FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

U.S., Canada, Mexico Set New Joint Clean-Energy Goal

June 30, 2016 — Tom Ichniowski – Engineering News-Record
The U.S., Canada and Mexico have agreed to boost their combined clean-energy generation to 50% of electricity production by 2025, from 37% last year. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

---

Fungi, Wet Rot, Dry Rot and "Virus": One of These Things is Not Like the Other

November 02, 2020 — Hugh D. Hughes - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
The Hartford’s so-called virus exclusion in its commercial property forms is getting a workout, and policyholders now have an argument that may help their cases move past the pleadings stage. A U.S. District Court in Florida has deemed the exclusion ambiguous and denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss.1 The exclusion applies to “presence, growth, proliferation, spread, or any activity of ’fungi’, wet rot, dry rot, bacteria or virus.”2 The Court held that the parties did not necessarily intend to exclude a pandemic. In Urogynecology, the plaintiff sought coverage for the loss of the usefulness and functionality of its business location due to the Florida Governor’s shutdown order. The policy contained a 'fungi', wet rot, dry rot, bacteria, or virus” exclusion.3 The carrier moved to dismiss, and the plaintiff argued that the exclusion only applied if COVID-19 was present on-site, which was not the case. The Court addressed none of the issues regarding direct physical loss and instead decided the motion on the fungi exclusion. The Court held the exclusion ambiguous because the exclusion of virus “does not logically align with the grouping of the virus exclusion with other pollutants such that the Policy necessarily anticipated and intended to deny coverage for these kinds of business losses.”5 In addition, the Court stated that pollution case law was not on point because “none of the cases dealt with the unique circumstances of the effect COVID-19 has had on our society – a distinction this Court considers significant.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hugh D. Hughes, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at hdh@sdvlaw.com

---

Indemnitor Owes Indemnity Even Where Indemnitee is Actively Negligent, California Court Holds

June 15, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Indemnity provisions are one of the most fought over provisions in design and construction contracts. But while parties generally understand the intent behind indemnity provisions — that one party (the “indemnitor”) agrees to indemnify (and often defend as well) another party (the “indemnitee”) from and against claims that may arise on a project — few understand how they are actually applied. In a recent Court of Appeals decision, Oltmans Construction Company v. Bayside Interiors, Inc. (March 30, 2017), Case No. A147313, the California Court of Appeals for the First District examined an indemnity provision and its “except to the extent of” provision whereby a subcontractor agreed to indemnify (and defend) a general contractor from claims arising on a project “except to the extent of” the general contractor’s active negligence or willful misconduct and whether such language either: (1) bars a general contractor from seeking indemnity where the general contractor was actively negligent; or (2) simply bars a general contractor from seeking indemnity where the general contractor was actively and solely negligent, thereby, requiring a subcontractor to indemnify the general contractor where the negligence of another party may have also contributed to the injury or damage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Trump Tower Is Now One of NYC’s Least-Desirable Luxury Buildings

July 08, 2019 — Shahien Nasiripour - Bloomberg
Trump Tower, once the crown jewel in Donald Trump’s property empire, now ranks as one of the least desirable luxury properties in Manhattan. The 36-year-old building has been turned into a fortress since Trump won the presidency, ringed with concrete barriers and the two main entrances partially blocked off. It hasn’t been substantially updated in years. And Trump’s name has been a huge turnoff in liberal New York City. For anyone who owns a unit in the tower, the past two years have been brutal. Most condo sales have led to a loss after adjusting for inflation, property records show. Several sold at more than a 20% loss. By contrast, across Manhattan, just 0.23% of homes over the past two years sold at a loss, according to real-estate data provider PropertyShark, although the firm doesn’t adjust for inflation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shahien Nasiripour, Bloomberg

---

Close Enough Only Counts in Horseshoes and Hand Grenades

March 08, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In State Farm General Insurance Company v. Oetiker, Inc., Case No. B302348 (December 18, 2020), a manufacturer sued in subrogation action under the Right to Repair Act almost got away. Almost. The Oetiker Case James and Jennifer Philson’s home was substantially completed, and a notice of completion was recorded, in 2004. In 2016, the Philsons tendered a claim to their homeowner’s insurance carrier, State Farm General Insurance Company, after their home experienced significant water damage due to a defective stainless steel ear clamp. In 2018, after paying the Philson’s claim, State Farm filed a subrogation action against the manufacturer of the ear clamp, Oetiker, Inc. State Farm’s complaint, which included causes of action for negligence, strict products liability and breach of implied warranty, alleged that the home was “damaged by a water leak from the failure of a defective stainless steel ear claim on a water PEX fitting” and that the ear clamp was “defective when it left the control of [Oetiker].” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

A Few Things You Might Consider Doing Instead of Binging on Netflix

April 13, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Governments throughout the world have issued “shelter in place” orders requiring that residents stay at home except for “essential” purposes. As a result, in the United States, more than a third of Americans have been ordered to stay at home. This, in turn, has had a direct impact on construction projects which have slowed or have been temporarily shuttered altogether, and it will (not may) have an impact on the flow of project funds. So what can project owners and contractors do? We’ve got a few tips. 1. Read Your Contract, Paying Particular Attention to Force Majeure, No Damages for Delay and Notice Provisions For the most part, with the exception of statutory rights and remedies which we will discuss below, your contract spells out your rights and remedies should the proverbial “S” hit the fan. It is, in other words, the rules you agreed to, and you should know what those rules provide. Three provisions you should look for, and if they’re in your contract, you should review carefully are: (1) Force majeure provisions; (2) No damages for delay provisions; and (3) notice provisions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Louisiana Court Holds That Application of Pollution Exclusion Would Lead to Absurd Results

October 21, 2019 — Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A Louisiana court recently denied an excess insurer’s bid for summary judgment, finding that the insurer’s interpretation of a pollution exclusion would lead to “absurd results.” Central Crude, Inc., a crude oil transporter company, experienced an oil pipeline leak, allegedly causing damage to property belonging to Columbia Gas Transmission Company. Columbia Gas sued Central Crude seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief to compel remediation of the site. Central Crude sought coverage under a CGL primary insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual. The insurer initially agreed to cover Central Crude’s “reasonable and necessary costs” relating to the incident, but later refused to defend or indemnify Central Crude for any costs incurred from the incident. As a result, Central Crude brought suit against Liberty Mutual and its excess insurer, Great American, to enforce coverage. Great American moved for summary judgment arguing coverage was excluded by the excess policy’s pollution exclusion, which precludes coverage for injury “arising out of a discharge of pollutants.” Central Crude responded arguing that the exclusion’s applicability was invalidated or at least rendered ambiguous by the Following Form Endorsements, which reflect an intent to mirror the coverage afforded under the primary Liberty Mutual policy, and because coverage appears to be specifically authorized through the Premises Operations Liability Endorsement. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Drawing the Line: In Tennessee, the Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Apply to Contracts for Services

December 11, 2023 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Commercial Painting Co. v. Weitz Co. LLC, No. W2019-02089-SC-R11-CV, 2023 Tenn. LEXIS 39 (Weitz), the Supreme Court of Tennessee (Supreme Court) considered whether the economic loss doctrine barred the plaintiff’s claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and punitive damages arising out of a contract with the defendant for construction services. The court held that the economic loss doctrine only applies to product liability cases and does not apply to claims arising from contracts for services. This case establishes that, in Tennessee, the economic loss doctrine does not bar tort claims in disputes arising from service contracts. In Weitz, defendant, Weitz Co. LLC (Weitz), was the general contractor for a construction project and hired plaintiff Commercial Painting Co. (Commercial) as a drywall subcontractor. Weitz refused to pay Commercial for several of its payment applications, claiming that the applications were submitted untimely and contained improper change order requests. Commercial filed a lawsuit against Weitz seeking over $1.9 million in damages, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, enforcement of a mechanic’s lien, and interest and attorney’s fees under the Prompt Pay Act of 1991. Weitz filed a counterclaim for $500,000 for costs allegedly incurred due to Commercial’s delay and defective workmanship. In response, Commercial amended its complaint to add claims for fraud, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, rescission of the contract and $10 million in punitive damages. Commercial alleged that Weitz received an extension of the construction schedule but fraudulently withheld this information from Commercial and continued to impose unrealistic deadlines. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---