Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Washington Supreme Court Interprets Ensuing Loss Exception in All-Risk Property Insurance Policy

May 20, 2024 — David G. Jordan & William E. Phillips IV - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The "ensuing loss" clause is a provision that restores coverage for property insurance claims that are subject to certain policy exclusions, such as “faulty workmanship” and “faulty design.” It applies in cases where there is damage from a covered cause of loss that ensues, or results from, the excluded cause of loss. Courts across jurisdictions have grappled with interpreting the breadth of this clause, leading to varying conclusions regarding its scope and applicability. One of the primary challenges in interpreting “ensuing loss” lies in determining the ultimate cause of damage. Courts must ascertain whether the ensuing loss is sufficiently distinct from the excluded event to warrant coverage under the policy. This analysis often hinges on whether the cause of loss is thought to constitute a separate and independent occurrence or is merely a continuation or exacerbation of the excluded event. Reprinted courtesy of David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and William E. Phillips IV, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com Mr. Phillips may be contacted at WPhillips@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurance Law Alert: Ambiguous Producer Agreement Makes Agent-Broker Status a Jury Question

September 10, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore & Christopher Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Douglas v. Fidelity National Ins. (No. A137645; filed 8/29/14), a California appeals court held that it was a jury question whether a retail insurance service with limited binding authority should be deemed a broker or an agent for the purpose of determining if application misrepresentations would void coverage. In Douglas, the homeowners needed insurance for a house they had used as a group home. They sought coverage from Cost-U-Less, which provided personal lines insurance from, among others, Fidelity National Insurance Company. According to the couple’s wife, she went to a Cost-U-Less office where she answered application questions from a person on the telephone, who was later identified as an employee of another company, InsZone. InsZone had a producer contract with Fidelity. In practice, InsZone would be contacted by Cost-U-Less via telephone, at which point an InsZone employee would verbally solicit information from the client, with the information being entered into a computer by the InsZone employee and then transmitted electronically to Fidelity. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Federal Court Sets High Bar for Pleading Products Liability Cases in New Jersey

November 11, 2024 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
Products liability is an area of law that both sides of the aisle vigorously litigate. Like in most litigation, products liability claims provide subrogation attorneys with an important means of prosecuting cases against manufacturers, sellers, and other entities in the stream of commerce. Of course, these claims also come with numerous “buyer beware” requirements. New Jersey allows products liability claims and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (District Court) clarified how such claims should be plead in Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. a/s/o David Krug vs. Stihl, Inc., No. 22-05893, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178804 (D. N.J.). After becoming subrogated to the rights of its insured, Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Cambridge) filed suit against Stihl, Inc. (Stihl) in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County, Law Division. Stihl then removed the case to federal court. Once in federal court, Stihl filed a motion to dismiss the action. The District Court granted the motion, doing so in part with prejudice and in part without prejudice. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

Fifth Circuit Holds Insurer Owes Duty to Defend Latent Condition Claim That Caused Fire Damage to Property Years After Construction Work

September 21, 2020 — Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman
Most general liability policies only provide coverage for “property damage” that occurs during the policy period. Thus, when analyzing coverage for a construction defect claim, it is important to ascertain the date on which damage occurred. Of course, the plaintiffs’ bar crafts pleadings to be purposefully vague as to the date (or period) of damage to property. A recent Fifth Circuit decision applying Texas law addresses this coverage issue in the context of allegations of a condition created by an insured during the policy period that caused damage after the policy expired. In Gonzalez v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 969 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2020), Gilbert Gonzales (the insured) was a siding contractor. In 2013, the underlying plaintiff hired Gonzales to install new siding on his house. In 2016, the underlying plaintiff’s house was damaged in a fire. The underlying plaintiff sued Gilbert in Texas state court alleging that when Gonzalez installed the siding in 2013, he hammered nails through electrical wiring and created a dangerous condition that caused a fire three years later in 2016. At the time Gilbert performed construction work, he was insured by Mid-Continent Casualty Company. Mid-Continent disclaimed coverage to Gonzales on the basis that the complaint unequivocally alleged that property was damaged in 2016 and there were no allegations that property damage occurred prior to 2016 or was continuing in nature. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

Building Growth Raises Safety Concerns

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
With the resurgence of the construction industry, another trend is going up and it’s not good. The workplace fatality rate for the construction industry has increased for the first time since 2006, according to a new report from Marsh Risk Consulting, based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The increase to 9.5 deaths per 100,000 workers is attributed to “an influx of new, inexperienced workers” and that “some contractors are stretching their hiring standards to meet project demands.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/1/24) – Hybrid Work Technologies, AI in Construction and the Market for Office Buildings

November 05, 2024 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In our latest roundup, commercial mortgage bond market in trouble, commercial real estate investments, pressure on mortgage REITs, and more!

Short-term issues facing U.S. commercial real estate have made it an investment opportunity and values have bottomed out. (CNBC)
As organizations report plans to shake up their real estate portfolios, the flight to quality spurs interest in space planning, amenities and hybrid work technologies. (Joe Burns, Facilities Dive)
The conversation about AI’s potential benefits and risks has been a common refrain in construction recently. (Matthew Thibault, Construction Dive)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

Insurer Must Defend and Indemnify Construction Defect Claims Under Iowa Law

February 23, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Applying Iowa law, the federal district court found that the insurer had to defend and indemnify construction defect claims for damage to property caused by the insured's subcontractors. Van Der Weide v. Cincinnati Ins., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4469 (N.D. Iowa Jan. 12, 2017). Van Der Weide contracted with Bouma & Company, Inc. to construct a house in 1996. Before construction began, Bouma purchased a CGL policy and a separate umbrella policy from Cincinnati, which were in effect from January 30, 1996 to January 30, 1999. Bouma used various subcontractors to build the home, including Elkato Masonry, which did the brick veneer and masonry work. The house was completed in February 1998 and Van Der Weide moved in during August 1998. 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

Mobile Home Owners Not a Class in Drainage Lawsuit

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

Comparing it to a “complex construction defect action,” the California Court of Appeals for Orange County has rejected the claims of a group of mobile home owners that they should be certified as a class in their lawsuit against Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park. The Appeals court sustained the judgment of the lower court. The court issued a decision in the case of Criswell v. MMR Family LLC on January 17, 2012.

The claims made by the group were that the owners and operators of the mobile home park had known of an “on-going and potentially worsening shallow groundwater condition on the property” and had “exacerbated the problem by changing ‘the configuration and drainage related to the hillside that abuts’ the park.” The homeowners claimed that the class should consist of “any past or current homeowner during the same time frame” who had experienced “the accumulation of mold, fungus, and/or other toxins,” “property damage to his/her mobilehome and/or other property resulting from drainage problems, water seepage, water accumulation, moisture build-up, mold, fungus, and/or other toxins,” emotional distress related to drainage problems or mold, and finally health problems “resulting from exposure to drainage problems, water seepage, water accumulation, moisture build-up, mold, fungus, and/or other toxins, in or around one’s home, lot, or common areas of the park.”

The lower court concluded that while the limits of the class were identifiable, they failed to constitute a class in other ways. First, the people affected were small enough in number that they could be brought together. They “are not so numerous that it would be impracticable to bring them all before the Court.”

The court noted that while many of the homeowners would have issues in common, they did not find “a well-defined community of interest among the class members.” The Appeals Court wrote that “the individual issues affecting each mobile home and homeowner will predominate over the common issue of the presence of standing or pooling water in and around the park.” The court noted that each home would be affected differently by water and “the ‘accumulation of mold, fungus, and/or other toxins.’”

While the court conceded that there would be common issues, such as the “defendants’ alleged concealment of excess moisture conditions and their allegedly negligent roadwork and landscaping,” they noted that “these common issues would be swamped by the swarm of individual determinations of property damage, emotional distress, and personal injury.” The Appeals Court cited an earlier case that ruled against certification “if a class action ‘will splinter into individual trials.’” The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court that they could not proceed as a class.

Read the court’s decision…

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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES