FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Partner Jason Taylor and Senior Associate Danielle Kegley Successful in Appeal of Summary Disposition on Priority of Coverage Dispute in the Michigan Court of Appeals

December 11, 2023 — Jason Taylor & Danielle K. Kegley - Traub Lieberman
In this appeal brought before the Michigan Court of Appeals, the appellate court ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s insurance carrier client (the “Carrier” or “Client”), affirming an award of summary disposition in favor of the Carrier in a coverage lawsuit. The coverage lawsuit involved a priority dispute between the Carrier and another insurer over which company’s policy had responsibility to cover the defense of their mutual insured, a heating and cooling contractor (the “Insured”) in an underlying lawsuit alleging carbon monoxide poisoning. The Carrier issued a contractor’s pollution liability policy and the other insurer issued a commercial general liability policy to the Insurer. Both the Carrier and the other insurer filed cross-motions for summary disposition in the trial court on the priority of coverage issue. The trial court granted the Client’s motion, holding that the CGL carrier was the primary insurer based on the language in the policies’ “other insurance” clauses. The trial court rejected the CGL carrier’s argument to apply the “total policy insuring intent” or “closest to the risk” tests—tests which Michigan courts have not adopted. Specifically, the court rejected the CGL carrier’s argument that the Client’s contractor’s pollution liability policy was more specifically tailored to the loss in the underlying lawsuit. The trial court also rejected CGL carrier’s alternative argument that the “other insurance” clauses in the policies were irreconcilable, requiring a pro rata allocation based on the respective limits of the policies. Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman and Danielle K. Kegley, Traub Lieberman Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com Ms. Kegley may be contacted at dkegley@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Standard Lifetime Shingle Warranties Aren’t Forever

April 03, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Olympia Construction’s roofing division explained to the web site Thurston Talk how long “lifetime” warranties on shingles really last. Your lifetime? You’re likely to live out the effective period of your lifetime shingle warranty. They note that 100% coverage of the shingle replacement typically lasts only for ten years (and does not cover removal of the existing defective shingles). After that, coverage continues to decline without covering any of the labor. And this can be significant, since they noted that they have seen cases in which a batch of defective shingles means that every home on the block has a defect claim. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Preservation Maze

June 12, 2023 — Sofya Uvaydov - Kahana & Feld LLP
To appropriately preserve an issue for appeal is frankly confusing to many attorneys due to differing rules depending on the issue or procedural posture (presumably why appellate attorneys are more commonly used during trial). On May 25th, the US Supreme Court handed down Dupree v. Younger, 598 U.S. __ (2023) clarifying preservation requirements from denied summary judgment orders. When a federal court denies summary judgment on sufficiency of evidence grounds, a party must raise the argument again post-trial to preserve it for appeal as per the Court’s prior ruling in Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180 (2011). When a court denies summary judgment on a purely legal issue, the Court unanimously held that the issue is preserved in an appeal from a final judgment without having to raise it again post-trial. The Supreme Court distinguished this from their prior rule in Ortiz by explaining that sufficiency or factual issues which were previously denied at summary judgment must be evaluated based on the totality of the evidence adduced at trial. A purely legal issue decided on summary judgment is not changed by factual evidence at trial. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sofya Uvaydov, Kahana & Feld LLP
Ms. Uvaydov may be contacted at suvaydov@kahanafeld.com

---

Texas Court Requires Insurer to Defend GC Despite Breach of Contract Exclusion

December 19, 2018 — Ashley L. Cooper - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. v. Slay Engineering, et al.,1 a Texas federal court ruled in favor of a general contractor, finding that its insurer had a duty to defend it in a construction defect case filed by the owner. The decision adds more clarity to the interpretation of the subcontractor exception to the “Damage to Your Work” exclusion as well as the Breach of Contract exclusion, which has been the subject of several cases coming out of Texas over the past decade. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ashley L. Cooper, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Cooper may be contacted at alc@sdvlaw.com

---

Texas Central Wins Authority to Take Land for High-Speed Rail System

October 03, 2022 — Barclay Nicholson & Erica Gibbons - Sheppard Mullin Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
Move over luxury bus lines and quick flights. Central Texans should be on the lookout for bulldozers and train stops. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of Texas held that Texas Central Railroad & Infrastructure, Inc. and related entities (collectively “Texas Central”) have eminent domain authority to acquire property for a proposed high-speed rail system between Dallas and Houston.[1] Specifically, the Court held that the corporation qualifies as an “interurban electric railway company” under the Texas Transportation Code. This ruling grants Texas Central the broad condemnation authority to procure land for the project. Texas Central has Statutory Authority to Take Land The plaintiff in the matter, a farm owner with property south of Dallas along the proposed path of the bullet train, challenged the companies power to condemn land. The landowner’s declaratory judgment action challenged Texas Central’s eminent-domain authority. Under Texas law, condemnation power must be conferred by the legislature, either expressly or by necessary implication.[2] Here, Texas Central was created for the purpose of constructing, acquiring, maintaining, or operating lines of electric railway between Texas municipalities. The Court found that Texas Central is engaged in activities to further that purpose. Therefore, the Court concluded, that although legislators did not contemplate high-speed railways at the time of drafting the Transportation Code, Texas Central nonetheless qualified as “interurban electric railway companies” under the statute. Reprinted courtesy of Barclay Nicholson, Sheppard Mullin and Erica Gibbons, Sheppard Mullin Mr. Nicholson may be contacted at bnicholson@sheppardmullin.com Ms. Gibbons may be contacted at egibbons@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Policy Lanuage Expressly Prohibits Replacement of Undamaged Material to Match Damaged Material

March 09, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Construing an all-risk Businessowners Policy, the court found that the policy language did not required replacement of undamaged material match materials that were damaged. Pleasure Creek Townhomes Homeowners' Ass'n v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 2019 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1095 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2019). The policy covered the Association's 14 townhome buildings. In June 2017, a hail storm damaged siding on all 14 buildings. An appraisal panel included the cost to replace the undamaged, faded siding in its appraisal award so that it would match the new siding. American Family refused to pay this component - which was appraised at about $211,382 - of the award. An exclusion in the policy provided,

We will not pay to repair or replace undamaged material due to mismatch between undamaged material and new material used to repair or replace damaged material.

We do not cover the loss in value to an property due to mismatch between undamaged material and new material used to repair or replace damaged material.

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

---

Equipment Costs? It’s a Steal!

July 08, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

KCBD reports on the problems of a Lubbock, Texas contractor. It’s hard to do the job when your tools keep getting stolen. Corey Meadows, owner of Top Cut Interiors, told KCBD that he had chained an air compressor to a table saw. Since the thieves couldn’t cut the chain, they cut the table saw “and just took the air compressor and the chain.” Meadows estimates the thieves cost him $2,000 in damaged or stolen equipment and time lost.

Read the full story…

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

---

California Court Broadly Interprets Insurance Policy’s “Liability Arising Out of” Language

December 20, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In McMillin Mgmt. Servs. v. Financial Pacific Ins. Co., Cal.Ct.App. (4th Dist.), Docket No. D069814 (filed 11/14/17), the California Court of Appeal held that the term “liability arising out of,” as used in an ongoing operations endorsement, does not require that the named insured’s liability arise while it is performing work on a construction project. In the McMillin case, the general contractor and developer (McMillin) contracted with various subcontractors, including a concrete subcontractor and stucco subcontractor insured by Lexington Insurance Company. Both subcontractors performed their work at the project prior to the sale of the units. The Lexington policies contained substantively identical additional insured endorsements that provided coverage to McMillin “for liability arising out of your [the named insured subcontractor’s] ongoing operations performed for [McMillin].” Several homeowners filed suit against McMillin, alleging that they had discovered various defective conditions arising out of the construction of their homes, including defects arising out of the work performed by Lexington’s insureds. Lexington argued that there was no potential for coverage in McMillin’s favor under the endorsements because there were no homeowners during the time that the subcontractors’ operations were performing work at the project (the homes closed escrow after the subcontractors had completed their work); thus, McMillin did not have any liability for property damage that took place while the subcontractors’ operations were ongoing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rose Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---