FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Of Pavement and Pandemic: Liability and Regulatory Hurdles for Taking It Outside

September 21, 2020 — Jeff Clare - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to ravage the U.S. economy, restaurateurs and bar owners are feeling the brunt of business closures and adaptations necessary to combat the disease. Where cozy and intimate dining was once de rigueur for the restaurant industry, these businesses must now shift to outdoor dining with adequate space and airflow between parties. In response to these concerns, many cities across the country who once fought against the loss of any parking have turned to a post-automobile tactic: outdoor dining in thoroughfares and parking lots. While at first glance it might seem a simple enough prospect—throw some chairs and a table out front, and voilà—property owners and restaurateurs must remain cognizant of various liability and regulatory hurdles for operating outside. With Great Space Comes Great … Potential Liability. One of the largest concerns for landowners in operating in a new space for business is liability. Who is on the hook if someone gets hurt dining in an impromptu dining space in a parking lot? Prior to beginning new outdoor dining operations, landowners and restaurateurs should contact their insurance providers to ensure that the new space is included in their insurance coverage. This is a particular concern for larger commercial landowners who may have various businesses vying to use their parking lot for business. Many leases have carefully crafted clauses limiting where a business may operate and where their liability ceases. Landowners and business owners should review their leases for any such clauses and negotiate with one another to ensure that liability in these new spaces is clearly defined. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Clare, Pillsbury
Mr. Clare may be contacted at jeff.clare@pillsburylaw.com

---

Eighth Circuit Affirms Finding of Bad Faith, Award of Costs and Prejudgment Interest

October 25, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding of bad faith and award to the insured of taxable costs and prejudgment interest. Selective Ins. Co. v. Sela, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 26062 (8th Cir. Aug. 30, 2021). The insured suffered two hail storms that damaged his home. In 2010, the first storm caused over half a million dollars in loss. Before submitting a claim to his original insurer or beginning any repairs, the insured secured a new policy with Selective. The policy did not exclude pre-existing damage, it did preclude coverage if the insured "willfully and with intent to defraud, concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance relating to the insurance." Before issuing the policy, Selective appraised the property and assigned a $1.6 million value to the home. The insured then filed a claim with his original insurer and received $510,787.23 for actual cash value of his loss. Neither the terms of this settlement nor this new policy with Selective required the insured to repair all of the 2010 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

---

Pennsylvania Considers Changes to Construction Code Review

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Pennsylvania may soon change how it adopts changes to its implementation of the Uniform Construction Code, but it’s not clear which method will be adopted, as the Pennsylvania House and Senate have competing bills. In the Senate bill (SB1023), the only change would be that any changes to the Uniform Building Code made by the International Code Council would automatically become part of the Pennsylvania building code, unless rejected by a two-thirds vote of the Pennsylvania UCC Review and Advisory Council. Under current Pennsylvania law, changes are adopted only with a two-thirds approval of the RAC. The House bill (HB1209), separates the commercial code from the residential code. Under the House proposal, the RAC would reject changes to the commercial building code on a two-thirds vote, otherwise they would be adopted, but in the residential building code, changes would be rejected unless the RAC approved them by a two-thirds vote. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

When Do You Call Your Lawyer?

October 08, 2014 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
The National Association of Home Builders recently conducted a survey asking its members about the legal issues they faced in the last 12 months and whether they consulted their attorney to deal with the problem. Below are some highlights of the survey. Legal Issue    % of Homebuilders %    Contacted Counsel Warranty/call back claims    34%    51% Contract disputes    22%    84% Defective Install/Workmanship    20%    83% OSHA Issues    13%    33% CGL Coverage Questions    11%    73% Construction Liens    10%    57% Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---

Biden Administration Issues Buy America Guidance for Federal Infrastructure Funds

April 25, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
As you know, late this past year Congress passed and President Biden signed the largest infrastructure bill since President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” in 1933. The infrastructure bill provides $1.2 trillion in spending on the nations’ infrastructure over the next five years. On Monday, the Biden Administration issued Initial Implementation Guidance requiring that, beginning May 14, 2022, materials paid for with infrastructure bill funds be made in America. The Guidance, which implements the “Buy America” provisions of the infrastructure bill requires that: 1. All iron and steel used in a project be produced in the United States; Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

New York’s Highest Court Gives Insurers “an Incentive to Defend”

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The New York Court of Appeals, that state’s highest court, has ruled that when an insurer disclaims duty to defend, “if the disclaimer is found bad, the insurance company must indemnify its insured for the resulting judgment, even if policy exclusions would have otherwise negated the duty to indemnify.” The insurer who makes a failed claim that there was no duty to defend cannot thereafter claim exclusions. This recent New York decision is discussed by Allen R. Wolff and Eric R. Reed of Anderson Kill in their Policyholder Advisor. They note that the decision “confirms that the estoppel rule applies in New York , as it does in at least four other states.” But this may not be the last word. American Guarantee made a motion for reargument, which the court granted. The case will return to the court in January 2014. They note that “if paying defense costs is the only consequence an insurance company faces for breaching its duty to defend the insured, an insurance company has a financial incentive to ‘kick the can down the road.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

“But I didn’t know what I was signing….”

May 30, 2018 — Bobby Kethcart - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In real estate cases—which frequently involve long purchase agreements, loan documents, personal guarantees, deeds of trust, etc.—we’ve likely all had a client or opposing party who trots out the line that they didn’t know what they were signing, or they didn’t read or understand what they were signing, so the document shouldn’t be enforced according to its terms. Most of us instinctively believe the claim is a loser: You signed the document, you’re bound by it. But is this actually right? Well, we did some digging. Here is the Arizona law on the subject: Nationwide Resources Corp. v. Massabni, 134 Ariz. 557, 658 P.2d 210 (App. 1982):

“A mistake of only one of the parties to a contract in the expression of his agreement or as to the subject matter does not affect its binding force and ordinarily affords no ground for its avoidance, or for relief, even in equity.” “A manifestation of acceptance to the offeror or his agent forms a contract regardless of the intent of the acceptor.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bobby Kethcart, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Kethcart may be contacted at rkethcart@swlaw.com

---

Connecticut Crumbling Concrete Cases Not Covered Under "Collapse" Provision in Homeowner's Policy

July 01, 2019 — Kerianne E. Kane - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
What do you do when your house falls out from underneath you? Over the last few years, homeowners in northeastern Connecticut have been suing their insurers for denying coverage for claims based on deteriorating foundations in their homes. The lawsuits, which have come to be known as the “crumbling concrete cases,” stem from the use of faulty concrete to pour foundations of approximately 35,000 homes built during the 1980s and 1990s. In order to save their homes, thousands of homeowners have been left with no other choice but to lift their homes off the crumbling foundations, tear out the defective concrete and replace it. The process typically costs between $150,000 to $350,000 per home, and homeowner’s insurers are refusing to cover the costs. As a result, dozens of lawsuits have been filed by Connecticut homeowners in both state and federal court. Of those cases, three related lawsuits against Allstate Insurance Company were the first to make it to the federal appellate level.1 The Second Circuit Court of Appeals was tasked with deciding one common issue: whether the “collapse” provision in the Allstate homeowner’s policy affords coverage for gradually deteriorating basement walls that remain standing. The Allstate policies at issue were “all-risk” policies, meaning they covered “sudden and accidental direct physical losses” to residential properties. While “collapse” losses were generally excluded, the policies did provide coverage for a limited class of “sudden and accidental” collapses, including those caused by “hidden decay,” and/or “defective methods or materials used in construction, repair or renovations.” Covered collapses did not include instances of “settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Kane may be contacted at kek@sdvlaw.com

---