FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Duty to Defend When Case Law is Uncertain

October 12, 2020 — Eric B. Hermanson & Austin D. Moody - White and Williams
The Connecticut Supreme Court recently addressed whether an insurer has a duty to defend when faced with legal uncertainty as to whether coverage is owed: for example, when there is no Connecticut case law on point, and courts outside of the state have reached conflicting decisions. The Court suggested that an insurer, in these circumstances, should defend the insured, and should seek a declaratory judgment from a court as to whether coverage is owed. The issue in Nash St., LLC v. Main St. Am. Assurance Co.,[1] arose out of a home collapse in Milford, Connecticut. The owner of the home (Nash) hired a contractor (New Beginnings) to renovate the home. New Beginnings, in turn, retained a subcontractor to lift the house and to do concrete work on the foundation. While the subcontractor was lifting the house, the house shifted off the supporting cribbing and collapsed. Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and Austin D. Moody, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwiliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Haight has been named a Metropolitan Tier 1 and Tier 2 “Best Law Firm” by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” in 2025

November 11, 2024 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP is listed in the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® (2025 Edition) “Best Law Firms” list with metro rankings in the following areas: Los Angeles

• Metropolitan Tier 1
• Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

• Metropolitan Tier 2
• Insurance Law

Orange County

• Metropolitan Tier 1
• Product Liability Litigation – Defendants

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

---

More Construction Defects for San Francisco’s Eastern Bay Bridge Expansion

October 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to SF Gate, almost “every one of the 423 steel rods that anchor the tower of the new Bay Bridge eastern span to its base has been sitting in potentially corrosive water, Caltrans officials said Tuesday — one of the most serious construction defects found yet on the $6.4 billion project.” About a year ago, “steel rods crucial to seismic-stabilizing structures on the bridge snapped when they were tensioned.” Fixing those rods cost $25 million, while an additional $20 million had been spent determing if “additional rods and bolts are at risk of failing.” In regards to the latest construction defects discovered, Caltrans’ chief engineer on the project, Brian Maroney, stated, “It’s not acceptable, and we’re going to fix it.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

2018 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

June 06, 2018 — Melinda S. Gentile - Peckar & Abramson
The 2018 Florida Legislative Session recently concluded and a number of important construction-related House Bills (HB) and Senate Bills (SB) were presented during the Session. Florida Governor Rick Scott has 15 days to act on the legislation once each Bill has passed the House and Senate. Bills signed by the Governor go into effect on July 1, 2018, unless indicated otherwise. These Bills may impact General Contractors and Construction Managers in a number of ways, not the least of which is the period of time that a cause of action may be initiated for the design, planning or construction of an improvement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melinda Gentile, Peckar & Abramson
Ms. Gentile may be contacted at mgentile@pecklaw.com

---

COVID-19 Is Not Direct Physical Loss Or Damage

April 13, 2020 — Joseph Blyskal, Dennis Brown & Michelle Bernard - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law Blog
Is a cash register that is not being used damaged property? When you need to wash a table, a chair, or a section of flooring with readily available cleaning products to make them safe and useable, are you repairing damaged property? Is a spilled cup of coffee waiting to be wiped up actual damage to the premises? If your customers stay home to help stop the spread of a virus, has there been a physical loss inside your shuttered store or restaurant? The insuring agreements typically found in commercial property insurance policies require “direct physical loss of or damage to” covered property as the triggering event. Without establishing direct physical loss or damage a policyholder cannot meet its burden to trigger coverage for a purely economic loss of business income resulting from shuttering its business due to concerns over exposure to—or even the actual presence of—COVID-19. Despite this well-understood policy language, it is already beyond question that insurers will confront creative—albeit strained—arguments from policyholder firms attempting to trigger coverage for pure economic loss. The scope of the human and economic tragedy we all face will be matched by the scope of the effort to force the financial harm onto insurance companies. The plaintiffs in what appears to be the first-filed case seeking a declaratory judgment in the context of first-party insurance coverage rely on the assertion that “contamination of the insured premises by the Coronavirus would be a direct physical loss needing remediation to clean the surfaces” of its establishment, a New Orleans restaurant, to trigger coverage for business interruption.[1] See Cajun Conti, LLC, et. al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et. al. Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. The complaint alleges that the property is insured under an “all risk policy” defining “covered causes of loss” as “direct physical loss.” The plaintiffs rely on the alleged presence of the virus on “the surface of objects” in certain conditions and the need to clean those surfaces. They go so far as to claim that “[a]ny effort by [the insurer] to deny the reality that the virus causes physical damage and loss would constitute a false and potentially fraudulent misrepresentation. . . .” Reprinted courtesy of Gordon & Rees attorneys Joseph Blyskal, Dennis Brown and Michelle Bernard Mr. Blyskal may be contacted at tblatchley@grsm.com Mr. Brown may be contacted at dbrown@grsm.com Ms. Bernard may be contacted at mbernard@grsm.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

CGL Coverage for Liquidated Damages and the Contractual Liability Exclusion

October 09, 2023 — Stu Richeson - The Dispute Resolver
Liquidated delay damages are common in construction contracts and are generally imposed when a contractor fails to achieve substantial completion within the time required by the contract. While contracts like the AIA A201-2017 have provisions for extending the time to achieve substantial completion when delays are caused by circumstances beyond the contractor’s control, delays can result from factors other than improper management or planning and the like, for which the owner is not required to give the contractor additional time. Courts are split on whether there is ever coverage under a CGL policy for contractually agreed upon liquidated delay damages. Liquidated delay damages are often excluded under the contractual liability exclusion of most CGL policies. The contractual liability exclusion excludes coverage for “liability for which the Insured is obligated to pay damages by reason of the assumption of liability in a contract or agreement.” Courts often find the contractual liability exclusion in a CGL policy precludes coverage for liquidated delay damages, because such damages are contractual in nature and are triggered by the failure to bring the contract to substantial completion by a fixed deadline, regardless of the cause of the delay. However, some courts will look to the cause of the delay and find that there is coverage under a CGL policy for liquidated delay damages that are the result of property damage caused by an accident or occurrence. In Clark Const. Grp., Inc. v. Eagle Amalgamated Serv., Inc., 01-2478-DV, 2005 WL 2092998, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 24, 2005) a general contractor entered a contract for the renovation of the convention center in Memphis. Part of the project included the demolition of a structure attached to the convention center. The demolition work was improperly performed by a subcontractor and resulted in damage to the convention center. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stu Richeson, Phelps
Mr. Richeson may be contacted at stuart.richeson@phelps.com

---

Insurance for Large Construction Equipment Such as a Crane

July 30, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Many, many projects require the use of a crane. The skyline is oftentimes filled with the sight of cranes—one after the other. Most of the time, the cranes are leased from an equipment supplier. What happens if the crane (or any large, leased equipment) gets damaged? I wrote an article regarding a builder’s risk carrier NOT covering damage to a crane from a storm based on a common exclusion. Another case, Ajax Bldg. Corp. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 358 F.3d 795 (11th Cir. 2004), had a similar result. In this case, a prime contractor leased a crane from an equipment supplier. The crane was used by the structural concrete subcontractor. The crane collapsed during the subcontractor’s work. The supplier sued both the contractor and subcontractor. The prime contractor was defended under a contractor’s equipment liability policy and the subcontractor was defended under a general liability policy it procured for its work on the project. Ultimately, a settlement was reached where the subcontractor’s liability insurer paid a bulk of the damage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Vermont Supreme Court Finds COVID-19 May Damage Property

November 07, 2022 — Michael S. Levine & Lorelie S. Masters - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
As reported on this blog, policyholders have long been of the view that the presence of substances like COVID-19 and its causative virus SARS-CoV-2, which render property dangerous or unfit for normal business operations, should be sufficient to trigger coverage under commercial all-risk insurance, as has been the case for more than 60 years. However, many courts, federal courts in particular, despite decades of pro-policyholder precedent, have embraced the view that “viruses harm people, not [property].” Thirty-one months after the start of the pandemic, the first state high court has gone in a different direction, according greater weight to pro-policyholder precedent. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---