FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Court Finds Duty To Defend Environmental Claim, But Defense Limited to $100,000

August 14, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
While agreeing with the insured there was a duty to defend, the court determined the defense of an environmental claims was limited to $100,000. Casa Nido Partnership v. JAE Kwon, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97701 (N.D. Calif. June 5, 2023). In 1976, Casa Nido purchased the property and remains the current owner to this day. Catherine O'Hanks owned and operated a dry-cleaning facility at the property from 1960 to 1992. In August 2016, Casa Nido learned of Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) subsurface contamination. Casa Nido stipulated that it did not know, nor had any reason to know, before 2016, of the existence of the subsurface contamination. Casa Nido alleged that due to equipment malfunction or improper usage, there were sudden and accidental spills and equipment overflows of PCE during the 32-year period that defendant O'Hanks operated the dry-cleaning business on the property. Casa Nido spent hundreds of thousands of dollars remediating the environmental damage. 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

---

Unlicensed Contracting and Florida Statute S. 489.128

February 03, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Florida Statute s. 489.128 is a statute that provides a remedy against unlicensed contracting. However, keep in mind that this argument—the unlicensed contractor argument—is a technical statutory argument. In other words, it’s not so much of a fact-based merits argument, but an argument that’s solely based on the technicality of the statute. This, by no means, is not a recommendation that the argument should not be raised. In instances, it absolutely should be and could have legitimate traction. However, when deciding whether to or how to pursue a dispute, including settlement, you want to keep in mind whether this is an argument you want to bank your outcome on because there are always costs (attorney’s fees, court costs, etc.) that should get factored into any business decision regarding a dispute. 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

---

Insurance Litigation Roundup: “Post No Bills!”

April 02, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A company which is in the business of posting “advertising signs on temporary construction sites on behalf of clients” was “sued for trespass, conversion, and other torts” when it entered a site to remove posters. The company sought to have its insurance carrier cover the cost of its defense but was refused. A federal court lawsuit in California against the insurer ensued. The insurer prevailed on a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, and the insured appealed. At issue: had an “occurrence” under the CGL policy taken place – that is, an “accident,” an “unexpected, unforeseen, or undesigned happening or consequence from either a known or unknown cause?” The appellate court noted that the company’s contractor “intended” to enter the work site and remove posters, which gave rise to the trespass claim. For its part, the company urged that the contractor’s actions “were based on erroneous information… [a] mistaken belief that it had the right or duty to enter the site and remove the posters….” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

---

Buy Clean California Act Takes Effect on July 1, 2022

July 25, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The Buy Clean California Act (BCCA) – Public Contract Code section 3500 et seq. – requires state agencies to consider the carbon content of the following products when awarding contracts:

• Structural steel;
• Concrete reinforcing steel;
• Flat glass; and
• Mineral wool board insulation.

It is anticipated that additional products may be added through future legislation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Supreme Court of Oregon Affirms Decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al.

April 20, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFF

After reviewing the decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al., the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed that a tort claim for property damage arising from construction defects may exist even when the homeowner and the builder are in a contractual relationship.



When the case was initially filed, the plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and negligence. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that one, the claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations and two, no special relationship (such as one between a doctor and patient) existed. The court agreed with the defendants. However, the Court of Appeals while affirming the trial court’s decision on breach of contract reversed the decision on negligence. The Court of Appeals stated that an administrative or statute rule could establish a standard of care independent from the contract.



The Oregon Supreme Court gave an example of cases where a tort claim could exist when a contract is present: “If an individual and a contractor enter into a contract to build a house, which provides that the contractor will install only copper pipe, but the contractor installs PVC pipe instead (assuming both kinds of pipe comply with the building code and the use of either would be consistent with the standard of care expected of contractors), that failure would be a breach of contract only. […] If the failure to install the copper pipe caused a reduction in the value of the house, the plaintiff would be able to recover that amount in an action for breach of contract. […] On the other hand, if the contractor installed the PVC pipe in a defective manner and those pipes therefore leaked, causing property damage to the house, the homeowner would have claims in both contract and tort. […] In those circumstances, the obligation to install copper instead of PVC pipe is purely contractual; the manner of installing the pipe, however, implicates both contract and tort because of the foreseeable risk of property damage that can result from improperly installed pipes.”



Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Activist Group Suing the Suburbs for Bigger Buildings

December 10, 2015 — Patrick Clark – Bloomberg
In a speech last month, Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Jason Furman blamed zoning restrictions—local land-use rules governing things like how tall buildings can grow—for the lack of affordable housing, lost economic productivity, and rising inequality across the U.S. On Tuesday, a San Francisco activist named Sonja Trauss took Furman's argument to the streets, filing a lawsuit in Contra Costa County (Calif.) to fight what she sees as a lost opportunity to build more housing. Trauss's organization, the San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation (yes, SFBARF), is suing the City of Lafayette, a Bay Area suburb of about 25,000, to block plans to build 44 single-family homes on a plot of land once slated for a 315-unit apartment complex. Her argument relies on a three-decade-old California law intended to check local governments’ ability to reduce the density of certain construction projects. Called the Housing Accountability Act, the law has been used successfully by developers of affordable housing who have had their projects blocked, Trauss said, but never by an advocacy group advocating for greater density as a public good. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Clark, Bloomberg

---

California Supreme Court Rights the “Occurrence” Ship: Unintended Harm Resulting from Intentional Conduct Triggers Coverage Under Liability Insurance Policy

June 13, 2018 — Scott S. Thomas - Payne & Fears Legal Alert
SUMMARY In a ruling that bodes well for policyholders, the California Supreme Court provides much-needed clarity on the question of when a so-called "intentional act" may give rise to insurance coverage under a liability insurance policy. In Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Case No. S23765 (Cal. June 4, 2018), the Court holds that an employer's potential liability for negligent hiring, after its employee allegedly abused a 13-year old student, is the result of an "occurrence" and is thus covered under the employer's liability insurance policy. COURT OPINION The court's opinion dispels the misguided notion that an intentional act resulting in unintended harm is never an "occurrence" and can never trigger coverage. What matters, according to the Court, is that, from the insured's point of view, the consequences of its conduct are "unexpected, unforeseen, or undesigned" - even if the conduct is intentional. And in a concurring opinion, Justice Liu rightfully questions the legitimacy of the notion that intentional conduct cannot trigger coverage, even when it produces an unintended result, unless, in the words of a 1989 appellate court decision, some "additional, unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happening occurs that produces the damage." As Justice Liu explains, this intervening "happening" may be something as simple as the insured's mistaken belief that he was acting in self-defense, or that the victim had consented to the insured's conduct. This much-needed clarification restores vitality to the fundamental principle that injuries are "accidental" when they are "unexpected, unforeseen, or undesigned," regardless of their cause. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com

---

Insurance Company’s Reservation of Rights Letter Negates its Interest in the Litigation

November 12, 2019 — Frank Ingham - Colorado Construction Litigation
The Colorado Court of Appeals held that an insurance company, which issues a reservation of rights letter to its insured, loses its interest in the litigation, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2), when the insured settles the claims and assigns the bad faith action against the insurance company to the plaintiff. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 2019WL 3483901(Colo. App. 2019). In a 2016 lawsuit in Denver District Court, 2016CV3360, the Bolt Factory Loft Owners Association, Inc. (“Association”) asserted construction defect claims against six contractors. Two of those contractors then asserted claims against other subcontractors, including Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra Glass”). After multiple settlements, the only remaining claims were those the Association, as assignee of the two contractors, asserted against Sierra Glass. Auto-Owners Insurance Company (“AOIC”) issued policies to Sierra Glass and defended it under a reservation of rights. The policy afforded AOIC the right to defend Sierra Glass, and it required Sierra Glass to cooperate in the defense of the legal action. The Association presented a settlement demand of $1.9 million to Sierra Glass, which AOIC refused to pay. To protect itself from an excess judgment that AOIC might not have paid, Sierra Glass entered into an agreement with the Association whereby Sierra Glass would refrain from offering a defense at trial and assign its bad faith claim against AOIC to the Association in exchange for the Association’s promise that it would not pursue recovery against Sierra Glass of any judgment entered against it at trial. Such agreements, known as Bashor or Nunn Agreements, are allowed in Colorado. Nunn v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., 244 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2010). Therefore, Sierra Glass was entitled to protect itself in the face of AOIC’s potential denial of coverage and refusal to settle. Bolt Factory Lofts, at ¶ 15. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Frank Ingham, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Ingham may be contacted at ingham@hhmrlaw.com

---