Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Court Holds That Self-Insured Retentions Exhaust Vertically And Awards Insured Mandatory Prejudgment Interest in Stringfellow Site Coverage Dispute

October 19, 2017 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In State of California v. Continental Ins. Co. (No. E064518; filed 9/29/17), a California appeals court ruled that after Continental was ultimately held to pay its policy limits for remediation of the Stringfellow hazardous waste site, the insured State of California was entitled to mandatory prejudgment interest on the full amount dating back to 1998, when a federal district court had issued a judgment under F.R.C.P. 54 declaring the State liable under both the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and state law. To get there, the state appeals court held that vertical exhaustion applied to the attachment of Continental’s excess policies. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Death, Taxes and Attorneys’ Fees in Construction Disputes

July 18, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
According to Benjamin Franklin there are two certainties in this world: Death and taxes. Let me humbly add a third if you’re ever involved in non-contingency civil litigation: Attorneys’ fees. As such, when it comes to legal disputes, sophisticated parties know that it’s not just about winning but the cost of winning. While winning is never certain – remember Poor Richard’s proverb above – what is certain is that it will most likely cost you to find out whether you’ve won or lost. That’s why the ability to recover (or at least threaten the recovery of attorneys’ fees – that’s a separate discussion altogether) in litigation and arbitration is so important. A few facts:

According to the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) in their 2013 report, Measuring the Cost of Civil Litigation: Findings From a Survey of Trial Lawyers, the median cost of litigation (i.e., attorneys’ fees) for contract disputes, of which most construction disputes would fall under, was $90,575 from case initiation through post-trial disposition.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

South Carolina School District Investigated by IRS and FBI

March 12, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The IRS and FBI are investigating operations of the Jasper County School District in South Carolina. According to The Post and Courier, “Assistant U.S. Attorney James May sent a letter to district officials asking them to keep financial documents, the minutes of school board meetings, employment files for top officials and all letters and emails between district employees.” Some of the problems the school district has dealt with are “legal challenges.” One of the disputes, involved a “multi-million dollar” construction defect claim for “facilities built in 2007.” The Post and Courier reported that this made up twenty percent of the more than half a million dollars paid in legal fees by the district. South Carolina “lawmakers are considering the Parent Empowerment Act, a bill that would allow the state's Education Department to take over districts that are mismanaged or need improvement if a majority of parents call for it,” according to The Post and Courier. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Critical Updates in Builders Risk Claim Recovery: Staying Ahead of the "Satisfactory State" Argument and Getting the Most Out of LEG 3

December 11, 2023 — Gregory D. Podolak & Cheryl L. Kozdrey - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Builders risk claims routinely involve complicated and aggressive debate about the interplay between covered physical loss and uncovered faulty work. However, denials on this front have recently experienced a noticeable uptick in frequency, creativity, and aggressiveness. The insurer arguments concentrate in two key areas with a common theme – that any damage associated with a construction defect is not covered:

Defective construction does not qualify as a “physical” loss to trigger the insuring agreement; and
Any natural results of defective construction are excluded as faulty workmanship, even with favorable LEG 3 or similar language.

Neither of these arguments should impede access to coverage in the majority of scenarios. To ensure as much, it is incumbent on the savvy policyholder to understand the insurer tactics, be prepared to spot them early, and have thoughtful counter positions at the ready to address them decisively. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Cheryl L. Kozdrey, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Podolak may be contacted at GPodolak@sdvlaw.com Ms. Kozdrey may be contacted at CKozdrey@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Defect Lawsuit Came too Late in Minnesota

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has upheld a summary judgment in a construction defect case, Lee v. Gorham. Minnesota law requires that contractors warranty that the home will be free of major construction defects during the first ten years, but claims must “be brought within two years of the discovery of the breach.” The Lees received a home inspection report in 2009 that identified a variety of defects, including “several possible structural defects.” The court noted that the report stated, “Contact your builder in writing of the findings, and discuss your options with an attorney.” The Lees contacted the contractor, Gorham Builders. After initial silence, Gorham told the Lees that problems would “have to be ‘turned over to [the] insurance company.’” Rodney noted in his testimony that he had two choices, to either sue Gorham or hire an outside contractor. Mr. Lee had concluded that the legal costs were likely to be equal to the cost of the contractor. In June, 2011, the Lees changed their mind about bringing a suit. Gorham sought and received a summary judgment dismissing the case on the grounds that too much time had passed since the Lees learned of the construction defect. The Lees appealed. The appeals court upheld the summary judgment. The Lees claimed that the 2009 home inspection did not alert them of a “major construction defect,” but the court concluded that the language of the report fit within the Minnesota statutory definition of a “major construction defect.” Nor was the appeals court convinced that at any time did Gorham provide “assurances that it would cure the defects to the home.” Within the same month as the May 2009 inspection, Gorham had made it clear that any problems were an issue for the insurance company. Thus, the appeals court concluded that the Lee’s equitable-estoppel argument was without merit. The Lees also brought to appeal the new argument that they did not realize they were dealing with “major construction defects” until they received a subsequent home inspection in 2011. The court noted that the second report does not detail “new defects or structural issues not identified in the 2009 inspection report.” In addition to being “without merit,” the court noted that this claim was not made in the district court and so the appeals court “need not consider this issue on appeal.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Economic Damages Cannot be Based On Speculation

October 16, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Economic damages, unlike non-economic damages (such as those in personal injury disputes), need to rest on a reasonable basis. Economic damages are those routinely seen in a construction dispute. These damages cannot be based on conjecture or guesswork and need to be supported by competent substantial evidence. Otherwise, the economic damages will be deemed too speculative because they are not reasonably quantifiable. I recently discussed a case involving the professional boxer Canelo Alvarez that was sued by a former promoter for unjust enrichment. Although the promoter recovered a jury verdict for unjust enrichment damages against Canelo Alvarez, the verdict was reversed because the methodology utilized by the promoter to demonstrate damages was speculative. This is definitely not what a plaintiff wants to happen after prevailing at the trial level! Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Everyone's Moving to Seattle, and It's Stressing Out Sushi Lovers

July 16, 2014 — Peter Robison and Alison Vekshin – Bloomberg
Sooner or later, everyone moves to Seattle, went one saying in the city’s 1990s heyday. The trouble residents face now: What happens after everyone does? Known for hiking and the open spaces of the American West, Seattle is in the midst of another boom that’s made it the fastest-growing among the top 50 U.S. cities. That’s causing angst over density, affordability, crime and other issues more familiar to an East Coast metropolis. At the same time, pay is outpacing the national average and an already rich cultural life is thriving as new restaurants and nightspots open. “It’s a blessing,” Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, a 59-year-old Democrat, said of the growth. “But with it comes some real challenges.” Mr. Robison may be contacted at robison@bloomberg.net; Ms. Vekshin may be contacted at avekshin@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Peter Robison and Alison Vekshin, Bloomberg

Third Circuit Holds That Duty to Indemnify "Follows" Duty to Defend

December 27, 2021 — Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In a win for policyholders, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a District Court’s 2018 ruling, which held that the duty to indemnify follows the duty to defend where a settlement precludes a determination on the facts of the case relative to liability and apportionment. In Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Penn National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co.,1 a large concrete panel collapsed and killed a construction worker at a construction site in New Kensington, Pennsylvania. Cost Company (“Cost”), Liberty Mutual’s insured, was a masonry subcontractor on the project and had further subcontracted with Pittsburgh Flexicore Co. (“Flexicore”), Penn National’s insured, for the concrete panels. Cost’s subcontract agreement required Flexicore to name Cost as an additional insured under its general liability policy issued by Penn National. When the construction worker’s widow filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Cost and Flexicore, Cost demanded that Penn National defend and indemnify it as an additional insured under the policy. Penn National refused, arguing that any additional insured status had terminated at the conclusion of Flexicore’s work for Cost. As a result, Liberty Mutual defended Cost in the lawsuit, which was ultimately settled. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES