Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Interpreting Insurance Coverage and Exclusions: When Sudden means Sudden and EIFS means Faulty

June 15, 2020 — Ben Volpe - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
EIFS, or Exterior Insulation and Finish System, is an integrated exterior insulation and synthetic stucco system, praised for its energy efficiency.[1] However, EIFS has come to be well known in the construction defect world as placing homes at risk due to a lack of a built-in moisture management system. Before long, insurance companies recognized the risk and began explicitly excluding coverage for EIFS-related damage. However, EIFS exclusions have not always been so clearly set forth in some policies, causing insurance coverage litigation. Recently, a Greenwood Village couple, Mark and Susan Mock, lost this fight. Built in 1994, the Mocks’ home was constructed with an EIFS system. The Mocks carried a homeowner’s insurance policy through Allstate, which covered “sudden and accidental loss” to property, but excluded coverage for “planning, construction or maintenance” issues. Such “planning, construction or maintenance” exclusions included “faulty, inadequate or defective designs.” A few months after a hailstorm, the Mocks discovered moisture-related damage to their home’s EIFS system. They reported the damage to Allstate, but Allstate would not cover it, reasoning that the damage to the EIFS system was excluded as a design and/or construction failure, and thus not covered as a “sudden and accidental” loss. The experts who evaluated the damage concluded it was the result of inherent flaws in the EIFS systems common in the 1994 timeframe, which involved long term moisture intrusion behind the cladding and no means for the water to escape. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Benjamin Volpe, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Volpe may be contacted at volpe@hhmrlaw.com

Terminating A Subcontractor Or Sub-Tier Contractor—Not So Fast—Read Your Contract!

May 24, 2018 — John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Blog
Every few months I receive a call from a general contractor or subcontractor who has just terminated a subcontractor or sub-tier contractor for non-performance and is “checking in with me to see if there are any liability issues.” After the termination has taken place, if the termination is wrongful, there are serious legal consequences. Calling your lawyer after the fact will not cure missteps in the termination process. Termination for non-performance is a common term in most contract documents. As courts interpret contracts, however, the right to earn revenue from a contract is a substantial interest, and courts generally “abhor” forfeitures (termination) of that right. In other words, the courts will strictly determine whether the terminating party to a contract has complied with the termination process to the letter. A recent example from Connecticut is instructive in this regard. [1] The general contractor on a large hospital project in Connecticut terminated its electrical subcontractor, hired others to finish the electrical subcontractor’s work, and then sued the electrical subcontractor for $26 million. The electrical subcontractor countersued the general contractor for $3.6 million of work that it had completed at the time of the termination which had not been paid for. The subcontractor claimed that due to the many changes that had occurred on the project, it stopped work because the changes altered the contract to the point that it was no longer the same contract. The subcontractor walked off the project and the general contractor then terminated the subcontractor and re-procured the work from other subcontractors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

Palo Alto Considers Fines for Stalled Construction Projects

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The city of Palo Alto, California is considering adopting a law that would fine residents with expired building permits. The City Council took up the issue in response to complaints from residents about stalled construction projects in their neighborhoods. In the public testimony, one resident noted that a site near her home was fenced off in 2007, with the home demolished in 2008, after which nothing has happened. The City Council is proposing fines of $200 per day, after a 30-day grace period, increasing to $400 per day two months after that, going to $800 per day on the 121st day. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Design-Build Contracting: Is the Shine Off the Apple?

March 09, 2020 — John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The design-build delivery method offers many benefits to owners. Among the cited benefits are that projects are generally completed faster, at a lower cost, by allowing innovative approaches through early and continual contractor involvement in the design process. The design contractor serves as a single point of contact responsible for both the design and construction of the project. The Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) utilized the design-build procurement method on the largest project ($2 billion) of its type in the state of Washington: the Highway 99 Tunnel, which was finished almost three years late after the tunnel-boring machine (“Bertha”) broke down six years ago. The sorted tale of the SR-99 Tunnel Project was the source of many of this firm’s blog articles.[1] The State of Washington staunchly maintained that the design-build contract protected its taxpayers from covering the repair costs to the tunnel-boring machine when it broke down in 2013. Bertha did not resume tunneling for almost two years, putting on hold removal of the Alaska Way viaduct and rebuilding of the Seattle Waterfront without an elevated highway. In December 2013, the contractor for the project, Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), contended that a 110-foot long 8” steel pipe which Bertha hit caused the breakdown. That pipe had been installed for groundwater testing by WSDOT in 2002 during its preliminary engineering for the viaduct replacement project. The project’s Dispute Review Board (“DRB”) composed of three tunneling experts found that the pipe constituted a “differing site condition” for which the State was responsible to disclose to contractors. The Board, whose views were non-binding, did not opine about how much damage the undisclosed pipe cost.[2] In other words, the mere fact that a differing site condition occurred did not establish that there was a causal connection between the damages which STP was seeking (in excess of $600 million) and the differing site condition (the 8” steel pipe which WSDOT lawyers at trial derisively referred to as “nothing more than a toothpick for Bertha’s massive cutter head”). STP maintained that Bertha had made steady progress except for three days immediately after hitting the pipe. It didn’t help the contractors’ case that during the discovery phase of the two-month trial, WSDOT lawyers uncovered documents showing that the contractor’s tunnel workers encountered and logged the pipe before digging began.[3] Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

Burden to Prove Exception to Exclusion Falls on Insured

April 19, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
In a dispute between two insurers, the Ninth Circuit relied upon Nevada law in finding that the burden of proving that an exception to the exclusion applies was on the insured. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 1626 (9th Cir. Jan. 20, 2022). Ironshore insured seven subcontractors. The policy included an exclusion providing there was no coverage for any property damage for the subcontractors' for "work performed prior to the policy inception." An exception to the exclusion provided that the exclusion did not apply to property damage that was "sudden and accidental and takes place within the policy period." The seven subcontractors were sued for work they had performed. Zurich defended and indemnified the subcontractors. Zurich then sued Ironshore seeking contribution and indemnification for defense and settlement costs. The parties stipulated that all construction work at issue had been completed before the inception of Ironshore's policy and that none of the complaints against the subcontractors alleged that sudden and accidental damage had occurred after the inception of Ironshore's policy. 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

Nevada Assembly Sends Construction Defect Bill to Senate

June 06, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

In a 26 to 16 vote, the Nevada Assembly has passed Assembly Bill 401, which extends the time limit for legal action over home construction defects. According to the Las Vegas Sun, Assembly member Marcus Conklin, Democrat of Las Vegas, said the bill was about “keeping the consumer whole.” However, Ira Hansen, Republican of Sparks, told the sun that suits are happening before contractors can make repairs. The bill would allow attorney fees even if repairs are made.

Read the full story…

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

Struggling Astaldi Announces Defaults on Florida Highway Contracts

April 22, 2019 — Scott Judy - Engineering News-Record
Astaldi Construction Corp. announced on March 28 that it was voluntarily defaulting on four contracts with the Florida Dept. of Transportation. Included among those was a $108.3-million contract covering the 3.5-mile-long Section 7A for the $1.6-billion Wekiva Parkway project. Astaldi’s default on that project comes nearly a year after the contractor commenced work on April 1, 2018. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Judy, ENR
Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com

What Is the Best Way to Avoid Rezoning Disputes?

August 30, 2021 — Collier Marsh - Construction Executive
Construction companies and developers are accelerating projects in the southeast and throughout the country as the economy rebounds from the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Whether they are building commercial, industrial or residential projects, these developments often require rezoning to maximize an investment. But rezoning disputes can add significant delays and costs to a project and can even defeat the project altogether. There are proactive steps construction companies can take to avoid disputes as they are working to secure rezoning approval, as well after the rezoning is complete. During the initial rezoning process, before a final municipal decision, one of the best practices is to anticipate opposition and address it head-on. As for post-approval disputes, those often come down to how carefully a company followed the local procedures and, where applicable, the local evidentiary requirements. Reprinted courtesy of Collier Marsh, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Marsh may be contacted at colliermarsh@parkerpoe.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES