Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion

October 26, 2020 — Philip B. Wilusz & Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Those of us who suffered through law school are familiar with the argument that there are fundamental rules applicable to contract interpretation and that a certain contract language interpretation would “swallow the rule.” However, insurance companies have long advocated for an interpretation of the CGL policy’s pollution exclusion that would “swallow the coverage” that the insureds thought they were purchasing. Insurers have successfully argued in several states that the pollution exclusion’s definition of “pollutant” should be read literally, and be applied to any “solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste.” As anyone with children can attest to, the range of items and substances that can be considered an “irritant” is limitless. The logical extent of the insurer’s interpretation brings to mind the high school student who, for his science fair project, convinced his fellow students to ban “dihydrogen monoxide.”1 Citing evidence such as the fact that everyone who has ever died was found to have consumed “dihydrogen monoxide,” he convinced them of the dangers of . . . water. Similarly, an overly expansive reading of the definition of “pollutant” could lead to the absurd result of even applying it to ubiquitous harmless substances such as water. The pollution exclusion, therefore, has run amok in many states and has allowed insurers to avoid liability for otherwise covered claims. Fortunately, insureds in many states have successfully argued that the pollution exclusion is subject to a more limited interpretation based on several different theories. For example, some courts have agreed that the pollution exclusion, as initially introduced by the insurance industry, should be limited to instances of traditional environmental pollution. Others have held that the exclusion is ambiguous as to its interpretation. The reasonable expectations of the insureds do not support a broad reading of the defined term “pollutant.” Below, this article addresses a number of recent decisions that have adopted a pro policyholder interpretation of the pollution exclusion. As with most insurance coverage issues, choice of law clearly matters. Reprinted courtesy of Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Courthouse Reporter Series - How to Avoid Having Your COVID-19 Expert Stricken

September 25, 2023 — Andrew G. Vicknair - The Dispute Resolver
Expert witnesses play a key role in litigation, especially when dealing with construction issues. The testimony of an expert at trial can be a deciding factor in helping persuade a jury or judge in your client’s favor. Thus, it is imperative that your expert’s opinion meet the proper legal standard. In Polaris Engineering, Inc. v. Texas International Terminals, LTD, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas reiterated the importance of an expert’s opinion complying with the applicable legal standards governing expert testimony. 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109413 (S.D. Tex. June 26, 2023). The legal standard at issue in Polaris was Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Polaris involved a suit arising from a contract related to the design, engineering, and construction of a terminal and crude-oil processing facility for Texas International Terminals in Galveston, Texas. There were four separate contracts that governed the Project. One of the contracts governed the creation of the 50,000 barrel per day crude processing unit. Because the parties wanted to move quickly, they agreed to certain assumptions about the Project and specifically designed a change order process whereby the price and schedule could be adjusted if the agreed upon assumptions were incorrect. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrew G. Vicknair, D'Arcy Vicknair, LLC
Mr. Vicknair may be contacted at agv@darcyvicknair.com

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

A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Substitution Hearings Under California’s Listing Law

March 04, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The next case, JMS Air Conditioning and Appliance Service, Inc. v. Santa Monica Community College District, 2nd District Court of Appeal, Case No. B284068 (December 17, 2018), provides an interesting behind-the-scenes look at substitution hearings under the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act. The Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act

The Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act (Public Contract Code Section 4100 et seq.), also commonly referred to as the “Listing Law,” requires that prime contractors on state and local public works projects “list” the following subcontractors in their bids:
Subcontractors who are anticipated to perform work with a value in excess of 0.5% of the prime contractor’s total bid; and Subcontractors, on street, highway and bridge projects, who are anticipated to perform work with a value in excess of the greater of: (a) 0.5% of the prime contractor’s total bid; or (b) in excess of $10,000.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

HHMR Celebrates 20 Years of Service!

October 18, 2021 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
I remember it (almost) like it was yesterday. It was September of 2001, and I was a third-year associate at Long & Jaudon, practicing with the construction litigation group. After a long weekend away, I received word that the firm had just announced that it would cease providing legal services. Long & Jaudon, which formed in 1967, had been a stalwart of Colorado’s defense bar, counting among its number some of the finest and most well-respected defense attorneys in the state. To learn that the firm would be shutting its doors was devastating. I would be out of a job. Soon after L&J’s announcement, Dave Higgins, one of that firm’s senior partners, inquired as to whether I would be interested in starting a new firm focused on supporting Colorado’s construction industry and its insurers. Instead of riding into the sunset of retirement, Dave wanted to leave a legacy. That legacy is Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell. Shortly after the sprout of the idea, I spent an afternoon at a picnic table in Cheesman Park with Dave Higgins, Steve Hopkins, and Sheri Roswell, sketching out an idea for a new law firm. Twenty years later, HHMR is still here, still serving Colorado’s construction industry and its insurers, and still embodying the principles of service and stewardship upon which the firm was founded. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Here's How Much You Can Make by Renting Out Your Home

August 20, 2014 — Suzanne Woolley – Bloomberg
Oklahoma City and San Jose, California, top lists of cities where homeowners deciding to rent rather than sell their homes could see the biggest gains. That's according to real estate information website Zillow Inc., which ran data to see what current homeowners could make if they became mom-and-pop landlords. The Okies in their state's capital city win when it comes to monthly profits: $536, or $6,431 annually. For long-term gains, the top 10 cities are those where homeowners would lose money every year by renting -- until the big payoff when they sell. Zillow translates that gain, looking back, into monthly and yearly profits. So fast-appreciating Californian cities win big, led by San Jose. (Scroll down to see the Top 10 lists; the entire list is here.) The top 10 short-term gainers range geographically from Rochester, N.Y., to Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas. Monthly rental profits there are $349 and $264, respectively, or annual income of $4,182 and $3,166. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Suzanne Woolley, Bloomberg
Ms. Woolley may be contacted at swoolley2@bloomberg.net

California to Require Disclosure of Construction Defect Claims

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
California Governor Jerry Brown has signed Senate Bill 625. Starting in July 2014, anyone who sells a home will have to disclose all claims made of construction defects and the status of these claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Decline in Home Construction Brings Down Homebuilder Stocks

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The main gains in October construction were in commercial construction. The stock market has reacted to the slow-down by selling off homebuilder stocks, leading to a drop in their price. Deutsche Bank did not expect this to be the long term situation in U.S. homebuilding. The bank expects that the dip in residential construction “should reverse course given the ongoing improvement in permits for new construction.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES