FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

The Murky Waters Between "Good Faith" and "Bad Faith"

September 30, 2019 — Theresa A. Guertin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
In honor of Shark Week, that annual television-event where we eagerly flip on the Discovery Channel to get our fix of these magnificent (and terrifying!) creatures, I was inspired to write about the “predatory” practices we’ve encountered recently in our construction insurance practice. The more sophisticated the business and risk management department is, the more likely they have a sophisticated insurer writing their coverage. Although peaceful coexistence is possible, that doesn’t mean that insurers won’t use every advantage available to them – compared to even large corporate insureds, insurance companies are the apex predators of the insurance industry. In order to safeguard policyholders’ interests, most states have developed a body of law (some statutory, some based on judicial decisions) requiring insurers to act in good faith when dealing with their insureds. This is typically embodied as a requirement that the insurer act “fairly and reasonably” in processing, investigating, and handling claims. If the insurer does not meet this standard, insureds may be entitled to damages above and beyond that which they could otherwise recover for breach of contract. Proving that an insurer acted in “bad faith,” however, can be like swimming against the riptide. Most states hold that bad faith requires more than just a difference of opinion between insured and insurer over the available coverage – the policyholder must show that the insurer acted “wantonly” or “maliciously,” or, in less stringent jurisdictions, that the insurer was “unreasonable.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com

---

Gaps in Insurance Created by Complex Risks

January 22, 2024 — The Hartford Staff - The Hartford Insights
From slips, trips and falls to extreme weather and cyberattacks, businesses are regularly confronted with risks to operations and profitability. In 2023, elevated building costs, increased flooding, and growing ransomware attacks made it compelling for business owners to make sure they had adequate insurance to stay ahead of property and liability exposures. However, if left unchecked, these trends can lead to gaps in coverage. As 2024 approaches, now is the time to assess your risk and collaborate with the right resources to fill any potential voids in insurance. Economic inflation for example has changed property valuations, which can result in coverage gaps if policyholders have not examined their replacement costs recently. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights

---

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

---

The EEOC Targets Construction Industry For Heightened Enforcement

May 15, 2023 — Meghan Douris & Andrew Scroggins - The Construction Seyt
Seyfarth Synopsis: On January 10, 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released for public comment its draft 2023-2027 Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”)—a document that will guide the Commission’s enforcement priorities for the next five years. The EEOC’s prior Strategic Plan described how it would pursue its enforcement goals. (See our earlier blog on the Strategic Plan here). The Strategic Enforcement Plan, on the other hand, describes what the EEOC’s enforcement priorities will be. Earlier actions by the EEOC suggested that it might be turning its attention to the construction industry. In the SEP, the EEOC makes its intentions explicit, putting the construction industry—and especially those receiving federal funding—squarely in its sights. History of the SEP The EEOC’s first SEP covered Fiscal Years 2013-2016 (the EEOC’s fiscal years begin on October 1) and identified six broad subject-matter priorities. The EEOC’s second SEP set the course for enforcement priorities for FY2017-2022. The latest proposed SEP, published in the Federal Register for comment for the first time, provides notable additional details that put the employer community on notice of the Commission’s intentions for FY2023-2027.[1] Reprinted courtesy of Meghan Douris, Seyfarth and Andrew Scroggins, Seyfarth Ms. Douris may be contacted at mdouris@seyfarth.com Mr. Scroggins may be contacted ascroggins@seyfarth.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Sureties do not Issue Bonds Risk-Free to the Bond-Principal

August 30, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If your construction company is bonded, then you have signed a General Agreement of Indemnity with your surety / bonding company. Stated another way, if a surety issued an obligee on behalf of your construction company, as the bond-principal, a payment or performance bond, then you have signed a General Agreement of Indemnity with your surety. The General Agreement of Indemnity is NOT to be taken lightly. Without the General Agreement of Indemnity, the surety is NOT issuing the bonds you need to work on a certain project. A bond is not insurance and sureties do not issue the bonds under a risk-free premise. Oh no! If a surety has to pay-out claims under a bond, the surety will be looking to recoup that loss from the indemnitors that executed the General Agreement of Indemnity. 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

---

NEW DEFECT WARRANTY LAWS – Now Applicable to Condominiums and HOAs transitioning from Developer to Homeowner Control. Is Your Community Aware of its Rights Under the New Laws?

February 07, 2014 — Nicholas D. Cowie – Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law Blog
All condominium associations and homeowners associations (“HOAs”) created in Maryland 0n or after October 1, 2010 are subject to new laws pertaining to statutory warranties for construction defects in workmanship and materials. Most associations that have recently transitioned, or that are about to transition, from developer to homeowner control were created on after October 1, 2010. It is now time for these Associations to become familiar with the new laws to ensure they protect and preserve their warranty rights. Below is an Article I wrote regarding these new laws, which I helped create. See Blog Post: “Maryland Construction Defect Lawyers Enforcing Warranty Claims for Condominiums.” Too often our firm is contacted by condominium associations who never knew what there warranty and other legal rights were until it was too late to seek developer repairs and reimbursement for construction defects. There is no reason for community associations to remain uniformed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law Blog
Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

---

Mitigation, Restructuring and Bankruptcy: Small Business Tools in the Era of COVID-19

June 08, 2020 — Hannah Kreuser - Porter Law Group
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been sudden and severe. Worldwide, populations are dealing with a public health crisis, which has abruptly impacted the economy. As cases continue to increase across the United States, both the federal government and state governments, including California, are directing people to “shelter in place” and “socially distance” from each other in an attempt to curb the spread of the virus. These orders have generally shut down daily life except for “essential” businesses. As a direct result, the economy has come to an abrupt halt and many businesses have been forced to close or significantly reduce their operations. Concern for this economic impact is, in part, due to the speed and severity with which it has affected so many industries. With the current economic conditions, there is much speculation that bankruptcy filings, among not only individuals, but small businesses, will see a sudden increase in the coming months. Experts agree that filings will increase, the only question is when. Because of COVID-19’s economic impact, it is important that businesses make an assessment now, regarding their needs, assets, and liabilities, so they can best prepare to survive COVID-19, or to take proactive steps in preparing to enter bankruptcy or wind down. In making this assessment, one of the questions to ask is whether the business can survive with quick financing, to help bridge the gap between the current operating conditions and their return to normal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hannah Kreuser, Porter Law Group
Ms. Kreuser may be contacted at hkreuser@porterlaw.com

---

Arizona Court of Appeals Rules Issues Were Not Covered in Construction Defect Suit

December 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Peters v. Marque Homes. In this case, Walter Peters provided the land and funding for Marque Homes to build a luxury residence in Glendale, Arizona. By the terms of the “Joint Venture Agreement,” Peters provided the land and funding, while Marque would not charge Peters for overhead, profits, or supervision fees. The agreement specified that profits would be divided equally.

Two years later, Marque sued Peters claiming he had breached his obligations by refusing several offers for the home. Peters replied that Marque had “failed to complete the home so it is habitable to prospective purchasers.” Peters stated he had “retained an expert inspector who had identified numerous defects.” The court appointed a Special Commissioner to list the home for sale. Peters purchased the home with two stipulations ordered by the court. At this point, the earlier case was dismissed with prejudice.

Peters then sued Marque “asserting express and implied warranty claims arising out of alleged construction defects in the home.” Marque claimed that Peters’s claims were “precluded by the prior joint venture dispute.” The court granted Marque’s motion.

The appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision, determining that Peters’s claims were not precluded by the agreement. Although there had been a prior case between the two parties, warranty issues did not form a part of that case. “Peters never raised these allegations nor presented this evidence in support of any warranty claim.”

The court also noted that the “parties never agreed to preclude future warranty claims.” Marque and Peters “agreed in the stipulated sale order that ‘the sale of the property to a third party shall be “as is” with a 10-year structural warranty.’” The court noted that the agreement said nothing about one of the parties buying the house.

The appeals court left open a claim by Marque that there are no implied or express warranties available to Peters. They asked the Superior Court to address this.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---