FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Taylor Morrison v. Terracon and the Homeowner Protection Act of 2007

June 11, 2014 — Buck Mann – Colorado Construction Litigation
On January 30, 2014, the Colorado Court of Appeals decided the case of Taylor Morrison of Colorado, Inc. v. Bemas Construction, Inc. and Terracon Consultants, Inc. 2014WL323490. The case addressed a substantial issue of Colorado constitutional law, as well as a variety of procedural issues of potential importance to construction litigation attorneys. Of particular interest is the question of whether the provisions of the 2007 Homeowner Protection Act (“HPA”) are limited in application to contracts between residential homeowners and construction professionals, or whether they have broader application between commercial construction professional parties as well. As discussed below, the Court of Appeals stated that it would not answer the question, and then, separately, implied that the statute might only apply to homeowner transactions – with the resulting exclusion of commercial transactions. However, after its analysis, it left the actual decision of that issue to a future court in a later case. The factual background for the case involved claims of breach of a contract for soils engineering by Terracon Consultants, Inc. (“Terracon”) and negligent excavation work by Bemas Construction, Inc. (“Bemas”). Plaintiff was Taylor Morrison of Colorado (“Taylor Morrison”), the developer and general contractor for a residential subdivision called Homestead Hills. After it constructed many homes, Taylor Morrison began to receive complaints of cracking drywall resulting from foundation movement and it made repairs at significant expense. Taylor Morrison then filed suit against Terracon and Bemas in connection with their respective roles in the original construction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Buck Mann, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Mann may be contacted at mann@hhmrlaw.com

---

COVID-19 Response: Essential Business Operations: a High-Stakes Question Under Proliferating “Stay at Home” Orders

April 27, 2020 — Karen C. Bennett, Katherine I. Funk & Jane C. Luxton - Lewis Brisbois
An ever-expanding number of states and local government authorities are issuing “shelter in place” or “stay at home” orders that restrict the movement of employees of non-essential businesses. These orders have prompted many businesses to question whether they qualify as “essential,” requiring employees to continue working. With substantial differences among the stay at home orders – and even potential conflicts between state and local directives – it is a matter of extreme urgency for businesses to determine whether they fall within the definition of “essential,” particularly as many of these orders include civil and criminal penalties. Developments are unfolding very quickly, and clients we are advising are encountering law enforcement visits and threats of criminal prosecution as a consequence of decisions to stay open. As these designations are heavily fact-specific, and being revised, advance preparation and advice of counsel are essential. Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois attorneys Karen C. Bennett, Katherine I. Funk and Jane C. Luxton Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Funk may be contacted at Katherine.Funk@LewisBrisbois.com Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Haight has been named a Metropolitan Los Angeles Tier 1 “Best Law Firm” in four practice areas and Tier 2 in one practice area by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2021

November 30, 2020 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP is listed in the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® (2021 Edition) “Best Law Firms” list with five metro rankings in the following areas: Los Angeles

• Tier 1
• Insurance Law
• Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
• Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
• Product Liability Litigation – Plaintiffs

• Tier 2
• Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

---

Texas Supreme Court Cements Exception to “Eight-Corners” Rule Through Two Recent Rulings

March 06, 2022 — Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
The Texas “eight corners” rule precludes insurers from disclaiming a defense obligation based on facts not alleged in the underlying pleadings. Texas federal and appellate courts have been issuing rulings addressing exceptions to the eight corners rule and recently sought guidance from the Texas Supreme Court on whether Texas law recognizes such exceptions to the “eight corners” rule. The Texas Supreme Court has now spoken on the issue. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. BITCO Gen. Ins. Corp., 65 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 440 (2022). In Monroe, David Jones contracted with 5D Drilling & Pump Services in the summer of 2014 to drill a 3,600-foot commercial irrigation well on his farmland. In 2016, Jones sued 5D for breach of contract and negligence relating to 5D’s drilling operations on Jones’s property. Jones’s pleading was silent as to when the damage flowing from 5D’s alleged acts of misconduct occurred. BITCO and Monroe stipulated that 5D’s drill struck a bore hole during 5D’s drilling operations in or around November 2014. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

---

KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: An Exception to the Four Corners Rule

October 29, 2014 — Zach McLeroy – Colorado Construction Litigation
In Colorado, the “complaint rule,” also known as the “four corners rule,” requires an insurer to provide a defense when an underlying complaint alleges any set of facts that may fall within an insurance policy. This can result in a situation where an insurer has a duty to defend although the underlying facts ultimately do not fall within the policy. In KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance, 2014 WL 4409876, District Court Judge Richard P. Matsch recognized an exception to the complaint rule. In doing so, Judge Matsch determined that a court may look beyond the complaint to judicial orders preceding the filing of the complaint to determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend. Therefore, a party may not be able to assert unsupported facts in a complaint for the sole purpose of triggering an insurance policy. KF 103 v. American Family arose out of an underlying easement dispute. In the underlying case, KF 103-CV, LLC (“KF 103”) purchased a piece of property from the Infinity Group. As a condition of the purchase agreement, Infinity Group was required to complete improvements to boundary streets and the intersection of Ski Lane and Sorpresa Lane. Several adjoining property owners (the “neighbors”) objected to the modification of the intersection because it violated an express easement (the “easement”) that provided access to their properties. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zach McLeroy, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLeroy may be contacted at McLeroy@hhmrlaw.com

---

Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss

November 28, 2018 — CDJ STAFF
The Second Circuit recently held that competing “anti-concurrent cause” provisions in a commercial property policy present a potential ambiguity that could result in favor of coverage for losses sustained by Madelaine Chocolate after storm surge from Hurricane Sandy combined to cause substantial damage to Madelaine’s property and a resulting loss of income. Madelaine was insured under an all-risk insurance policy issued by Chubb subsidiary Great Northern Insurance Company. By endorsement, Madelaine’s policy added “windstorm” as a covered peril and defined “windstorm” as “wind… regardless of any other cause or event that directly or indirectly contributes concurrently to, or contributed in any sequence to, the loss or damage.” The policy also included a common flood exclusion that removed coverage for loss or damage caused by or resulting from waves, tidal water, or tidal waves, or the rising, overflowing, or breaking of any natural harbors, oceans, or any other body of water, whether driven by wind or not. Like the windstorm endorsement, the flood exclusion contained concurrency language that broadened the exclusion to any loss to which flood contributed, regardless of any other cause or event that directly or indirectly contributed to the loss. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Tae Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Andrews may be contacted at tandrews@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Tighter Requirements and a New Penalty for Owners of Vacant or Abandoned Storefronts in San Francisco

June 18, 2019 — Matt Olhausen - Gravel2Gavel
Ordinance 52-19 became effective in April 2019 and expands upon existing San Francisco Building Code registration requirements for “Vacant or Abandoned” “Commercial Storefronts.” A storefront becomes “Vacant or Abandoned” once it has been unoccupied for 30 days (among other earlier triggers for blighted or unsecured storefronts). A “Commercial Storefront” is broadly defined as “any area within a building that may be individually leased or rented for any purpose other than Residential Use as defined in Planning Code.” (See § 103.A.5.1 of the San Francisco Building Code.) So, a building that is 97% leased could still contain a Vacant or Abandoned Commercial Storefront, which would technically require registration under the Building Code. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matt Olhausen, Pillsbury
Mr. Olhausen may be contacted at matt.olhausen@pillsburylaw.com

---

Chattanooga Bridge Collapse Likely Resulted From Impact

April 17, 2019 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
Tennessee highway officials believe an impact from a vehicle’s oversized load is likely to blame for the April 1 partial collapse of a ramp structure at the I-75/I-24 interchange in Chattanooga. The impact caused the outer box beam and railing of the 148-ft-long bridge’s nearly 51-ft main span to fall onto an access ramp, injuring a motorist whose vehicle collided with the debris. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

---