Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Federal Court Holds that Demolition Exclusion Does Not Apply and Carrier Has Duty to Defend Additional Insureds

September 02, 2024 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
In the recent case of Travelers Indem. Co. v. Trisura Specialty Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101953 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2024), the court had occasion to consider the classic additional insured fact pattern of a construction accident. Travelers insured the general contractor and provided a defense to the general contractor as well as its wholly owned subsidiary. Trisura insured the subcontractor, who employed the injured worker. Travelers brought suit, alleging that Trisura is obligated to defend and indemnify the general contractor, its subsidiary, the owner of the building (The City of New York), and the tenant. Trisura denied any obligation to provide coverage due to the application of the “Demolition Exclusion” to the Trisura policy, which provides, in part, that there is no coverage for injury or damage arising out of the demolition of any building or structure which has original ground height in excess of three stories. The accident occurred during the interior demolition of the fifth floor of the building. The court held that the Demolition Exclusion applies only when there is a complete tearing down, razing, or destruction of an entire building. As the accident occurred during interior demolition, the exclusion did not apply. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

No Duty to Defend Under Pollution Policy

February 11, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found there was no duty to defend or indemnify under a pollution policy for claims arising from a building fire. URS Corp. v. Zurich Am Ins. Co., 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 222 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 16, 2014). Two firemen were killed while fighting a fire at the Deutsch Bank building in New York City. The owner of the building, URS, was sued by the estates of the two deceased firemen and other firemen who were injured by the fire. URS was an additional insured under a contractors pollution liability policy issued by Hudson Specialty Insurance Company. The policy promised to pay for damages to the insured "if the damages result from a pollution condition." "Pollution condition" was defined as "the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, [etc.]" The policy explicitly noted that it did not provide commercial general liability coverage. Hudson denied coverage and URS sued. 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

West Virginia Wild: Crews Carve Out Corridor H Through the Appalachian Mountains

May 08, 2023 — Aileen Cho - Engineering News-Record
When crews with Kokosing Construction Co. began a $209-million design-build contract—the largest of its kind in West Virginia—in 2015, they first had to build roads in order to build the actual road called Corridor H. Reprinted courtesy of Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Can a Contractor be Liable to Second Buyers of Homes for Construction Defects?

November 05, 2014 — Craig Martin - Construction Contractor Advisor
Whether a contractor will be liable to a second purchaser, even though the contractor never contracted with the second purchaser, varies state to state. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Conway v. The Cutler Group, is the latest court to rule that a subsequent purchaser lacks privity and cannot pursue an action against the builder. In that case, the Conways purchased a home from the original owner. After living in the home for about two years, the Conways discovered water leaking around the windows. The Conways sued the builder, alleging breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The builder defended the claim, asserting that it had not contracted with the Conways and thus had not provided any warranties to the Conways. The trial court agreed and dismissed the claim. The first level of appellate court reversed the trial court, holding that the warranty of habitability was intended to level the playing field between the builder and purchaser of a home and it should be extended to subsequent purchasers. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed and refused to extend any warranties to subsequent purchasers. 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

Keep Your Construction Claims Alive in Crazy Economic Times

May 25, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Coronavirus is dominating the news. Construction in Virginia is facing what is at best an uncertain future and at worst a series of large scale shutdowns due to COVID-19. The number of cases seem to grow almost exponentially on a daily basis while states and the federal government try and patch together a solution. All of this adds up to the possibility that owners and other construction related businesses could shutter and importantly payment streams can slow or dry up. Aside from keeping your contractual terms in mind and meeting the notice deadlines found in your contract, these uncertain economic times require you to be aware of the claims process. Along with whatever claims process is set out in the contract and your run of the mill breach of contract through non-payment type claims, in times like this payment bond and mechanic’s lien claims are a key way to protect your payment interest. The law has differing requirements for each of these unique types of payment claims. Mechanic’s liens are technical and statute based with very picky requirements. The form and content of a memorandum of lien will be strictly read and in most cases form will trump substance. Further, among other requirements best discussed with a Virginia construction lawyer, you must keep in mind two numbers, 90 and 150. The 90 days is the amount of time that you have in which to record a lien. This deadline is generally calculated from the last date of work (or possibly the last day of the last month in which you did work). File after this deadline and your lien will be invalid because the right to record a lien has expired. The 150 days is a look back from the last day of work or the date of lien filing, whichever is sooner in time. The 150 days applies to the work that can be captured in the lien. In other words, it dictates the amount of the lien. 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

Superintendent’s On-Site Supervision Compensable as Labor Under Miller Act

March 13, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent Miller Act payment bond decision out of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. f/u/b/o Civil Construction, LLC v. Hirani Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, 58 F.4th 1250 (D.C. Circ. 2023), dealt with the issue of whether a subcontractor’s superintendent constitutes recoverable “labor” within the meaning of the Miller Act and compensable as a cost under the Miller Act that typically views labor as on-site physical labor. The issue is that the Miller Act covers “[e]very person that has furnished labor or material in carrying out work provided for in a contract.” Civil Construction, supra, at 1253 quoting 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(1). The Miller Act does not define labor. The subcontractor claimed labor includes actual superintending at the job site. The surety disagreed that a superintendent’s presence on a job site constitutes labor as the superintendent has to actually perform physical labor on the job site to constitute compensable labor under the Miller Act. The subcontractor argued its subcontract and the government’s quality control standards required detailed daily reports that verified manpower, equipment, and work performed at the job site. It further claimed its superintendent had to continuously supervise and inspect construction activities on-site: “[the] superintendent had to be on-site to account for, among other things, hours worked by crew members, usage and standby hours for each piece of equipment, materials delivered, weather throughout the day, and all work performed. These on-site responsibilities reflected the government’s quality control standards, under which the superintendent as ‘the most senior site manager at the project, is responsible for the overall construction activities at the site…includ[ing] all quality, workmanship, and production of crews and equipment.” Civil Construction, supra, at 1253-54. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Earth Movement Exclusion Denied

October 28, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

After carefully dissecting the earth movement exclusion, the court denied the insurer’s motion for summary judgment. High Street Lofts Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109043 (D. Colo. Sept. 26, 2011).

The City of Boulder performed road repair work near High Street’s property, some of which involved the use of a vibrating compactor to compact and set the roadbed. High Street noticed damage to its building, such as cracks in walls, sloping of floors and separations of porches from the building itself. High Street contacted the City of Boulder, who forwarded the complaint to its contractor, Concrete Express, Inc.

High Street also filed a claim with its business insurer, American Family, who denied the claim. American Family relied on an opinion letter by High Street’s engineer. The letter indicated that the damage was the result of "soil consolidation/settlement," in response to the construction activities. Based on this letter American Family concluded the claim was excluded under the policy’s earth movement exclusion.

High Street sued American Family, who moved for summary judgment.

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

The Hidden Price of Outdated Damage Prevention Laws: Part I

November 21, 2018 — Brigham A. McCown - Construction Executive
Excavators know that dialing 811 triggers a process that requires all utilities operating in the service area to find and mark the location of their underground facilities so that they are not damaged during the excavation process. In addition, marking the location of the utilities is intended to keep the public safe, for instance by preventing an excavator from striking a gas line. But excavators also know that in most states, the laws and regulations that govern these procedures are weak and that enforcement is even weaker. It’s an unfortunate fact that excavators and the public – typically the least culpable parties – suffer the consequences of weak damage prevention laws and lack of strong enforcement regimes. Reprinted courtesy of Brigham A. McCown, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES