2018 — TLSS Insurance Law Blog
New Jersey is the latest to join the list of states that have enacted or are considering enacting legislation that would authorize policyholders to file civil suits against first-party insurers for unfair business practices, such as unreasonably delaying or denying benefit payments, engaging in false advertising, or otherwise committing a wide range of unfair or deceptive practices. On June 7, the New Jersey Senate passed a bill entitled the New Jersey Insurance Fair Conduct Act. The Act would create a new statutory cause of action pursuant to which a first-party insurer would be liable for bad faith based on a single statutory violation, thereby entitling an aggrieved policyholder to collect triple damages and attorneys’ fees. The proposed legislation is now before the state’s General Assembly for further consideration. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP

Canada’s Largest Homebuilder Sets U.S. Growth Plan

April 01, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Builder magazine, after conquering the Canadian market, Mattamy Homes seeks to build more homes in the U.S. Mattamy’s Jim Leiferman had been asked to promote the company in the Orlando-area, however, “he went above and beyond that mission, growing the company’s footprint well beyond the metro area.” Brian Johnson, COO of Mattamy, told Builder, “[Jim Leiferman] was promotable, like any division president, but Jim proved to really, in a very short period of time, have a very strong in understanding of the business. He’s thoughtful and goes beyond our expectations.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases

August 19, 2015 — Sean Mahoney – White and Williams LLP
In Babcock & Wilcox Company, et al. v. America Nuclear Insurers, et al., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that where a liability insurer has agreed to provide a defense to its insured in an underlying tort action subject to a reservation of rights but refuses to consent to a settlement in that action, the insured may nevertheless accept the settlement over the insurer’s objection where the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and non-collusive” from the perspective of a reasonably prudent person in the insured’s position in light of the totality of the circumstances and is covered. Babcock & Wilcox Company v. America Nuclear Insurers, No. 2 WAP 2014, 2015 WL 4430352 (Pa. Jul. 21, 2015). This decision fills an important gap in Pennsylvania precedent addressing the rules applicable when an insurer refuses to consent to an insured’s settlement of a lawsuit. In Babcock, the underlying plaintiffs sued Babcock & Wilcox Company and Atlantic Richfield Company (“the Insureds”) alleging that the Insured’s nuclear facilities caused bodily injury and property damage. The Insureds’ liability insurers agreed to defend the Insureds subject to a reservation of rights. The insurers later refused to consent to an offer to settle the underlying action for a total of $80 million because they believed the Insureds were likely to succeed on the merits. Nevertheless, in 2009, the Insureds accepted that offer and settled the underlying action for $80 million, notwithstanding the insurer’s refusal. The Insureds then sought reimbursement of the $80 million settlement from their insurers, who rejected that request on the ground that the Insureds had breached the consent-to-settlement/cooperation provisions of the implicated policies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sean Mahoney, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at mahoneys@whiteandwilliams.com

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Sudden Death”

October 17, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
It’s not football, though. Rather, just when you thought it was safe in Louisiana to wait to file a garden-variety construction contract payment claim, an appellate court slams the door on it – applying a statute of “repose” to your claim. “Personal actions” – such as an action on contract – are generally subject in Louisiana to a 10-year “liberative prescription,” the applicable statute of limitations pursuant to Louisiana Civil Code article 3499. Like some other states, Louisiana has a statute of “repose” – imposing “peremption” rather than prescription for claims having to do with construction projects – limiting those claims (generally speaking) to five years post-completion. Like other statutes of “repose,” Louisiana Revised Statute 9:2772 provides that claims on construction projects may not be filed after five years, a duration which is not subject to interruption or extension. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Just Because I May Be An “Expert” Does Not Mean I Am Giving Expert Testimony

January 17, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
On a construction project, it’s hard to argue that the involved parties — whether an architect, engineer, contractor, subcontractor, developer, etc. — are not experts in their field, i.e., they all some scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge or skill particular to their industry. However, this does NOT mean when they testify in trial, at an arbitration, or at a deposition regarding the construction project they are offering expert opinions / testimony as it pertains to that project. Testifying as to facts based on personal knowledge or involvement on a project makes you a fact witness and is different than evaluating and rending an after-the-fact opinion as to the work of others. This does not minimize your knowledge or expertise; it simply means that relative to the construction project you are involved with, your testimony is that of a fact witness and not of an expert. (It is possible to wear both the fact witness and expert witness hat, but that depends on your subsequent role in the litigation or arbitration.) 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

Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects

January 06, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

In a case the judge attributed to “shoddy masonry work,” the US District Court of Illinois has rendered a decision in AMCO Insurance Company v. Northern Heritage Builders. Northern Heritage built a home in Chicago for Michael McGrath (who joined Northern Heritage as a defendant). According to the decision, “seven months after he moved into the house, McGrath noticed water coming in the house and warped millwork.” This was attributed to porous block, installed by the mason with Northern Heritage’s knowledge.

McGrath sued National Heritage for both the damage to his house and its contents. The court rejected his claim for the contents. For the damages to his house, he was awarded $601,570.50 in damages. He also sued his homeowner’s insurance carrier for damages not covered in his suit against National Heritage. There he was awarded $1,130,680.16.

AMCO informed National Heritage that it had neither duty to defend nor duty to indemnify. The judge considered whether AMCO had a duty to defend. Under Illinois law, “damage to a construction project resulting from construction defects is not an ‘accident’ or ‘occurrence’ because it represents the natural and ordinary consequence of faulty construction.” However, it is noted that while if the defects lead only to damage to the project itself, there is no occurrence, “if the building owner asserts damages to other property besides the construction itself, there is an ‘occurrence’ and ‘property damage.’” The judge further noted that were construction defects an occurrence, “shoddy work” would be rewarded by double pay, once by the homeowner and a second time by the insurer. Judge Kendall concluded that as McGrath had alleged damage to the contents of his house, AMCO had a duty to defend National Heritage.

She then looked at the issue of whether AMCO had a duty to indemnify. Should they pay the $601,570.50? Judge Kendall noted that “the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend.” The key point here was that once McGrath’s insurance carrier covered him for the damage to the contents of his house, “AMCO’s duty to defend ended.” Once McGrath “only sought damages for the natural consequences of faulty workmanship” there was no occurrence, hence nothing for AMCO to cover.

Judge Kendall granted a summary dismissal of AMCO’s claim that they had no duty to defend while upholding their claim that they had no duty to indemnify.

Read the court’s decision…

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

State Audit Questions College Construction Spending in LA

August 17, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

A state audit of the Los Angeles Community College District found many problems with their construction spending. Their report, as described in the Los Angeles Times, found construction money spent for other purposes, such as promotional photography and public relation tours, $28.3 million spent on projects that were later cancelled, and oversight committees that provided no oversight.

Earlier this year, the LA Times ran a series of articles detailing problems with the Los Angles Community College District’s construction program. The LA Times reported that the State Controller’s audit reached many of the same conclusions.

The Community College District disputed the findings.

Read the full story…