FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Failure to Comply with Sprinkler Endorsement Bars Coverage for Fire Damage

July 31, 2013 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Despite its application stating otherwise, the insured's failure to install a sprinkler system in its building barred coverage for extensive damage caused by fire.American Way Cellular, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 425 (Cal. Ct. App. May 30, 2013). American Way contacted a broker, A&J, regarding liability and property coverage. A&J sent American Way an application for a policy with Travelers. The application indicated American Way had a sprinkler system and fire detectors in its building. Travelers issued a policy with a Protective Safeguards Endorsement For Sprinkler Locations and Restaurants. The endorsement stated that as a condition of the insurance, the insured was required to maintain a sprinkler system. An exclusions section said the insurer would not pay for loss caused by fire if there was no sprinkler system. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

"Your Work" Exclusion Bars Coverage for Contractor's Faulty Workmanship

December 02, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals found there was no coverage for the contractor's faulty workmanship in constructing a home. State of W. Virginia ex rel. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. The Honorable Ronald E. Wilson, 2015 W. Va. LEXIS 963 (W. Va. Oct. 7, 2015). In July 2009, Fred Hlad contracted to build a home for the Nelsons and complete construction by November 2009. The Nelsons sued when the house was not timely completed. Nationwide defended under a reservation of rights, but then filed a declaratory judgment action.The circuit court denied Nationwide's request for declaratory relief, determining that the defective workmanship was an "occurrence." Nationwide petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition. On appeal, Nationwide argued that eight of the nine counts in the Nelsons' complaint were not caused by his defective workmanship. These allegations included breach of contract claims and intentional torts. Nationwide submitted it was not obligated to indemnify Hlad for damages that may be recovered on those counts. The court agreed that Nationwide's duty to indemnify was limited only to those claims that triggered coverage. Accordingly, Nationwide had no duty to indemnify for the eight counts alleging breach of contract and intentional torts. 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

---

Overruling Henkel, California Supreme Court Validates Assignment of Policies

October 02, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
In a major ruling, the California Supreme Court applied a statutory provision to overrule its prior decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemn. Co., 29 Cal. 4th 934 (2003) and ruled that liability policies can be assigned despite non-assignment provisions. See Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court, 2015 Cal. LEXIS 5631 (Cal. Aug. 20, 2015). The Hawaii Supreme Court relied on Henkel when it also found anti-consent provisions valid. See Del Monte Fresh Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 117 Haw. 357, 183 P.3d 734 (2007) [see posts here and here]. For decades, Fluor Corporation performed engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) operations through various corporate entities and subsidiaries. Beginning in 1971, Hartford issued up to 11 CGL policies to Fluor from 1971 to 1986. Each policy contained a consent-to-assignment clause reading: "Assignment of interest under the policy shall not bind the Company until its consent is endorsed hereon." Beginning in the mid-1980s, Fluor Corporation was sued in numerous lawsuits claiming personal injury from asbestos exposure. Fluor Corporation tendered the early lawsuits to Hartford, which accepted the defense. Fluor Corporation subsequently went through a reverse spinoff under which a newly formed subsidiary, Fluor 2, took over the continuation of the company's EPC businesses. The original Fluor transferred all of its EPC-related assets and liabilities to Fluor-2, making Fluor-2 the parent of the EPC subsidiaries. The transaction did not except any insurance rights from the transfer of "any and all" assets. 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

---

The National Labor Relations Board Joint Employer Standard is Vacated by the Eastern District of Texas

April 22, 2024 — Andrew G. Vicknair - The Dispute Resolver
Many employment laws use the concept of joint employer to make more than one business entity responsible for complying with employment law obligations towards employees who to varying degrees work for, or under the direction of entities who are not technically the employees primary employer. Nowhere is that issue more prevalent than in contractor subcontractor relationships. Over the years the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has developed various tests for determining joint employer status. Unless a business entity is an employer of individuals, the NLRB has no jurisdiction over a dispute between the workers and a business entity for whom they work. It is important for contractors to understand the importance of being an employer and the obligations that flow from such status. Likewise, it is also important to understand when a contractor may be classified as a “joint employer” over certain individuals. Depending on the specific laws involved, such a finding of joint-employer status can happen under the “joint employer doctrine” which often exists in subcontractor and temporary employment arrangements. The “joint-employer doctrine” may render a contractor responsible for another company’s employment liabilities. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrew G. Vicknair, D'Arcy Vicknair, LLC
Mr. Vicknair may be contacted at agv@darcyvicknair.com

---

No Coverage for Additional Insured After Completion of Operations

March 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fifth Circuit held there was no duty to defend an additional insured for alleged negligence after completion of the project. Woodward v. Acceptance Indemn. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2569 (5th Cir. Feb. 11, 2014). Pass Marianne, L.L.C. contracted for the construction of condominiums. The general contractor was Woodward. DCM Corporation, L.L.C. was a subcontractor for the concrete work. DCM worked on the project from January to October 2006. The entire project was completed in August 2007. Pass Marianne sold the condominiums to Lemon Drop Properties in October 2007. Lemon Drop sued Pass Marianne and Woodward a year after purchasing the condominium. Pass Marianne filed a cross-claim against Woodward alleging faulty construction and damage arising out of the construction. The claims were arbitrated. A significant issue in the arbitration was the fault of the concrete subcontractor, DCM. 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

---

An Era of Legends

May 03, 2018 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In 2010, West Coast Casualty’s Construction Defect Seminar added a new award: The Legend of an Era. West Coast Casualty recognizes “those in the construction defect community who inspire, contribute, advocate and influence others for the benefit and betterment of this community, making it a better place.” They define Legend as “One that inspires or achieves legendary fame based upon ones own achievement(s) which promises to be enduring” and Era, as “A fixed point of time from which a series of years is reckoned and an order of things prevail.” This annual award is presented at the West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Connecticut Answers Critical Questions Regarding Scope of Collapse Coverage in Homeowners Policies in Insurers’ Favor

February 10, 2020 — Kevin Sullivan - Traub Lieberman
Nationwide, homeowners’ insurers routinely face foundation wall collapse claims. But in Connecticut, where at least 30,000 homes are believed to have been constructed in the 1980s and 1990s with defective concrete, the scope of homeowners insurance for collapse claims has been a closely watched issue. In Jemiola v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 2019 WL 5955904 (Conn. Nov. 12, 2019), the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that a collapse coverage grant requiring “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose” is unambiguous and enforceable. In Jemiola, the insured homeowner purchased her home in 1986 and insured it continuously with the same insurer. In 2006, the homeowner noticed cracking in a basement wall, and was informed that the cracking likely resulted from defective concrete used in the construction of the home. The homeowner made a claim under her policy’s collapse coverage, which the insurer denied because the cracking did not compromise the structural integrity of the foundation walls. In the resulting lawsuit, the insured’s expert opined that the defective concrete substantially impaired the foundation walls’ structural integrity, but that this impairment did not commence until 2006 when the homeowner first noticed the cracking. Accordingly, the court analyzed coverage under the collapse coverage grant in effect in 2006, which defined collapse to mean “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at ksullivan@tlsslaw.com

---

Appeals Court Rules that Vertical and Not Horizontal Exhaustion Applies to Primary and First-Layer Excess Insurance

August 31, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Santa Fe Braun v. Ins. Co. of North America (No. A151428, filed 7/13/20), a California appeals court relied on Montrose Chemical Corp. of California v. Superior Court (2020) 9 Cal.5th 215 (Montrose III), to hold that absent express policy wording to the contrary, horizontal exhaustion of all primary insurance is not required in order to trigger first-layer excess coverage. Beginning in 1992, Braun was sued for asbestos injuries from refineries it constructed and maintained. Braun had primary coverage and multiple layers of excess coverage for the relevant time period. After defending for years, the primary insurers reached a settlement under which they paid their limits into a trust which would fund the ongoing defense and settlements. Certain of the excess insurers settled and also contributed to the trust. 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

---