Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Policyholder Fails to Build Adequate Record to Support Bad Faith Claim

May 19, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly

The importance of careful preparation and documentation was the take away lesson in a Texas bad faith case, C.K. Lee v. Catlin Specialty Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19145 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2011).

C.K. Lee owned a commercial shopping center in Houston. Catlin issued a commercial property policy to Lee. On September 12, 2008, Hurricane Ike hit and caused substantial property damage throughout the Texas Gulf Coast area. On September 24, 2008, Lee submitted a claim for damage to the roof of his shopping center to Catlin.

Catlin hired Engle Martin to represent its interests in adjusting the claim. Engle Martin eventually adjusted over 200 Ike-related claims for Catlin.

In November 2008, Engle Martin and Emergency Services Inc., retained by Lee, inspected Lee’s property. Engle Martin observed evidence of roof repairs that had apparently been made both before and after Hurricane Ike. Engle Martin decided it was necessary to use an infrared scan of the roof to help identify which damages, if any, were attributable to wind and which, if any, were attributable to sub par, prior repairs or natural deterioration.

Engle Martin retained Project, Time & Cost (PT&C) to conduct the infrared inspection. PT&C’s inspection determined there was no wind-related damage to the roof and no breaches or openings created by wind. Instead, the roof had exceeded its life expectancy and was in need of replacement due to normal wear and weathering. Consequently, Catlin decided that the damage to Lee’s roof was not caused by winds from Hurricane Ike.

Meanwhile, Lee’s contractor, Emergency Services, prepared a report estimating that the total cost of repairing the roof would be $871,187. Engle Martin’s estimate for repair of the roof was $22,864.

Lee filed suit for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the Texas Insurance Code. Catlin moved for summary judgment on all claims but breach of contract, arguing that because there was a bona fide dispute concerning the cause of the damages and whether they were covered under the policy, there was no evidence of bad faith or violations of the Texas Insurance Code.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

Resolving Subcontractor Disputes with Pass-Through Claims and Liquidation Agreements

May 13, 2024 — Stephanie Cooksey - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Imagine a project where you are unable to reach final completion due to an unresolved subcontractor claim. If the project owner is responsible for the claim, and both the owner and subcontractor are entrenched in their positions, how would you resolve this dispute? The default option is a three-party lawsuit where the subcontractor sues you in your capacity as general contractor. By denying the claim, you bring the owner into the lawsuit as a liable party to the subcontractor’s claim. This option is efficient from the judicial system’s perspective, as it means one lawsuit instead of two. The subcontractor cannot sue the owner since the two have no contract between them. Thus, the subcontractor’s recourse is limited to suing the contractor. In the three-party lawsuit, you argue that if the subcontractor prevails in its claim against you, the owner is liable. If the owner successfully defends against the claim, the subcontractor takes nothing. Putting judicial economy aside, it may not make economic sense for contractors to have a lawyer involved in litigating a case where they have no skin in the game. Fortunately, there is a better option than the three-party lawsuit on multi-party construction projects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephanie Cooksey, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Cooksey may be contacted at scooksey@pecklaw.com

North Dakota Court Determines Inadvertent Faulty Workmanship is an "Occurrence"

May 10, 2013 — Tred Eyerly
Joining what it called the majority of jurisdictions, the North Dakota Supreme Court found that damage caused by faulty workmanship can be an "occurrence." K&L Homes, Inc. v. Am. Family Mutual Ins. Co., 2013 N.D. LEXIS 61 (N.D. April 5, 2013). The insured, K&L, was a general contractor who was sued after completing construction of a new home. The suit was based upon breach of contract and breach of implied warranties claims. The homeowners alleged that improper compacting of soil had caused shifting of their home, leading to property damage. K&L had hired a subcontractor to do the soil compaction work. The insurer denied coverage. K&L sued the insurer, but lost at the summary judgment stage. On appeal, K&L argued the policy should be interpreted to give effect to the document as a whole and the "subcontractor exception" to the "your work" exclusion should apply. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

North Miami Beach Rejects as Incomplete 2nd Engineering Inspection Report From Evacuated Condo

July 25, 2021 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
North Miami Beach has rejected a new engineering inspection report provided by the Crestview Towers condominium association, keeping about 300 evacuated residents from returning to their apartments and raising new questions about engineering inspection reports in the aftermath of the Champlain Towers South collapse. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Commercial Development Nearly Quadruples in Jacksonville Area

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Construction is up in the Jacksonville area, and no sector is doing better than commercial construction. During the first ten months of 2012, there was $21.2 million of commercial construction, but during the first ten months of 2013, there was been $73.2 million of commercial construction, helped along by a $13.7 million medical complex. In addition to the massive growth in commercial construction, residential construction is up, but by a comparatively modest 52%. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Rejects Insurer's Argument That Two Triggers Required

May 12, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court rejected the insurer's argument that two triggers - one for exposure to asbestos and one for resulting injury - were required under CGL policies. Compass Ins. Co. v. University Mechanical and Engineering Contractors, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Cal. March 25, 2016). University Mechanical and Engineering Contractors, Inc. (UMEC) was a California corporation in the business of installing plumbing, piping and HVAC systems. UMEC was defending a number of asbestos cases in California state courts arising from its subcontracting work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

CA Supreme Court Permits Insurers to Bring Direct Actions Seeking Reimbursement of Excessive Fees Against Cumis Counsel Under Limited Circumstances

August 19, 2015 — David W. Evans & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The California Supreme Court held in Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. J.R. Marketing, L.L.C. (Squire Sanders) (8/10/2015 - #S211645) that if Cumis counsel, operating under a court order which such counsel drafted and which expressly provided that the insurer would be able to recover excessive fees, sought and received fee payments from the insurer that were fraudulent or otherwise manifestly and objectively useless and wasteful when incurred, Cumis counsel have been unjustly enriched at the insurer’s expense and the insurer will be permitted under such limited circumstances to seek reimbursement directly from Cumis counsel. Certain Hartford insureds who had been issued commercial general liability policies were sued in multiple proceedings for a variety of claims, including unfair competition, defamation and intentional misrepresentation. Hartford disclaimed a duty to defend or to indemnify the defendants on the grounds that the acts complained of occurred prior to Hartford’s policy, and that some of the defendants were not Hartford insureds. A coverage action was filed by some of the insureds against Hartford; they were represented by the Squire Sanders law firm. Although Hartford subsequently agreed to defend several of the defendants subject to a reservation of rights, it declined to pay defense expenses incurred prior to the date of such agreement. Some months later, the trial court entered a summary adjudication order, finding that Hartford had a duty to have defended the liability action on the date it was originally tendered; the order required Hartford to fund the insured’s defense with independent counsel (i.e., so-called “Cumis” counsel; see San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358). The insureds retained Squire Sanders as their Cumis counsel. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

How to Challenge a Project Labor Agreement

May 24, 2018 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
Building and Construction Trades Council of Metropolitan District v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts Rhode Island, Inc Massachusetts Water Resources Authority v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts Rhode Island, Inc, 507 U.S. 218, 113 S.Ct. 1190, 122 L.Ed.2d 565 (1993) , affectionately knows as Boston Harbor, is the seminal Supreme Court decision that held that the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) does not preempt government mandated project labor agreements (“PLAs”) if the government entity is acting as a market participant rather than a market regulator. Boston Harbor has led to many believing that virtually all PLAs are legal when the government agency is a project owner or if the PLA involves a private project. However, does Boston Harbor really cut that far? In short, no. The primary issue in Boston Harbor was one of preemption. The Supreme Court addressed whether the NLRA preempted state and local laws and ordinances mandating PLAs. On that narrow issue, the Supreme Court said there is no preemption if the government is acting as a market participant. What the Court did not address is whether other federal statutes invalidate PLAs. Specifically, whether PLA’s can run afoul of Section 8(e), the so called “hot cargo” provisions, of the NLRA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES