FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Harlem Developers Reach Deal with Attorney General

February 25, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Joseph Scarpinito and Shiraz Sanjana, developers of the Mirada condominium in Harlem, New York can avoid a contempt charge from state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, “if they make the required repairs and obtain a permanent certificate of occupancy at the property,” according to The Real Deal. Scarpinito and Sanjana “agreed to deposit $200,000 into an escrow account and make repairs to stop flooding and other defects at the 161 East 110th Street condo, which are required to obtain a certificate of occupancy from the city Department of Buildings.” Last December, the Attorney General “filed suit against the developers, alleging they submitted false filings to his office in claiming that Scarpinito’s 83-year-old mother was the actual developer of the 68-unit condo.” Furthermore, the condo board lawyers submitted a complaint to Schneiderman “detailing extensive defects in the building, including water leaks entering the building from the roof and façade.” The developers have been ordered “to submit weekly reports to the AG’s office detailing progress on the repairs and obtaining the certificate of occupancy.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Consequential Damage Claims for Insurer's Bad Faith Dismissed

April 22, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Partial dismissal of the insured's complaint seeking consequential damages for the insurer's bad faith was granted by the court. Bryant v. General Cas. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15369 (N.D. N.Y. Jan. 30, 2019). Bryant purchased from General Casualty Company of Wisconsin (GCCW) a commercial property and casualty policy to cover the insured premises. While the building was rented to a tenant who operated a restaurant, it sustained a collapse. GCCW refused to cover the loss. Bryant sued. In addition to the cost of repairing and replacing the damage to the property, Bryant alleged he was out the value of rental revenue from his tenant, which was forced to close the restaurant and relocated as a result of the unrepaired damage. 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

---

Hunton Partner Michael Levine Appointed to Law360’s 2024 Insurance Authority Property Editorial Advisory Board

May 20, 2024 — Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Washington, DC-based partner Michael Levine has been recognized for his extensive experience and insights into emerging and legacy property and business interruption insurance coverage issues by being selected to Law360’s 2024 Editorial Advisory Board for Insurance Authority Property. As a member of the board, Mike will provide feedback on Law360’s coverage of property issues and expert insight on how best to shape future reporting of issues affecting businesses across all industry sectors. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth llp Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Business Risk Exclusions Bar Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

June 28, 2013 — Tred Eyerly
The federal district court assumed there was "property damage" caused by an "occurrence," but found the business risk exclusions barred coverage for construction defect claims. Hubbell v. Carney Bros. Constr., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68331 (D. Colo. May 13, 2013). The plaintiffs entered a construction contract with the insured general contractor to build a home. After the project was one-third completed, plaintiffs terminated the contract. Experts hired by plaintiffs found a failure to properly site the residence, as the house was constructed 48 feet from the intended location; violations of county height restrictions; failure to follow building plans, which were themselves deficient; and an improperly poured foundation. The experts estimated that the costs of repairing the property to be between $1.3 and $1.5 million, and that the cost of demolishing the structure and rebuilding it would be between $1.1 and $1.3 million. After plaintiff filed suit, a stipulated judgment of $1.952 million was entered. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

BHA Announces New Orlando Location

September 30, 2019 — Donald MacGregor - Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., one of the country’s leading construction forensics and consulting firms has just announced the opening of their second Florida office. Located in Orlando, this new office will join BHA’s existing Miami location, expanding BHA’s presence in the state and increasing the firm’s ability to provide the highest level of services and logistic support to their clients in Central and North Florida, and in particular, the Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville and Tallahassee markets. Since 1993, BHA has been an industry leader in providing construction consulting and forensic services and has been a trusted partner with builders and insurance carriers, both large and small, across the United States. In Florida, BHA has been providing construction defect, storm, and general construction-claims related forensic expert services for the past decade with a proven track record of successful results. With the addition of new offices in Orlando, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc. offers the experience of over 20 years of service to carriers, defense counsel, and insurance professionals as designated experts in over 7,000 claims. BHA’s staff encompasses a broad range of Florida-licensed and credentialed experts in the areas of general contracting and specialty trades, as well as architects, and both civil and structural engineers, and has provided services on behalf of carriers, developers, general contractors and sub-contractors alike. BHA’s new Orlando office is located in the Regions Bank Tower, 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 800, Orlando FL, 32801. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Donald MacGregor, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
Mr. MacGregor may be contacted at donm@berthowe.com

---

Choice of Laws Test Mandates Application of California’s Continuous and Progressive Trigger of Coverage to Asbestos Claims

June 01, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Textron v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. (No. B262933, filed 2/25/20), a California appeals court held that the Restatement’s choice of laws factors mandated application of California’s continuous and progressive trigger of coverage to asbestos claims, overcoming an argument that a manifestation trigger should apply under Rhode Island law. Travelers insured Textron from 1966 to 1987. In 2011, Textron was sued by a California resident, Esters, for damages caused by mesothelioma resulting from asbestos exposure in California. The action was defended and settled by Travelers and other insurers under reservations of rights. Textron sued Travelers in California for a declaration that Travelers owed duties to defend and indemnify the Esters action. Travelers cross-complained, seeking reimbursement. The case turned on choice of law for trigger of coverage as between California and Rhode Island. Citing Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 645 and Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1, the Textron court noted that California applies a continuous trigger to continuous or progressively deteriorating injury. By contrast, in Rhode Island a covered occurrence exists “when the damage … manifests itself, … is discovered or, … in the exercise of reasonable diligence is discoverable.” (Citing Textron, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. (R.I. 2002) 754 A.2d 742.) According to Travelers, the Esters action was not covered under Rhode Island law because the plaintiff’s mesothelioma was not diagnosed until 2010, after Travelers was off the risk. 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

---

“To Indemnify, or Not to Indemnify, that is the Question: California Court of Appeal Addresses Active Negligence in Indemnity Provisions”

April 05, 2017 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & Omar Parra – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In California, it is well-established that the extent of a party’s obligation under an indemnity agreement is an issue of contractual interpretation, and it is therefore the intent of the parties that should control. What is the parties’ intent, then, when a subcontractor (indemnitor) agrees to indemnify the general contractor (indemnitee) “except to the extent the claims arise out of the general contractor’s active negligence or willful misconduct”? Does this mean the general contractor is barred entirely from recovering any indemnity if its active negligence contributed to the injury? Not according to the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal, which recently held that an actively negligent general contractor may still recover indemnity for the portion of liability attributable to the fault of others. Oltmans Construction Co. v. Bayside Interiors, Inc., No. A147313, 2017 WL 1179391, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2017). In Oltmans Construction, an employee of O’Donnell Plastering, Inc. (“O’Donnell”), a sub-subcontractor of Bayside Interiors, Inc. (“Bayside”), which was a subcontractor to Oltmans Construction Company (“Oltmans”), sustained injuries when he fell through a skylight opening in the roof of a building under construction. The employee filed suit against Bayside, Oltmans, and the building’s owner, arguing Oltmans negligently cut and left unsecured the skylight opening. Oltmans subsequently filed a Cross-Complaint against Bayside and O’Donnell, contending it was entitled to indemnification under the governing agreements. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Resolving Condominium Construction Defect Warranty Claims in Maryland

September 04, 2018 — Nicholas D. Cowie - Maryland Condo Construction Defect Blog
A Guide for Maryland Condominium Associations Newly constructed and newly converted condominiums in Maryland often contain concealed or “latent” construction defects. Left undetected and unrepaired, latent defects stemming from the original construction of a condominium can cause extensive damage over time, requiring associations to assess their members for unanticipated repair costs that could have been avoided by making timely developer warranty claims. This article provides a general overview of how Maryland condominium associations transitioning from developer control can proactively identify and resolve construction defect claims with condominium developers and builders before warranty and other legal rights expire. This proactive approach typically results in an amicable resolution without the need for litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott
Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

---