FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Could You Be More Specific . . . About My Excess AI Coverage?

February 23, 2017 — Yas Omidi - California Construction Law Blog
Are you a general contractor who is pretty sure that you have additional insured coverage for some stuff under your sub-subcontractor’s excess policy? Advent, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, Case No. H041934 (December 6, 2016) warns you to be a little more specific. Johnson Western Gunite was the shotcrete sub-subcontractor on a job. One of its employees—specifically, Jerry Kielty—tumbled down a stairwell, sustaining severe bodily injury thereby. Kielty filed suit against the general contractor in charge of the job—Advent, Inc.—amongst others. Kielty did not name his employer Johnson in the suit. In terms of insurance: Advent was insured under a primary insurance policy issued by Landmark American Insurance Company and an excess policy issued by Topa Insurance Company. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Yas Omidi, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Ms. Omidi may be contacted at yomidi@wendel.com

---

Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations

November 01, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Under the Miller Act, a claim against a Miller Act payment bond must be commenced “no later than one year after the date on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the action.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(4). Stated another way, a claimant must file its lawsuit against the Miller Act payment bond within one year from its final furnishing on the project. Filing a lawsuit too late, i.e., outside of the one-year statute of limitations, will be fatal to a Miller Act payment bond claim. This was the outcome in Diamond Services Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America, 2022 WL 4990416 (5th Cir. 2022) where a claimant filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit four days late. That four days proved to be fatal to its Miller Act payment bond claim and lawsuit. Do not let this happen to you! In Diamond Services Corp., the claimant submitted a claim to the Miller Act payment bond surety. The surety issued a claim form to the claimant that requested additional information. The claimant returned the surety’s claim form. The surety denied the claim a year and a couple of days after the claimant’s final furnishing. The claimant immediately filed its payment bond lawsuit four days after the year expired. The claimant argued that the surety should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations in light of the surety’s letter requesting additional information. (The claimant was basically arguing that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled.) The trial court dismissed the Miller Act payment bond claim finding it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that equitable estoppel did not apply. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Kahana Feld Named to the Orange County Register 2024 Top Workplaces List

January 14, 2025 — Linda Carter - Kahana Feld
ORANGE COUNTY – Dec. 31, 2024 – Kahana Feld is pleased to announce that the firm has been named a 2024 Top Workplace by the Orange County Register. This is the second year in a row that Kahana Feld has been named to the Orange County Top Workplaces list. The Top Workplaces list is based solely on employee feedback gathered through a third-party survey. The confidential survey uniquely measures the employee experience and its component themes, including employees feeling Respected & Supported, Enabled to Grow, and Empowered to Execute. “Inclusion on this list is a testament to Kahana Feld’s dedication to employee satisfaction,” said Firmwide Managing Partner Amir Kahana. “Having a positive and supportive culture has always been a top priority for us, and it will continue to be a driving force in our growth and success.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Linda Carter, Kahana Feld
Ms. Carter may be contacted at lcarter@kahanafeld.com

---

Brooklyn’s Hipster Economy Challenges Manhattan Supremacy

April 08, 2014 — Henry Goldman – Bloomberg
Marty Markowitz was strolling in Vienna when he noticed mannequins in a shop window wearing hats emblazoned with Paris, London and Brooklyn. The store had plenty of London and Paris models. Brooklyn was sold out. “They said they couldn’t restock the Brooklyn hats fast enough,” said Markowitz, 69, who spent 12 years as president of New York City’s most populous borough before retiring in January. Brooklyn’s cachet as a global brand and epitome of urban hipsterdom is shifting New York City’s center of gravity, reducing the supremacy of Manhattan across the East River and exerting more influence on New York’s political, economic and cultural life. It’s creating jobs and adding residents at a faster pace than any other borough, sparking a boom in commercial development to supply the new masses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Henry Goldman, Bloomberg
Mr. Goldman may be contacted at hgoldman@bloomberg.net

---

New Utah & Colorado Homebuilder Announced: Jack Fisher Homes

July 23, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Henry Walker Homes announced the creation of Jack Fisher Homes, “a new venture that will continue their tradition of homebuilding excellence in Northern Utah, Southern Utah and Colorado,” according to a press release on PR Web. “Colin Wright, Owen Fisher, Chad Bessinger and Steve Sandholtz founded Jack Fisher Homes to focus on areas of their proven expertise in real estate, including residential land development and homebuilding, commercial assets in multifamily development and seniors’ housing,” PR Web reported. Jack Fisher has “1,300 single-family residential units in its pipeline” and “anticipates closing more than 230 homes in the remainder of 2014 with sales expected to exceed $70 million.” The homebuilder expects those numbers to double in 2015. “All of the original elements that made Henry Walker great are incorporated and improved upon with Jack Fisher Homes,” Wright said, according to the press release. “The influx of new capital, our years of experience, and the improved real estate landscape have us very excited about the future of Jack Fisher Homes.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Illinois Supreme Court Holds That the Implied Warranty of Habitability Does Not Extend to Subcontractors

March 04, 2019 — Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation Strategist
The implied warranty of habitability allows a homeowner to recover damages for latent defects that interfere with the intended use of a home. In Sienna Court Condo. Ass’n v. Champion Aluminum Corp., 2018 IL 122022, 2018 Ill. LEXIS 1244 (2018), the Supreme Court of Illinois held that buyers of new homes cannot assert claims for breach of the implied warranty of habitability against subcontractors involved in the construction of the homes because the subcontractors have no contractual relationship with the homeowners and the damages are purely economic. As the court explained, the implied warranty of habitability is a creature of contract (not tort) and, therefore, only exists when there is contractual privity between the defendants and the homeowners. In Sienna, a group of condominium unit owners alleged that their new homes contained latent construction defects and asserted claims against the various parties involved in the construction and sale of the homes, including claims against the defendant subcontractors for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The plaintiffs contracted with the property developer to purchase the homes, but the plaintiffs had no contractual relationship with the subcontractors involved in the construction of the homes. The Sienna court, overturning the decisions of the trial court and the appellate court, granted the subcontractors’ joint motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for the implied warranty of habitability because the plaintiffs had no contractual relationship with the subcontractors and the damages were purely economic. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

---

White and Williams Obtains Reversal on Appeal of $2.5 Million Verdict Against Electric Utility Company

September 03, 2014 — Edward Koch, Mark Paladino, Luke Repici, & Andrew Susko – White and Williams LLP
PPL Electric Utilities successfully argued on appeal that the $2.5 million plaintiff’s molded verdict awarded to an injured painting subcontractor should be vacated because the alleged evidence was legally insufficient and therefore the utility was not liable. In Nertavich v. PPL Electric Utilities, the plaintiff argued that although the utility was a landowner out of possession of the worksite, the utility was liable because it controlled the work of the subcontractor both by contract and by conduct. PPL argued on appeal before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania that the alleged evidence of the utility company’s control was insufficient as a matter of law to constitute control over the means and methods of the subcontractor’s work, and thus, PPL was not liable as a landowner out of possession. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Edward Koch, Mark Paladino, Luke Repici and Andrew Susko Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Paladino may be contacted at paladinom@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Repici may be contacted at repicil@whiteandwilliams.com; and Mr. Susko may be contacted at suskoa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court of Appeals Finds Additional Insured Coverage Despite “Care, Custody or Control” Exclusion

September 30, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
When things go wrong on a construction project it’s often a scramble of finger pointing. In McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Case No. D074219 (June 5, 2019), the California Court of Appeals for the 4th District considered whether an additional insured exclusion, excluding “property in the care, custody or control of the additional insured,” precluded a duty to defend by an insurer. McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. was the developer and general contractor on a residential project known as Auburn Lane in Chula Vista, California. McMillin subcontracted with Martin Roofing Company, Inc. to perform roofing work. Under the subcontract, Martin was required to obtain commercial general liability insurance naming McMillin as an additional insured. The commercial general liability insurance policy secured by Martin was issued by National Fire and Marine Insurance Company. As is typical, the policy covered “property damage” and “personal injury” arising out of an “occurrence” during the policy period. McMillin was covered as additional insured under ISO endorsement form CG 20 09 03 97. 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

---