Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Misread of Other Insurance Clause Becomes Costly for Insurer

February 22, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii

One insurer's refusal to defend based upon its "other insurance" provision ultimately meant the insurer had to pay all of the insured's defense costs. Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 2018 Wis. App. LEXIS 51 (Wis. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2018).

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) was a government agency that provided water reclamation and flood management services to the city. From March 1, 1998 to February 20, 2008, MMSD contracted with United Water Services Milwaukee LLC to operate the sewerage system. From March 1, 2008 on, MMSD contracted with Veolia Water North America-Central, LLC to operate the system.

Through agreements, both companies were obligated to indemnify MMSD for claims arising out of the operations and maintenance of the system and to obtain insurance to cover their indemnity obligations. Both companies complied.

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

An Overview of the New EPA HVAC Refrigerant Regulations and Its Implications for the Construction Industry

September 30, 2024 — Stefanie A. Salomon, Nadia Ennaji & Ali Heyat - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced a series of significant changes to the rules governing the use of refrigerants in heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. These changes, which were promulgated under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act, are designed to phase down the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a class of potent greenhouse gases. The AIM Act: A Game-Changer for HVAC Industry The recent changes to refrigerant regulations by the EPA signify a substantial shift in environmental policy that will have profound implications for the construction industry. For the construction industry, this means a transition to next-generation technologies that do not rely on HFCs. The AIM Act’s sector-based restrictions will affect a wide range of equipment, including refrigeration and air conditioning systems integral to building design and function. Starting January 1, 2025, the manufacturing or importing of any product in specified sectors that uses a regulated substance with a global warming potential of 700 or greater is prohibited (40 C.F.R. § 84.54(a)). The specified sectors listed include R-410A, the most common refrigerant used in the HVAC industry. The installation of systems using a regulated substance with a global warming potential of 700 or greater in specified sectors is allowed until January 1, 2026, provided that all system components are manufactured or imported before January 1, 2025. See 40 C.F.R. § 84.54 (c). “Installation” of an HVAC system is defined as the completion of assembling the system’s circuit, including charging it with a full charge, such that the system can function and is ready for its intended purpose. See 40 C.F.R. § 84.52. Reprinted courtesy of Stefanie A. Salomon, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Nadia Ennaji, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Salomon may be contacted at ssalomon@pecklaw.com Ms. Ennaji may be contacted at nennaji@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Bars Coverage for Collapse of Building

July 31, 2013 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
The court rejected the insured's argument that there was coverage for the collapse of a building caused by water leakage (a covered peril) and landslide (an uncovered peril). Stor/Gard, Inc. v. Strathmore Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. LEXIS App. 11015 (1st Cir. May 31, 2013). A severe rain storm caused soil to slide down a hill and over a retaining wall, thereby damaging a building owned by the insured. Investigators hired by Strathmore Insurance Company determined that rain had soaked into the soil, causing the landslide. Although the investigators found some water leakage, they determined the leakage was not a cause or contributing factor, and was negligible compared to the rain amount. The insured's policy with Strathmore was an all-risk policy. Loss caused by a landslide was excluded. Further, loss caused by collapse was excluded from coverage except as set forth in the policy's "additional coverage for collapse" section. This section provided coverage for a collapse caused by water damage or a leakage of water. Another exclusion barred coverage for loss caused by weather conditions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Colorado Court of Appeals Finds Damages to Non-Defective Property Arising From Defective Construction Covered Under Commercial General Liability Policy

December 20, 2012 — HEIDI GASSMAN, HIGGINS, HOPKINS, MCLAIN & ROSWELL
The recently decided case of Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company (Colo. Ct. App. 10CA2638, October 25, 2012), confirms that absent specific exclusions in the policy, a commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy covers damages to non-defective property arising from a builder’s own defective workmanship. Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. (“Colorado Pool”) was hired as a subcontractor to install a swimming pool at Founders Village Pool and Community Center (“Founders Village”) in Castle Rock, Colorado. After the concrete shell of the pool was placed, some of the rebar frame was found to be too close to the surface. Founders Village demanded that Colorado Pool remove and replace the pool, and Colorado Pool contacted its insurance carrier, Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”), with which Colorado Pool held a CGL policy. After inspecting the pool, Scottsdale’s claims adjuster stated that the insurance policy would cover losses associated with removing and replacing the pool. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heidi Gassman, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
Ms. Gassman can be contacted at gassman@hhmrlaw.com

Supreme Court of New Jersey Reviews Statutes of Limitation and the Discovery Rule in Construction Defect Cases

July 18, 2018 — David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
Robert Neff Jr. of Wilson Elser analyzed the recent case, Palisades at Fort Lee Condo. Ass’n v. 100 Old Palisade, LLC, 2017 N.J. Lexis 845, 169 A.3d 473 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, September 14, 2017), and states that this ruling “gives defendants the ability to defend against the assertion that the statute of limitations was tolled until the most recent owner (and plaintiff) discovered the cause of action.” Neff concludes that a statute of limitations test needs to be conducted at the beginning of each case: “In Palisades, the motions to dismiss based on the statute of limitations were filed at the conclusion of all discovery. While an initial analysis might yield the conclusion that certain discovery will be needed to ascertain the appropriate accrual date (or dates, in the case of multiple defendants), counsel will then know what discovery to seek during the discovery period.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Preparing for the 2015 Colorado Legislative Session

November 26, 2014 — David M. McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation
As Colorado starts to prepare for the 2015 legislative session, construction defect reform is shaping up to be another key issue under the Capitol dome. Once again, the Homeownership Opportunity Alliance (HOA) will be leading the charge. The HOA is a coalition of Coloradans working to open the doors to homeownership by: 1) protecting consumers from unknowingly entering into litigation and establishing solid processed through which homeowners and developers can work together to achieve a positive resolution to identified defects in construction, and 2) increasing the supply of attainable, affordable housing while protecting the rights of consumers to take legal action. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

US Proposes Energy Efficiency Standards for Federal Buildings

January 04, 2023 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
The U.S. government is looking to its own buildings as a source for cutting carbon emissions with a new energy and climate performance standard. Additionally, federal officials announced a proposed rule that would eliminate energy-related emissions from new and renovated federal buildings. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Finds That SIR Requirements are Not Incorporated into High Level Excess Policies and That Excess Insurers’ Payment of Defense Costs is Not Conditioned on Actual Liability

April 22, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Deere & Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (No. A145170, filed 2/25/19), a California appeals court held that the insured was not required to pay additional self-insured retentions (SIRs) in order to trigger higher level excess coverage because the retained limits applicable to the first layer of coverage did not also apply to the higher-layer excess policies. In Deere, the insured was sued for injuries from alleged exposure to asbestos-containing assemblies used in Deere machines. In a declaratory relief action against its umbrella and excess insurers, the case was tried on: (1) whether the higher-layer excess policies were triggered once the first-layer excess policy limits, which were subject to an SIR paid by Deere, had been exhausted; and (2) whether the insurers’ indemnity obligation extended to Deere’s defense costs incurred in asbestos claims that had been dismissed. The trial court found in favor of the insurers, concluding that the retained limits in the first layer of coverage also applied to the higher-layer excess, which was not triggered until Deere paid additional SIRs. The court also concluded that the insurers were not obligated to pay defense costs when underlying cases were dismissed without payment to a claimant either by judgment or settlement. Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES