FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Finds Wrap-Up Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage of Additional Insureds

February 18, 2020 — Callie E. Waers - Florida Construction Law News
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, recently took a close look at the application of a “controlled insurance program exclusion” (wrap-up exclusion) to additional insureds on a commercial general liability policy. In Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 886 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2018), the Fourth Circuit examined the interplay of an enrolled party’s additional insured status on an unenrolled party’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy with a wrap-up exclusion. The court applied North Carolina law and found that pursuant to the policy’s own language, the exclusion only applied to the original named insured, not the additional insureds. The case arose out of an injury incurred by an employee of a second-tier subcontractor during the construction of a hospital. On this particular project, the owner maintained a “rolling owner controlled insurance program” (wrap-up insurance program) in which all tiers of contractors were required to enroll, but enrollment was not automatic. The general contractor was enrolled in the owner’s wrap-up policy, but neither the steel manufacturer subcontractor nor its sub-subcontractor, the steel installation company, were enrolled. The underlying plaintiff was injured while he was an employee of the steel installation company, but he did not name his employer in his personal injury lawsuit. The Cont’l Cas. Co. case was instituted by Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) after it defended and settled the underlying plaintiff’s claims against its insured and additional insured, the steel manufacturer and general contractor, respectively. Continental sought to be reimbursed for the $1.7 million settlement and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for the defense and indemnity of the underlying lawsuit. Continental alleged that Amerisure Insurance Company (“Amerisure”) breached its duty to defend and Amerisure’s policy provided the primary coverage for both the general contractor and steel manufacturer, who were additional insureds on the Amerisure policy. Amerisure denied a duty to defend the additional insureds based on the presence of the wrap-up exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Mr. Charlson may be contacted at Ryan.Charlson@csklegal.com

---

Jet Crash Blamed on Runway Construction Defect

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Old Republic Insurance Company is suing Macon, Georgia, claiming that the runway was improperly built, leading to the crash of the corporate jet of one of their clients. The insurer paid out $1 million to the owner of the jet. Now it seeks to recover that from the city, claiming the runway was both too short and built in a manner that caused rainwater to pool. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Elon Musk's Boring Co. Is Feuding With Texas Over a Driveway

July 25, 2022 — Sarah McBride - Bloomberg
While Elon Musk is publicly making a big deal about moving to Texas and cozying up to the governor, behind the scenes his tunnel-building venture, Boring Co., is wrangling with local authorities in the state over a host of seemingly mundane permitting issues. Since Boring bought land last May to create a research and development center in Bastrop, Texas, a rural area outside Austin, the company has put workers up on mobile homes at the site without authorized sewage facilities, failed to get air and stormwater permits and built a driveway without first getting official approval, according to documents obtained by Bloomberg News through a public records request. The company’s dealings with Bastrop are yet another illustration of how Musk’s businesses often push the boundaries of or simply ignore regulations that bind other companies. In recent years his Tesla Inc. restarted production at its Fremont plant in defiance of pandemic rules to stay closed, Boring tried to build a tunnel in Los Angeles without going through an environmental review process and the US Securities and Exchange Commission is examining the disclosure of Musk’s stake in Twitter Inc. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sarah McBride, Bloomberg

---

Packard Condominiums Settled with Kosene & Kosene Residential

August 27, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Residents of the Packard Condominiums in Indianapolis, Indiana “have settled a two-year-old lawsuit with developer Kosene & Kosene Residential,” according to the Indianapolis Business Journal. The Homeowners association stated that “the agreement would lead to repayment of a construction loan and avoidance of a special assessment on residents.” The association claimed to have spent “$3 million on ‘renovation and remediation’ of subpar construction of the condo building,” reported the Indianapolis Business Journal. The article also declared that at least 25 subcontractors participated in the mediation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Weed Property Owner Gets Smoked Under Insurance Policy

May 10, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
When’s the last time you read your homeowner’s insurance policy? Didn’t think so. But you might consider doing so, particularly in light of all of the discussions surrounding climate change – a nearly 2 degree Fahrenheit increase in summer temperatures over the past 20 years – and studies finding that wildfires in California could increase by 20% or more by the 2040s, and that the total burned area could increase by 25% or more. In the next case, Vulk v. State Farm (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 243, one homeowner found out too late (after his house burned to the ground) that his homeowner’s insurance policy didn’t provide the coverage that he thought it did. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Admissibility of Expert Opinions in Insurance Bad Faith Trials

November 04, 2019 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
In 2010, Hansen Construction was sued for construction defects and was defended by three separate insurance carriers pursuant to various primary CGL insurance policies.[i] One of Hansen’s primary carriers, Maxum Indemnity Company, issued two primary policies, one from 2006-2007 and one from 2007-2008. Everest National Insurance Company issued a single excess liability policy for the 2007-2008 policy year, and which was to drop down and provide additional coverage should the 2007-2008 Maxum policy become exhausted. In November 2010, Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primarily policy but agreed to defend under the 2006-2007 primarily policy. When Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primary policy, Everest National Insurance denied under its excess liability policy. In 2016, pursuant to a settlement agreement between Hansen Construction and Maxum, Maxum retroactively reallocated funds it owed to Hansen Construction from the 2006-2007 Maxum primary policy to the 2007-2008 Maxum primary policy, which became exhausted by the payment. Thereafter, Hansen Construction demanded coverage from Everest National, which continued to deny the claim. Hansen Construction then sued Everest National for, among other things, bad faith breach of contract. In the bad faith action, both parties retained experts to testify at trial regarding insurance industry standards of care and whether Everest National’s conduct in handling Hansen Construction’s claim was reasonable. Both parties sought to strike the other’s expert testimony as improper and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

When Construction Defects Appear, Don’t Choose Between Rebuilding and Building Your Case

October 11, 2021 — Curtis Martin - ConsensusDocs
When construction defects occur during construction, they intensify pressure from a schedule that may already be tight. Defects must be analyzed, confirmed, removed, and replaced and this can be time consuming. Or course, a construction schedule rarely anticipates defects, demolition, and rework and the owner will still expect the project to be completed on time; however, pressing forward with immediate remediation may have unintended consequences. Before starting demolition, consider the evidentiary doctrine of spoliation. Spoilation occurs when a party destroys or unreasonably deprives another party of evidence and courts have imposed sanctions on a party that deprives an opponent of evidence. The doctrine has historically concerned documents, but its application has extended to electronic data, and courts also apply it to building conditions in construction defects cases. So, before tearing out or fixing defective work, consider the need to allow the opposing party to inspect, test and document it. Imagine this scenario. The concrete in a slab placed by your subcontractor shows low compressive strength results in the 28-day cylinder tests. Tearing out the slab and replacing it will put you at least a month behind schedule and you don’t want to waste any time before removing and replacing it. Nevertheless, while you’re rebuilding the defective slab, be mindful that you are also building a case. If you plan to recover the costs you incur because of the defective concrete from the responsible parties, you should allow the subcontractor (and possibly the concrete supplier and other implicated parties) to examine, preserve, and/or test the work in question. Failure to do so may subject you to spoliation sanctions and jeopardize your right to recover damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Curtis Martin, Peckar & Abramson
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com

---

Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case

June 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Nevada Supreme Court has issued an opinion in the case of Rayburn Lawn & Landscape Designers v. Plaster Development Corporation, reversing the decision of the lower court and remanding the case for a new trial.



The case originated in a construction defect suit in which Plaster Development Corporation was sued by homeowners. Plaster filed a third-party complaint against its subcontractor, Reyburn. The testimony of Reyburn’s owner was considered to be admission of liability and so the court limited the scope of Reyburn’s closing argument and did not allow the jury to determine the extent of Reyburn’s liability. Reyburn appealed.



Plaster, in their case, cited California’s Crawford v. Weather Sheild MFG, Inc. The court held the application of these standards, but noted that the “an indemnitor’s duty to defend an indemnitee is limited to those claims directly attributed to the indemnitor’s scope of work and does not include defending against claims arising from the negligence of other subcontractors and the indemnittee’s own negligence.”



On the matter of law against Reyburn, the court concluded, “Given the conflicting evidence at trial as to whether Reyburn’s work was implicated in the defective retaining walls and sidewalls, and viewing the evidence and inferences in Reyburn’s favor, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have granted relief in favor of Reyburn.” The Nevada Supreme Court conduced that the district court should not have granted Plaster’s motion for judgement.



Further, the Nevada Supreme Court found that the district court should have apportioned the fees and costs to those claims directly attributed to Reyburn’s scope of work, “if any,” and should not have assigned all attorney costs and court fees to Reyburn.



Read the court’s decision…

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

---