FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Building Group Has Successful 2012, Looks to 2013

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The North State Building Industry Association has looked back at 2012, and feels that they are “well-positioned to addressed future challenges in 2013 and beyond.” The organization, which represents home builders in Northern California, had several major accomplishments in 2012. The NSBIA has managed to reduce fees that builders must pay. Due to their work with the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District and the Sacramento Area Sewer District over the last several years, a new rate and fee methodology has been adopted, saving builders $3,000 per single family unit in SRCSD fees and $1,000 per acre in SASD fees. Fees were also reduced through agreements with the Folsom Cordova unified and Elk Grove school districts. The city of Rancho Cordova reduced its transportation fee by $3,500 per home. In addition to their advocacy work, the NSBIA has continued its worker training programs. During 2012, 113 people participated in their Journeyman Upgrade classes, an increase of 20 from the prior year. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Repeated Use of Defective Fireplace Triggers Duty to Defend Even if Active Fire Does Not Break Out Until After End of Policy Period

November 30, 2016 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Tidwell Enterprises v. Financial Pacific Ins. Co. (No. C078665, filed 11/29/16), a California appeals court held that that even though a house fire occurred after the policy period, there was nonetheless a possibility of coverage because the fire might have been the result of ongoing damage to the wood in the chimney chase during the policy period, due to the exposure of that wood to excessive heat from the chimney every time a fire was burned in the fireplace. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court Clarifies Sequence in California’s SB800

December 20, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
As California’s Right-To-Repair law, SB800, nears its ninth birthday, it has remained “largely untested in the legal system” as noted by Megan MacNee of Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP on the site RealEstateRama. She writes that some homeowners have requested documents prior to filing a claim, which she describes as an attempt to “game the system,” and “analogous to requiring a party to litigation to comply with discovery before a complaint is filed.” The court determined that homeowners may not request documents from the builder until they have actually filed a claim. The court noted that SB800 lacks any clear indication that homeowners may request documents before filing a claim (and also does not indicate that a builder would have to provide documents in these circumstances). The court concluded that the section that sets up the prelitigation procedures occurs before they section on documents discovery. “Because the document request is part of the prelitigation procedure, and the prelitigation procedure does not begin until the homeowner has served notice of a claim, it follows that there can be no prelitigation obligation to produce documents under section 912, subdivision (a) unless the homeowner has commenced the prelitigation procedure by serving notice of a claim.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Contract Change #1- Insurance in the A201 (law note)

April 11, 2018 — Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North Carolina
Insurance– everyone needs it; everyone would just as soon not have to deal with it. I get it, I do. Attorneys, Insurance Agents– no one likes spending time with those folk! Good news though. The changes to the A201 mean that you may end up spending less time with both! The most important change to the Insurance requirements of the AIA contract is that most of it has moved to a new Exhibit. Why is this important? Instead of having to send the entire contract to your agent or broker, you can now send them only the section that they really need to review for compliance. This also means that if insurance policies change (as they surely will), the entire contract document does not need to be re-written– the Exhibit can be updated accordingly, leaving the rest of the A201 alone. Nice, right? This change was made to streamline insurance review and provide for that flexibility of the changing insurance market. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

---

Arizona Court of Appeals Rules Issues Were Not Covered in Construction Defect Suit

December 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Peters v. Marque Homes. In this case, Walter Peters provided the land and funding for Marque Homes to build a luxury residence in Glendale, Arizona. By the terms of the “Joint Venture Agreement,” Peters provided the land and funding, while Marque would not charge Peters for overhead, profits, or supervision fees. The agreement specified that profits would be divided equally.

Two years later, Marque sued Peters claiming he had breached his obligations by refusing several offers for the home. Peters replied that Marque had “failed to complete the home so it is habitable to prospective purchasers.” Peters stated he had “retained an expert inspector who had identified numerous defects.” The court appointed a Special Commissioner to list the home for sale. Peters purchased the home with two stipulations ordered by the court. At this point, the earlier case was dismissed with prejudice.

Peters then sued Marque “asserting express and implied warranty claims arising out of alleged construction defects in the home.” Marque claimed that Peters’s claims were “precluded by the prior joint venture dispute.” The court granted Marque’s motion.

The appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision, determining that Peters’s claims were not precluded by the agreement. Although there had been a prior case between the two parties, warranty issues did not form a part of that case. “Peters never raised these allegations nor presented this evidence in support of any warranty claim.”

The court also noted that the “parties never agreed to preclude future warranty claims.” Marque and Peters “agreed in the stipulated sale order that ‘the sale of the property to a third party shall be “as is” with a 10-year structural warranty.’” The court noted that the agreement said nothing about one of the parties buying the house.

The appeals court left open a claim by Marque that there are no implied or express warranties available to Peters. They asked the Superior Court to address this.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Construction Defects Are Not An Occurrence Under New York, New Jersey Law

June 18, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, determined there was no coverage for construction defects under New York or New Jersey law. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Turner Constr. Co., 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3546 (N.Y. App. Div. May 15, 2014). The property owner retained Turner Construction to serve as the general contractor. Turner subcontracted with Permasteelisa North America Corporation to design and build the exterior wall, a "curtain wall," which consisted of granite and glass. A segment of the pipe rail system fell to the street from the eighth floor of the building. An investigation determined that more than 20% of the pipe rail connections surveyed did not conform to the building plans. Additional problems included inconsistencies in the method of rail attachment, bent brackets on the pipe rail system, cracked glass louvers, cracked glass panels, and water infiltration. 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

---

Two More Lawsuits Filed Over COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses

April 13, 2020 — Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews Kurth
Two more lawsuits were filed yesterday concerning business interruption losses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs, the Chickasaw and Choctaw nations, filed their lawsuits, copies of which can be found here and here, in Oklahoma state court against a litany of property insurers, led by AIG. The lawsuits seek an order that any financial losses suffered by the nations’ casinos, restaurants and other businesses as a result of the coronavirus pandemic are covered by the nations’ insurance policies. According to the complaints:

On or about March of 2020, the United States of America became infected by COVID 19 resulting in a pandemic. As a result of this pandemic and infection, the Nation’s Property sustained direct physical loss or damage and will continue to sustain direct physical loss or damage covered by the policies, including but not limited to business interruption, extra expense, interruption by civil authority, limitations on ingress and egress, and expenses to reduce loss. As a direct result of this pandemic and infection, the Nation’s Property has been damaged, as described above, and cannot be used for its intended purpose.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com

---

General Contractor Cited for Safety Violations after Worker Fatality

September 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The general contractor of Washington’s SR 520 Floating Bridge Project was cited by the Washington Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) “for serious safety violations following the death of worker Joe Arrants in March.” According to EHS Today, “Arrants was killed when he fell approximately 60 feet to the dock below.” EHS Today reported that during the investigation, L&I found that the fall protection systems were not used “in accordance with fall protection standards and the manufacturer’s recommendation during forming and stripping operations.” Furthermore, there was no “lifesaving skiff immediately available,” or “a ring buoy with at least 90 feet of line, which would make rescue difficult if a worker fell into the water,” and the contractor did not ensure that the hand tools and equipment were in good, working condition. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---