FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Insurer Must Cover Construction Defects Claims under Actual Injury Rule

March 01, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

The Texas Court of Appeals held that the insured need not prove the exact dates physical damage occurred in order to trigger defense and indemnity coverage. Vines-Herrin Custom Homes, LLC v. Great Am. Lloyds Ins. Co., 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 10027 (Tex. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2011).



In 1999, the insured built a home. He was insured under a CGL policy issued by Great American from November 9, 1998 to November 9, 2000. Thereafter, the insured held a CGL policy issued by Mid-Continent from November 9, 2000 to September 18, 2002.



After construction was completed, the insured sold the house to the buyer in May 2000. After moving in, the buyer found numerous construction defects in the home, including water entering cracks in the home, and sinking and sagging of parts of the house. The buyer sued the insured, who sought coverage under the two policies. When the insurers refused to defend the underlying suit, the insured sued for a declaratory judgment.



The underlying case went to arbitration and an award of $2.4 million was granted to the buyer. The insured assigned to the buyer his claims against the insurers.

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

---

Governor Ducey Vetoes Water and Development Bills

June 09, 2016 — Patrick J. Paul – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
With the second regular legislative session of Governor Doug Ducey’s tenure complete, the Governor exercised his veto pen rejecting several laws impacting water and land development. On May 9th, Governor Ducey vetoed two measures that could have allowed developers to manipulate the requirements of Arizona’s Groundwater Management Act of 1980: Senate bills the 1268 (adequate water supply requirements) and 1400 (county water supply). The bills’ sponsor, Senator Gail Griffin, had expressed concerns that the federal government was exercising too much control of the water supply in Cochise County in its efforts to ensure the continued flow of water in the San Pedro River. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick J. Paul, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Paul may be contacted at ppaul@swlaw.com

---

Florida “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence” and “Your Work” Exclusion

July 23, 2014 — Scott Patterson - CD Coverage
In J.B.D. Construction, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., * Fed.Appx. *, 2014 WL 3377690 (11th Cir. 2014), claimant property owner Sun City contracted with insured general contractor J.B.D. for the construction of a fitness center. The fitness center was to be physically connected to an existing Sun City building. J.B.D. utilized subcontractors for some of the work. Shortly after completion, leaks developed in the fitness center’s roof, windows and doors which J.B.D. attempted to fix. After Sun City refused to make the final contract payment, J.B.D. sued Sun City for contract amounts owed. Sun City counterclaimed for the construction defects, alleged damage to the fitness center and other property. J.B.D. tendered defense of the counterclaim to its CGL insurer Mid-Continent. After Mid-Continent failed to agree to defend, J.B.D. settled with Sun City, paying Sun City $182K. Following several demands from J.B.D. for reimbursement of defense costs and the settlement amount, Mid-Continent tendered the defense costs minus a deductible. J.B.D. then sued Mid-Continent for breach of duties to defend and indemnify. On cross motions for summary judgment, the federal district trial court entered judgment for Mid-Continent, finding no duties to defend or indemnify. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed on the duty to defend while affirming on the duty to indemnify. Applying Florida law, the court first held that the defective work, including the defective installation of the fitness center’s windows, doors, and roof, did not constitute “property damage.” Thus, the costs to repair or replace the defective work did not constitute damages because of “property damage.” The court next held that, while damage to other portions of the fitness center would constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence,” all such “property damage” fell within the “your work” exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Patterson, CD Coverage

---

Engineer Pauses Fix of 'Sinking' Millennium Tower in San Francisco

September 13, 2021 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
Engineers paused work for at least two weeks on the $100-million foundation upgrade for San Francisco's 645-ft-tall Millennium Tower high-rise residential condominium after measurements showed increased settlement during the installation of pile casings for the new piles. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Waive Your Claim Goodbye: Louisiana Court Holds That AIA Subrogation Waiver Did Not Violate Anti-Indemnification Statute and Applied to Subcontractors

May 23, 2022 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In 2700 Bohn Motor, LLC v. F.H. Myers Constr. Corp., No. 2021-CA-0671, 2022 La. App. LEXIS 651 (Bohn Motor), the Court of Appeals of Louisiana for the Fourth Circuit (Court of Appeals) considered whether a subrogation waiver in an AIA construction contract was enforceable and, if so, whether the waiver also protected subcontractors that were not signatories to the contract. The lower court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on the subrogation waiver in the construction contract. The plaintiffs appealed the decision, arguing that the subrogation waiver violated Louisiana’s anti-indemnification statute. The plaintiffs also argued that even if enforceable, the subrogation waiver did not apply to the defendant subcontractors since they were not parties to the contract. The Court of Appeals ultimately held that the subrogation waiver did not violate the anti-indemnification statute because the waiver did not shift liability, which the statute was intended to prevent. In addition, the Court of Appeals found that the contract sufficiently satisfied the required elements for the defendant subcontractors to qualify as third-party beneficiaries of the contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Apartment Building Damaged by Cable Installer’s Cherry Picker

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The owners of Oceana Apartments are suing Shentel Cable Co. and their subcontractors, CCI Systems, Inc. and Big Dog Communications, over the damage caused when a cherry picker rolled downhill and smacked into the building. Kenneth Benn, an employee of Big Dog Communications, was installing utility wire when the cherry picker started moving. The suit alleges that Mr. Benn either failed to properly apply the brakes or immobilize the vehicle before staring work. Mr. Benn is also named as a defendant in the suit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Injuries Under the Privette Doctrine. An Electrifying, but Perhaps Not Particularly Shocking, Story . . .

January 05, 2017 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
We’ve talked about the Privette doctrine before (see here, here, and here). The Privette doctrine, named after the court case Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, provides in general that project owners and contractors are not responsible for worksite injuries suffered by employees of lower-tiered contractors they have hired, the rationale being that such workers should already be covered under their employers’ workers’ compensation insurance policies. In the twenty years since Privette was decided, however, several exceptions have evolved that have narrowed the doctrine. One exception, known as the retained control exception, allows a contractor’s employees to sue the “hirer” of the contractor (that is, the higher-tiered party who “hired” the lower-tiered party whose employee is injured) when the hirer retains control over any part of the work and negligently exercises that control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the employee’s injury. Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198. Another exception, known as the nondelegable duty exception, permits an injured worker to recover against a hirer when the hirer has assumed a nondelegable duty, including statutory and regulatory duties, that it breaches in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury. Padilla v. Pomona College (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 661. In a recently decided case, Khosh v. Staples Construction Company, Inc., Case No. B268937 (November 17, 2016), the California Court of Appeals for the Second District examined the application of the Hooker and Padilla exceptions where a general contractor was contractually responsible for overall site safety. 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

---

After Breaching Its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Pay Market Rates for Defense Counsel

October 30, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
After breaching its duty to defend, the insurer could not take advantage of a California statute allowing insurers to establish rates for defense counsel. S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151695 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2023). Edison was an additional insured under a policy issued by Greenwich Insurance Company to Utility Tree Service, Inc. (UTS). UTS contracted with Edison to provide vegetation management services near Edison's transmission lines. The Greenwich policy provided additional insured coverage to third parties to the extent of UTS's obligations under the contract. Edison was sued in numerous lawsuits for property damage caused by the Bobcat wildfire in the Angeles National Forest (Bobcat Wildfire lawsuits). Edison tendered the defense in each lawsuit to Greenwich. Coverage was denied, however, based on a lack of underlying allegations or extrinsic evidence that Edison's liability resulted from UTS's negligent actions. 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

---