Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Another Smart Home Innovation: Remote HVAC Diagnostics

June 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Builder magazine reported that “smart home technology manufacturer Nexia Home Intelligence now offers monitoring of a home’s HVAC system even when owners are away. If an issue arises, it can be fixed quickly, sometimes without a service call, the company says.” The service is available “with Trane and American Standard Wi-Fi-enabled thermostats” and requires a free Nexia account. System alerts are automatically transmitted to the dealer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Type I Differing Site Conditions Claim is Not Easy to Prove

May 30, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A differing site condition claim will almost universally result in both a cost and time impact. There will be additional, unanticipated costs incurred. And there will likely be a delay requiring additional time to perform. A Type I differing site condition claim is when the contractor encounters conditions at the site different than those indicated in the contract documents. That seems easy enough to prove, right. Nope. And, I mean nope! If you don’t believe me, consider the recent decision in Meridian Engineering Co. v. U.S., 885 F.3d 1351 (Fed.Cir. 2018). 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

Defense Owed for Product Liability Claims That Do Not Amount to Faulty Workmanship

December 30, 2013 — Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law Hawaii
The trial court's holding that there was no occurrence based on claims from faulty workmanship was reversed by the appellate division of the Pennsylvania Superior Court. The underlying claims were based on product liability tort claims, not faulty workmanship. Indalex Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA., 2013 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3186 (Pa. Superior Court Dec. 3, 2013). The underlying lawsuits claimed that the insureds' windows and doors were defectively designed or manufactured, which resulted in water leakage causing physical damage, such as mold and cracked walls. There were also personal injury claims. The insureds had a primary policy with OneBeacon Insurance Group, but the policy limits were exhausted. The insureds turned to their commercial umbrella policy issued by National Union. The policy defined occurrence as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in Bodily Injury or Property Damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the Insured." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Contract’s Definition of “Substantial Completion” Does Not Apply to Third Party for Purposes of SOL, Holds Court of Appeal

June 15, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Those of you in the construction industry know that the two primary statutes of limitation are the 4-year year statute of limitations for patent defects and 10-year statute of limitations for latent defects. Both statutes begin to run on “substantial completion.” In Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Superior Court of San Diego, Case No. D076264 (January 22, 2020), the 4th District Court of Appeal examined whether the term “substantial completion,” as used in Civil Code section 941, which applies to residential construction, can be defined by the parties’ contract and applied to third-parties. The Hensel Phelps Case Hensel Phelps Construction Co. entered into a prime construction contract with the owner and developer of a mixed-use project in San Diego. Hensel Phelps was the general contractor on the project. The project included a residential condominium tower which would eventually be managed and maintained by Smart Corner Owners Association. Smart Corners was not a party to the contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Are You a Construction Lienor?

November 15, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to construction lien rights, not everyone that touches the project is a proper lienor. Forget about timely serving a Notice to Owner or recording a claim of lien, if you are not a proper lienor, it does not matter if you properly perfected your lien rights. If you are not a proper lienor, you have NO lien rights under the law! Florida Statue s. 713.01(18) defines a lienor as follows: (18) “Lienor” means a person who is: (a) A contractor; (b) A subcontractor; (c) A sub-subcontractor; (d) A laborer; (e) A materialman who contracts with the owner, a contractor, a subcontractor, or a sub-subcontractor; or (f) A professional lienor under s. 713.03; and who has a lien or prospective lien upon real property under this part, and includes his or her successor in interest. No other person may have a lien under this part. 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

Professor Stempel's Excpert Testimony for Insurer Excluded

October 07, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied Daubert motions for several experts with the exception of Professor Stempel's expert testimony opining that the insurer did not act in bad faith Adell Plastics, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102942 (D. Md. June 19, 2019). A fire demolished several buildings at Adell's facility. Adell was insured under a commercial property policy issued by Mt. Hawley. Mt. Hawley sued Adell, seeking a declaration that it owed no coverage, and requesting recoupment of a substantial advance payment. Adell filed a counterclaim, alleging that Mt. Hawley had breached the policy and had acted with a lack of good faith. Before the court were several pretrial motions, including motions to exclude testimony of eight expert witnesses. The court denied Adell's motion to exclude several experts to be called by Mt. Hawley. The accountant's testimony was relevant. Adell had to prove damages on its breach of contract claim, and the accountant's testimony would aid the jury in evaluating Adell's documentation and calculating documented damages. Mt. Hawley's fire safety expert investigated the Adell fire. Mt. Hawley had shown that his expert opinion would be sufficiently reliable for admissibility. Further, three fire protection engineers offered by Mt. Hawley and two fire protection engineers to be called by Adell were allowed to testify. Each expert based his investigation and conclusions on the standards of fire investigation as set out in the NEPA Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations. This was a fire insurance case, and fire protection engineers would be allowed to testify and illuminate the circumstances of the fire. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

No Interlocutory Appeals of "Garden-Variety" Contract Disputes

March 12, 2015 — Jesse Howard Witt – Acerbic Witt
Colorado’s new procedure for interlocutory appeals has its limits. In the recent decision of Rich v. Ball Ranch Partnership, ___ P.3d ___, 2014 COA 6 (2015), the Colorado Court of Appeals held that Appellate Rule 4.2 does not permit interlocutory review of questions of law in “garden-variety” or “run-of-the-mill” contract disputes. This resolves a subtle question that has been lingering since Colorado first created the interlocutory appeal process four years ago. Prior to 2011, Colorado did not permit civil litigants to seek appellate review prior to final judgment, except in a small handful of situations. As I discussed in an article at the time, this changed with the passage of C.R.S. § 13-4-102.1 and the adoption of Rule 4.2, which granted the court of appeals discretion to permit the immediate appeal of certain district court orders. These provisions allowed parties to seek interlocutory review of orders before the conclusion of a case if a district court could certify that (1) immediate review might promote a more orderly disposition or establish a final disposition of the litigation, and (2) the order involved a controlling and unresolved question of law. The rule was patterned after 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which provides similar relief in the federal courts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, The Witt Law Firm
Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.acerbicwitt.com

An Occurrence Under Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy Is Based on the Language in the Policy

April 03, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Builder’s risk insurance coverage is a vital property insurance coverage during the course of construction. Builder’s risk insurance is not a one-size-fits-all product so please make sure you are working with your insurance broker to procure this product that factors in and covers risk associated with the project. Builder’s risk insurance is typically an occurrence-based policy. No different than other occurrence-based policies (such as commercial general liability), a dispute may arise as to the occurrence. This could be due to the triggering of the actual policy during the coverage period or it could be due deductible obligations, as in the case discussed below. When dealing with a builder’s risk insurance policy–again, no different than any policy–the language in the policy matters. Definitions used in the policy to define specific terms matter and, in numerous cases, the ordinary dictionary meanings of terms matter. But it all starts with the policy language. In KT State & Lemon, LLP v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co., 2023 WL 2456499 (M.D.Fla. 2023), a builder’s risk policy provided coverage from April 2018 through the end of November 2019. There was a $50,000 per occurrence deductible for loss caused by or from water damage. An extension to the builder’s risk policy was negotiated through the end of January 2020 that increased this water damage deductible to $250,000 per occurrence. During construction and the testing of the fire suppression (sprinkler) system, leaks started to occur resulting in water damage. Two leaks occurred in September 2019, one leak in October 2019, one leak in November 2019, and two leaks in December 2019 (during the extension and higher water damage deductible period). 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES