FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Review your Additional Insured Endorsement

March 26, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In his blog, Construction Contractor Advisor, Craig Martin explained the importance of reviewing your additional insured endorsement. Martin pointed out that in Mississippi, the “Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in Woodward, LLC v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company, that a general contractor, named as an additional insured, did not have coverage for claims that a subcontractor performed faulty work.” The problem “was the language in the additional insured endorsement, which provided coverage for ongoing operations, not completed operations.” While Martin admitted that the case applies to Mississippi, he concluded that “the issue Midwestern readers should consider is the court’s conclusion that non-conformance with the plans, in essence a construction defect claim, arises from completed operations.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Condo Developers Buy in Washington despite Construction Defect Litigation

October 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Marc Stiles writing for Puget Sound Business Journal stated that “[t]he belief that contractors have been scared off by the legal liabilities that come with [condo] projects doesn't seem to hold water.” He interviewed Suzi Morris, of Lowe Enterprises, who plans on building a new condo tower in Seattle this November. Morris stated that they didn’t have any problems getting construction bids for the 24-story tower. According to the Puget Sound Business Journal, “The development team is trying to head off construction defect claims by planning and documenting with photos their work.” Stiles did admit that an unnamed “source in Seattle who consults on condo projects knows of two large general contracting companies that won't bid on condo projects because of” potential construction defect litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Avoiding Wage Claims in California Construction

November 25, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
For both private works projects and state and local public works projects in California, higher-tiered contractors can find themselves opening up their wallets if their lower-tiered subcontractors fail to pay their workers. And if you think this is just another one of those crazy California things, think again. Higher-tiered parties on federal public works projects can also be asked to open up their wallets if their lower-tiered subcontractors stiff their workers. While we’re coming upon the season of giving, here’s a Scrooge-like guide on things you can do to avoid finding yourselves on the hook for your lower-tiered subcontractor’s even more Scrooge-like failure to pay their workers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Prime Contractor & Surety’s Recovery of Attorney’s Fees in Miller Act Lawsuit

February 02, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Can a claimant recover attorney’s fees in a Miller Act payment bond dispute even though the Miller Act does not contain a prevailing party attorney’s fee provision? Yes, if the underlying contract that formed the basis of the suit provided for attorney’s fees. What about a prime contractor and surety—can they recover their attorney’s fees if they prevail in a Miller Act payment bond claim and the underlying contract provides a basis for fees? The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S.A. f/u/b/o RMP Capital Corp. v. Turner Construction Co., 2017 WL 244066 (11th Cir. 2017) seemingly just answered this question in the affirmative when it reversed a lower court’s ruling that precluded a prime contractor and surety that prevailed in a Miller Act claim from recovering their attorney’s fees[.] Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

---

Professional Services Exclusion Bars Coverage Where Ordinary Negligence is Inseparably Intertwined With Professional Service

August 17, 2017 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Energy Ins. Mutual Ltd. v. Ace American Ins. Co. (No. A140656, filed 7/11/17, ord. Pub. 8/10/17), a California appeals court found that a professional services exclusion barred coverage for wrongful death and other claims blamed on pipeline inspectors’ failure to identify and properly mark a gas pipeline that was ruptured during construction of another pipeline, resulting in an explosion and fire. In Energy Ins. Mutual, a pipeline owner hired two temporary construction inspectors through a staffing company. The inspectors had to ensure compliance with engineering and safety standards, practices and procedures for pipeline construction, and understand construction drawings and blueprints. They worked together with one of the owner’s employees to perform daily surveillance to ensure the integrity of the pipeline and avoid third party damage. 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

---

California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies

November 12, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
On August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public policy” of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in Pitzer had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law – which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York – that provision can be overridden by California’s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in Pitzer also held that the notice-prejudice rule “generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,” but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context. The Pitzer case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer “denied coverage based on Pitzer’s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer’s] consent before commencing the remediation process.” The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until “three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment “claiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy’s notice and consent provisions.” Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Supreme Court Declines to Create Exception to Privette Doctrine for “Known Hazards”

September 13, 2021 — Tracy D. Forbath - Lewis Brisbois
In Gonzalez v. Mathis (Aug. 19, 2021, S247677) __ Cal.5th___, the California Supreme Court reversed an appellate decision holding that a landowner may be liable to an independent contractor, or the contractor’s workers, for injuries resulting from “known hazards,” as running contrary to the Privette doctrine. In Gonzalez, the contractor, who specialized in washing skylights, slipped and fell while accessing the landowner’s particularly hard to reach skylight from a narrow retaining wall that was allegedly covered in loose gravel and slippery. (Slip opn., p. 3.) While the trial court initially granted the landowner summary judgment pursuant to the Privette doctrine, the appellate court reversed and held that the landowner had a responsibility to take reasonable safety precautions where there was a known safety hazard on the landowner’s premises. (Id. at p. 6.) Whether the landowner could have taken various safety precautions also raised disputed issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. (Ibid.) However, the California Supreme Court concluded that no broad, third exception to the Privette doctrine lies; “unless a landowner retains control over any part of the contractor’s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury [citation], it will not be liable to an independent contractor or its workers for an injury resulting from a known hazard on the premises.” (Slip opn., p. 2.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tracy D. Forbath, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Forbath may be contacted at Tracy.Forbath@lewisbrisbois.com

---

In Real Life the Bad Guy Sometimes Gets Away: Adding Judgment Debtors to a Judgment

January 05, 2017 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
As most litigators will tell you a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit needs to be able to prove both liability and damages to win a case. That is, you need to show both that the defendant is liable under the law and that you have suffered damages as a result. Proving one but not the other and you’ll lose the case. But there’s one other consideration that is just as important, albeit often elusive, and that is, collectability. Even if you win the case, if you can’t collect on the judgment, you might as well have lost. The following case, Wolf Metals, Inc. v. Rand Pacific Sales, Inc., California Court of Appeals for the Second District, Case No. B264002 (October 25, 2016), describes some of the remedies available, procedures to follow, and difficulties confronted when obtaining a default judgment against a judgment-proof defendant. 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

---