SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

---

Colorado “occurrence”

January 06, 2012 — CDCoverage.com

In Greystone Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Co., No. 09-1412 (10th Cir. November 1, 2011), general contractors Greystone and Branan were each sued by purchases of homes built by each alleging defective construction performed by subcontractors. CGL insurer American Family Mutual Insurance Company defended both Greystone and Brannon while co-insurer National Fire & Marine Insurance Company denied a defense. Greystone, Branan, and American Family sued National Fire for contribution towards defense costs. The federal district trial court entered summary judgment for National Fire.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

---

Fifth Circuit: Primary Insurer Relieved of Duty to Defend Without Release of Liability of Insured

March 02, 2020 — Bethany L. Barrese & Ashley McWilliams - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In Aggreko, LLC v. Chartis Specialty Ins. Co.,1 the Fifth Circuit affirmed a decision by the Texas District Court and held that a Covenant Not to Execute constituted a “settlement” sufficient to exhaust policy limits and terminate a primary insurer’s duty to defend. This case arose out of a wrongful death suit filed by the parents of James Brenek II (“Brenek”). In 2014, Brenek was fatally electrocuted by an electrically energized generator housing cabinet while performing work on a rig in Texas for Guichard Operating Company, LLC (“Guichard”), a Louisiana-based drilling subcontractor. Guichard had leased the generator from Aggreko, LLC (“Aggreko”). A rental agreement between Guichard and Aggreko required Guichard to maintain commercial general liability insurance during the lease period and list Aggreko and the rig owner, Rutherford Oil Corporation (“Rutherford”), as additional insureds under the policy. Guichard’s primary insurance carrier, The Gray Insurance Company (“Gray”), agreed to defend and indemnify Aggreko and Rutherford in the wrongful death suit. The Gray policy had a limit of $1,000,000, subject to a $50,000 self-insured retention. Reprinted courtesy of Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Ashley McWilliams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com Ms. McWilliams may be contacted at amw@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Denial of Construction Defect Claim

January 27, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, confirming there was no duty to defend or indemnify a construction defect claim against the insured. Fontaine Bros. v. Acadia Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148056 (D. Mass. Aug. 29, 2019). The City of Worcester contracted with Fontaine Brothers, Inc. to install a new ice refrigeration system at the City's indoor ice rink. After construction, the condensers in two chiller units eroded and stopped operating. The City sued Fontaine for the costs of leasing temporary chillers and installing new ones. The City alleged that Fontaine installed condensers with carbon steel tubes instead of contractually required stainless stell tubes.Further, Fontaine and its subcontractors did not adequately maintain the condensers, in breach of the contract. Fontaine's insurer, Acadia Insurance Company, denied coverage. Fontaine sued Acadia. The court noted that the City's complaint plainly alleged faulty workmanship by Fontaine. However, the City's complaint did not allege that Fontaine intended the condensers to corrode and left open the possibility that Fontaine was unaware of any potential problem or did not foresee the corrosion likely to result from the use of carbon steel components or the maintenance work being done by its subcontractor. Therefore, the Cit's complaint did not foreclose the possibility that the corrosion resulting from Fontaine's alleged faulty workmanship and maintenance might be shown to be an unforeseen or unintended consequence of reckless or negligent conduct. Accordingly, it was possible that there was an occurrence under the policy language. 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

---

Sustainability Puts Down Roots in Real Estate

January 27, 2020 — Stephanie Amaru - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Sustainability has evolved from a passing trend or niche preference into an undeniable, growing driver of the real estate market. This is particularly true as millennials comprise an increasing proportion of the workforce, home-buying population, and individuals influencing the future of real estate development in the United States. If anything illustrates the significance of younger generations’ increasing interest in sustainability, it is the Global Climate Strike that drew participation of many thousands of young people, with 2,500 events scheduled in over 150 countries. In New York City, 1.1 million public school students were excused from school to join the strike in an event planned to precede the UN Summit, which itself was intended to push countries toward a commitment to faster transition to renewable energy and stricter climate targets. While both policymakers and citizens of previous generations have been split on their willingness to address global climate change with urgency, younger generations are feeling a stronger sense of responsibility for curbing the world’s trajectory towards a climate catastrophe, which will be inherited by them and their children. This has manifested in action that promotes awareness of and political action with respect to these issues—such as the Global Climate Strike—as well as evolving habits and preferences in both consumer goods and real estate. Greener Space In recent years, real estate developers have recognized that there is a market for “greener” developments that reduce annual expenditures on buildings, whether it be through small spaces requiring less electricity and promoting energy efficiency, or through renewable energy options such as solar photovoltaic power. Some real estate developers have chosen to install these options themselves, while others seek out sustainable financing options to cover the costs of renewable energy. If installing renewable energy is too costly, real estate developers will seek out more cost-effective locations for their brick-and-mortar operations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephanie Amaru, Pillsbury
Ms. Amaru may be contacted at stephanie.amaru@pillsburylaw.com

---

The Miller Act Explained

May 21, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Garret Murai, on his California Construction Law Blog, goes over the nuances of the Federal Miller Act. Murai explained, “Named after John E. Miller, former Arkansas Congressman, later U.S. Senator and still later federal judge, the Miller Act was enacted in 1935 in the middle of the Great Depression, to help ensure that subcontractors and material suppliers working on federal projects get paid, by requiring contractors who contract directly with the federal government on federal construction projects furnish payment and performance bonds.” Murai answered questions such as what is required under the act, who is protected, how a general contractor could protect itself from a Miller Act claim, as well as others. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Halliburton to Pay $1.1 Billion to Settle Spill Lawsuits

September 03, 2014 — David Wethe, Margaret Cronin Fisk and Laurel Calkins – Bloomberg
Halliburton Co. agreed to pay $1.1 billion to settle a majority of lawsuits brought over its role in the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. The agreement is subject to court approval and includes legal fees, the Houston-based company said in a statement today. Halliburton was accused by spill victims and BP Plc of doing defective cementing work on the Macondo well before the April 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Halliburton blamed the incident on decisions by BP, which owned the well. The settlement comes as the judge overseeing oil-spill cases weighs fault for the disaster. An agreement now averts the company’s risk of a more costly judgment for some spill victims and removes much of the uncertainty that has plagued Halliburton for the past four years as investors waited to see the payout tally. With its biggest piece of liability resolved, Halliburton can refocus its attention on developing new oilfield technology that will help it boost profits worldwide. Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg journalists David Wethe, Margaret Cronin Fisk and Laurel Calkins Mr. Wethe may be contacted at dwethe@bloomberg.net; Ms. Fisk may be contacted at mcfisk@bloomberg.net; and Ms. Calkins may be contacted at lcalkins@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Ambiguity Kills in Construction Contracting

May 27, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Well, I’m back and hope to have a more consistent publishing schedule moving forward. I appreciate the continued readership through what has been a busy time for my solo construction practice over the last couple of months. Now, back to our program. . . Here at Construction Law Musings, I have often beaten the drum of a solid contract that leaves as little as possible to chance or the dreaded “grey areas” where we construction lawyers like to make money. An example of the issues that can arise from ambiguity can be found in a case from 2017 in the Western District of Virginia, W.C. English, Inc. v. Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP et al In this case, English, a general contractor, entered into a contract for Quality Assurance (QA) functions with RK&K, the defendant, on a contract English entered into with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Needless to say, because this would not be a post at Musings otherwise, there were issues with the QA performed by RK&K leading to additional costs for English to correct certain work that did not comply with the contract documents between VDOT and English. English sued for breach of contract based upon a term sheet, signed by the parties, from RK&K that required RK&K to indemnify English for claims by VDOT that related to RK&K’s work (the English Term Sheet). RK&K moved to dismiss the complaint based upon a different term sheet, also signed by the parties, which stated that RK&K could not be held responsible for English’s failure to perform pursuant to the contract documents (the RK&K Term Sheet). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---