Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Toolbox Talk Series Recap – Considerations for Optimizing Dispute Resolution Clauses

June 05, 2023 — Michael Filbin - The Dispute Resolver
In the April 27, 2023 edition of Division 1's Toolbox Talk Series moderated by Manuel del Valle, Sergio Andre Laclau (Partner at Mello Torres) and Liza Akins (Senior Assistant GC and Division Counsel at ARCO Design/Build) offered the following strategies for drafting effective ADR clauses in construction contracts:

Define the ADR process for various types of disputes.

Not all disputes on a construction project are the same, and the parties can tailor the ADR process to different situations. For example, the parties could choose to arbitrate complex disputes and resolve minor claims through mediation. Differentiating the ADR process between complex and minor disputes can save parties time and money. While Liza prefers arbitration for complex claims because you can get a quick and final decision from an arbitrator experienced with construction disputes, she noted that arbitration costs can add up quickly. Therefore, if the dollar amount in dispute is relatively small, arbitration may not make sense financially. Mediation tends to be a comparatively cheaper and faster option. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Filbin, Cozen O'Connor
Mr. Filbin may be contacted at mfilbin@cozen.com

"Ordinance or Law" Provision Mandates Coverage for Roof Repair

May 16, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Tennessee Court of Appeals found that the insured was entitled to coverage under the policy's "ordinance or law" provision for repairs to prevent a future collapse of both the damaged and undamaged portions of the building. Jefferson Cnty. Schools v. Tenn. Risk Mgmt. Trust, 2018 Tenn. app. LEXIS 138 (Tenn. Ct. App. March 15, 2018). A major rainstorm caused a portion of Building 8, an aging vocation building at a high school, to collapse. Building 8 was covered through Tennessee Risk Management up to $100,000. Excess claims were covered by Travelers Indemnity Company. The policy included an "ordinance or law" provision providing for coverage of expenses "caused by the enforcement of any ordinance or law." Further, the insurer agreed to pay for the loss to any undamaged portions of a building caused by the enforcement of any ordinance or law that required the construction or repair of buildings. 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

Idaho Supreme Court Address Water Exclusion in Commercial Property Exclusion

March 09, 2020 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In ABK, LLC v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 2019 WL 7046393 (Idaho Dec. 23, 2019) an insured gas station owner sued its property insurance carrier for breach of contract and bad faith after the carrier denied coverage for loss caused by water contamination of the insured’s underground storage tanks. Mid-Century had denied coverage because the underground storage tanks were damaged by water -- which was an excluded peril under the policy. Mid-Century issued Business Owners Special Property Coverage to the insured which provided all-risk coverage for physical loss or damage. The policy contained a number of exclusionary provisions including a water exclusion which provided that the policy did not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by:

Flood, surface water, waves, tides, tidal waves, overflow or any body of water, or their spray, all whether driven by wind or not; ...
Water under the ground surface pressing on, or flowing or seeping through:

Foundations, walls, floors or paved surfaces:
Basements, whether paved or not; or
Doors, windows or other openings.

In upholding the District Court’s ruling in favor of Mid-Century, the Idaho Supreme Court held that a clear reading of the unambiguous policy provides damage caused by surface water or water under the ground when flowing or seeping through other openings is excluded from coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Strikes a Deathblow to Substantial Factor Causation in Most Cases; Is Asbestos Litigation Next?

March 22, 2021 — Christian J. Singewald, Rochelle Gumapac & Timothy J. Keough - White and Williams LLP
In Doull v. Foster, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) addressed the proper causation standard in a medical malpractice case. In reaching this issue, the SJC reached far beyond the medical malpractice case before it. The SJC concluded that the substantial factor test for causation, which had been regularly employed in the Commonwealth for decades, was “unnecessarily confusing.” In doing so, the SJC effectively ended the use of the substantial factor test in all negligence cases going forward, except in toxic tort litigation. However, the SJC openly questioned its usefulness in toxic tort litigation and all but welcomed a direct challenge to its use there. Reprinted courtesy of Christian J. Singewald, White and Williams LLP, Rochelle Gumapac, White and Williams LLP and Timothy J. Keough, White and Williams LLP Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Gumapac may be contacted at gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Keough may be contacted at keought@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Defenses Raised Three-Years Too Late Estop Insurer’s Coverage Denial

February 21, 2022 — Michael S. Levine & Yaniel Abreu - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Liability insurance typically affords broad defense coverage. But insurers sometimes reserve their right to challenge the insured’s right to a defense, or even outright terminate the defense. When this occurs after the insurer has been in exclusive control of the defense, some courts recognize that the consequences can be catastrophic for the insured defendant. Insurers, therefore, may be estopped from denying coverage where doing so will prejudice the insured. This is exactly what transpired in RLI Ins. Co. v. AST Engineering Corp., No. 20-214 (2d Cir. Jan. 12, 2022), where the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that an insurer’s attempt to withdraw the defense it had provided to its insured for three years would prejudice the insured. In AST Engineering, RLI sought a declaration that it did not have to defend the insured, AST, in two underlying cases in which AST was sued as a third-party defendant. The underlying cases concerned a construction project in New York City for which AST provided engineering drawings on October 28, 2012. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Supreme Court Protects California Policyholders for Intentional Acts of Employees

July 02, 2018 — William S. Bennett – Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C.
Recently, the California Supreme Court ruled that liability insurers are obligated to cover negligent supervision, hiring, and retention claims against employers resulting from the intentional acts of their employees. The case, Liberty Surplus Insurance v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction, case no. S236765 (2018), involved an insurance coverage dispute between a construction company, Ledesma & Meyer Construction (“L&M”), and its insurers, Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. (“Liberty”) and Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp (“Liberty Surplus”). Liberty was L&M’s primary insurer, while Liberty Surplus had the excess policy. L&M had contracted with the San Bernardino Unified School District to renovate a school building while the school was still in session. In a separate action, another court found that an L&M employee sexually assaulted a 13-year-old student while working at the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

Overview of New Mexico Construction Law

June 25, 2019 — Walter F. Crowson - Snell & Wilmer Under Construction Blog
We’ve seen an uptick in out-of-state companies working on construction projects in New Mexico. The following is an overview of some of the nuances of New Mexico construction law about which companies may want to be aware. Construction Contract Issues Limitation of Liability Clauses are usually Enforceable, but Anti-Indemnity Clauses Are Not New Mexico courts have enforced limitation of liability clauses included in construction contracts. See Fort Knox Self Storage, Inc. v. W. Techs., Inc., 140 N.M. 233, 237 (N.M. Ct. App 2006). New Mexico law recognizes the difference between contracts that insulate a party from any and all liability and those that simply limit liability. Fort Knox Self Storage, Inc., 140 N.M. 233 at 237. An exculpatory clause immunizes a party from liability, whereas a limitation of liability clause merely curtails liability. Id. A limitation of liability clause has been held not to violate New Mexico public policy because the party “still bears substantial responsibility for its actions.” Id.; see also Cowan v. D'Angelico, 2010 WL 11493789, *6 (D. N.M. Apr. 26, 2010). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Walker F. Crowson, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Crowson may be contacted at wcrowson@swlaw.com

The Colorado Construction Defect Reform Act Explained

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Colorado passed its Construction Action Defect Reform Act twelve years ago, but as Anne K. McMichael of Zupkus & Angell, PC, points out, “while portions of this act are reasonably straightforward, several of the sections are subject to ongoing debate as to how these concepts should be applied to achieve fair and unbiased results.” The process for a construction defect claim under the CDARA starts with filing a notice of defects, after which the construction professional is permitted to inspect the alleged defect. The construction professional can then offer to repair or settle. The law offers protections for construction professionals who follow through with the process. But, as Ms. McMichael notes, these are denied to construction professionals who do not make offers, fail to meet settlement agreements, or offers a settlement that is insufficient for repairs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES