Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Confirms Carrier Owes No Duty to Defend Against Claims for Faulty Workmanship

April 05, 2021 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Marianne Bradley - White and Williams LLP
On March 17, 2021, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued its decision in Estate Chimney & Fireplace v. IFG Companies & Burlington Insurance Company, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50360 (E.D. Pa. March 17, 2021), finding that an insurance carrier had no duty to defend its insured where the allegations in the underlying litigation involved claims of faulty workmanship. Estates Chimney & Fireplace, LLC (Estates Chimney) had performed inspections and replaced chase covers for a number of chimneys in a condominium complex. Chase covers are pieces of metal, which are placed over chimneys in order to keep out environmental elements. Several condominium owners sued Estates Chimney, alleging that Estates Chimney had improperly installed, then improperly replaced, their chimney caps, which caused their chimneys to cease working properly. As a result, the underlying plaintiffs allegedly incurred costs to repair or replace the chimney caps and chimneys. Estates Chimney sought coverage from its carrier, who denied coverage based upon its determination that the claims in the underlying lawsuits arose out of faulty workmanship, which did not result in damage to the property of a third party. Estates Chimney filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that it was entitled to coverage under the policy. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the Eastern District ruled in favor of the carrier. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Marianne Bradley, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Bradley may be contacted at bradleym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Where Underlying Claim is Strictly Breach of Contract

June 30, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Considering certified questions from the federal district court, the Arkansas Supreme Court followed a prior decision in deciding there was no coverage for property loss caused by faulty workmanship based solely on breach of contract. Columbia Ins. Group, Inc. v. Cenark Project Mgt. Services, Inc., 2016 Ark. LEXIS 185 (Ark. April 28, 2016). The homeowners entered a contract in 2005 with Arkansas Infrastructure, Inc. (AII) to construct pads for the construction of six homes. The contract provided that AII would perform the work in accordance with the plans, specifications, and drawings developed by CENARK Project Management Services, Inc. In 2012, the homeowners sued AII for breach of contract, alleging that AII had failed to construct the pads in accordance with the plans and specifications designed by CENARK. 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

Savannah Homeowners Win Sizable Judgment in Mold Case against HVAC Contractor

August 10, 2017 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Two Savannah homeowners filed a complaint against a local air conditioning contractor and its insurer, asserting claims of professional negligence and fraud. The couple alleged that in March 2009, the contractor replaced the duct system of their home’s air conditioning unit. The following June, the couple discovered mold growth on the vent covers. They hired an independent contractor who upon inspection concluded that the duct system, which contained holes, gaps, loose connections and insufficient mastic, had been defectively installed in violation of the applicable city ordinances, resulting in excessive moisture and mold contamination throughout the residence. The homeowners alleged that they grew ill with respiratory problems as a result and were subsequently forced to vacate the residence and abandon their personal belongings. Their complaint sought to recover repair costs, moving costs, expenses associated with rental property, costs of living, costs related to the replacement of personal property, medical expenses, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Preserving Lien Rights on Private Projects in Washington: Three Common Mistakes to Avoid

September 16, 2024 — Kristina Southwell - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The Washington Construction Lien Statute, RCW 60.04 et seq., exists to help secure payment for work performed for the improvement of real property.[1] The statute grants “any person furnishing labor, professional services, materials, or equipment for the improvement of real property” the authority to claim “a lien upon the improvement for the contract price of labor, professional services, materials, or equipment furnished.” RCW 60.04.021. Exercising lien rights is one of the most useful tools available to a contractor or supplier trying to recover payment owed on a project. A properly recorded lien binds the project property, which is typically the most valuable asset held by the owner, as security for the amounts owed to the lien claimant. Additionally, the lien statute provides a basis for the claimant to recover the costs of recording the lien and its attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in litigating the foreclosure of the lien. While the lien statute authorizes the right to lien, it also provides a series of strict requirements and procedures that a claimant must follow to properly exercise its rights. The claimant must carefully comply with all statutory requirements. This article does not endeavor to explain all the intricacies of the lien statute, but rather discusses three of the most common mistakes that result in the loss of lien rights. See our lien and bond claim manual for a more detailed guide to construction liens in Washington. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kristina Southwell, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Southwell may be contacted at kristina.southwell@acslawyers.com

Construction Contract Terms Matter. Be Careful When You Draft Them.

February 01, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In a prior post, I discussed the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. Bae Sys. Ordinance Sys in the context of the interplay between fraud, contract, and statutes of limitation. Some cases just keep on giving. This time the case illustrates the need for careful drafting of those pesky, and highly important, clauses in your construction documents. In the current iteration of this ongoing saga, the Court considered the contractual aspects of the matter. As a reminder, the facts are as follows: In May 2011, the United States Army (“Army) awarded BAE Systems Ordnance Systems, Inc. (“BAE”) a contract to design and construct a natural gas-fired combined heating and power plant for the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (“RAAP”). On October 7, 2015, BAE issued a request for a proposal from Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC (“Fluor”) to design and build a temporary boiler facility at a specific location on the RAAP property. On October 13, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to change the location of the boiler facility. On December 10, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to require BAE to design and construct a permanent boiler facility. On December 30, 2015, Fluor and BAE executed a fixed-price subcontract for Fluor to design and construct the temporary boiler. Throughout 2016, BAE issued several modifications to Fluor’s subcontract to reflect the modifications BAE received from the Army on the prime contract. On March 23, 2016, BAE directed Fluor to build a permanent – rather than temporary – boiler facility. On March 28, 2016, Fluor began construction of the permanent facility and began negotiations with BAE about the cost of the permanent facility. On September 1, 2016, the parties reached an agreement on the cost for the design of the permanent facility, but not on the cost to construct the permanent facility. On November 29, 2016, the parties executed a modification to the subcontract, officially replacing the requirement to construct a temporary facility with a requirement to construct a permanent facility and agreeing to “negotiate and definitize the price to construct by December 15, 2016.” The parties were unable to reach an agreement on the construction price. 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

North Carolina Learns More Lessons From Latest Storm

October 16, 2018 — Pam Radtke Russell - Engineering News-Record
There’s no big wall planned to protect North Carolina’s coast from storm surge. There’s no massive tunnel system proposed to keep floodwaters away from populated areas. There are no grant-funded resilience competitions to help the state plan to manage water more effectively. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pam Radtke Russell, ENR
Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com

Judgment for Insurer Reversed Due to Failure to Establish Depreciation

August 01, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The trial court erred in placing the burden on the policyholder to establish depreciation in determining the actual cash value of the loss. SFR Serv., LLC v. Tower Hill Prime Ins. Co., 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 3570 (Fla. Ct. App. May 26, 2023). The insureds' roof was damaged by Hurricane Irma. They submitted their claim to their insurer, Tower Hill. The cost of repair was assessed at $7,726.94, below the amount of the deductible. Therefore, there was no recovery under the policy. The insureds assigned their claim to SFR Services, LLC, their roofing contractor. SFR submitted a claim to Tower Hill for $162,083.84. Tower Hill refused to pay and SFR sued. 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

Insureds Survive Motion to Dismiss Civil Authority Claim

September 29, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
After suffering business losses due to a hurricane, the insured's Civil Authority claim survived the insurer's motion to dismiss. Pathology Lab. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145129 (W.D. La. Aug. 3, 2021). Hurricane Laura devastated Lake Charles, Louisiana causing severe damage to the insured property as well as other properties within a mile of the insured property. All seven electrical transmission line corridors feeding Lake Charles were catastrophically damaged causing an extensive power outage. Government shutdown Orders prohibited the insureds' access to the Lab. The Orders were issued by the respective civil authorities both in anticipation of and as a result of damage and dangerous physical conditions expected from and actually resulting from Hurricane Laura and the continuation thereof. When the hurricane arrived, all businesses that were not essential to the recovery were ordered closed until electricity, water and sewer services were restored. As a result, the Lab was closed from August 27, 2020 toSeptember 8, 2020. The Lab sued for business income under the policy's Civil Authority provisions. Mt. Hawley moved to dismiss. Mt. Hawley argued that the Orders did not by their explicit terms close the Lab's business because closure was entirely dependent on the conditions of the described premises itself and whether it was safe to occupy. Mt. Hawley further argued that the mandatory Evacuation Order was issued in anticipation of property damage and therefore did not trigger coverage under the Civil Authority provision. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES