Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Are Defense Costs In Addition to Policy Limits?

December 02, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
I recently had a discussion with an insurer about whether defense costs were included within the policy limits of a client’s coverage or in addition to policy limits. This was an important discussion because if costs of defense were included in the policy limits, my client was going to exceed those policy limits in a hurry. How would this situation play out with your insurance? Fortunately, the majority of insurance policies, such as Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies, provide that defense costs are “in addition” to the policy limits. But some policies, often times referred to as “burning limits” policies, provide that cost of defense is included in the policy limits. This means that if you have $1,000,000.00 policy limits, your costs of defense will reduce that limit throughout the course of litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

Illinois Supreme Court Holds that Constructions Defects May Constitute “Property Damage” Caused By An “Occurrence” Under Standard CGL Policy, Overruling Prior Appellate Court Precedent

January 08, 2024 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
On November 30, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion that overturned precedent in Illinois regarding whether faulty workmanship that only caused damage to the insured’s own work constituted “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under Illinois law. In Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC, 2023 IL 129087, the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether Acuity, a mutual insurance company, had a duty to defend its additional insured, M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC (M/I Homes), under a subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy in connection with an underlying lawsuit brought by a townhome owners’ association for breach of contract and breach of an implied warranty of habitability. The Cook County Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Acuity finding no duty to defend because the underlying complaint did not allege “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the initial grant of coverage of the insurance policy. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that Acuity owed M/I Homes a duty to defend. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, in part, holding construction defects to the general contractor’s own work may constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the standard CGL Policy. This is significant as it overrules prior Illinois precedent finding that repair or replacement of the insured’s defective work does not satisfy the initial grant of coverage of a CGL Policy. By way of background, the underlying litigation stems from alleged construction defects in a residential townhome development in the village of Hanover Park, Illinois. The townhome owners’ association, through its board of directors (the Association) subsequently filed an action on behalf of the townhome owners for breach of contract and breach of the implied warranty of habitability against M/I Homes as the general contractor and successor developer/seller of the townhomes. The Association alleged that M/I Homes’ subcontractors caused construction defects by using defective materials, conducting faulty workmanship, and failing to comply with applicable building codes. As a result, “[t]he [d]efects caused physical injury to the [t]ownhomes (i.e. altered the exterior’s appearance, shape, color or other material dimension) after construction of the [t]ownhome[ ] was completed from repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions.” The defects included “leakage and/or uncontrolled water and/or moisture in locations in the buildings where it was not intended or expected.” The Association alleged that the “[d]efects have caused substantial damage to the [t]ownhomes and damage to other property.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

Defects in Texas High School Stadium Angers Residents

March 07, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to WFAA News, many residents of Allen, Texas were upset when their tax dollars were spent on a new high school football stadium, and they are angry now that alleged construction defects may cause the stadium to close, and perhaps not even reopen again this fall. There “is a disproportionately large amount of our tax dollars that goes just to Allen ISD," Rachel Palmer, an Allen resident, told WFAA News. However, Ben Pogue, president of Pogue Construction, the stadium’s general contractor called the situation “a road bump.” WPAA News also interviewed Dr. Simon Chao of the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Texas at Arlington: "Cracking is fairly common in concrete," Chao stated. "The problem is the damage water may cause by getting in the cracks.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Arkansas Law

January 13, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court found there was no coverage for the insured contractor under Arkansas law when sued for construction defects by two homeowners. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Hambuchen Constr., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160364 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 18, 2016). In one case, the Pierces hired Hambuchen, the insured contractor for the construction of a new home, which was completed in 2006. Two years after moving in, the Pierces experienced water leaks at various locations inside the home and the basement flooded. Water damage rendered the back deck unstable. In 2010 and 2011, Hambuchen made repairs to stop leaks on the decks, but in 2012 the back deck again showed signs of water damage. The Pierces sued, and Auto-Owners provided a defense under a reservation of rights. In the second case, the Lessmanns hired Hambuchen in 2005 as general contractor to construct their new home. Following completion of the home, the Lessmanns complained about scratched windows. The Lessmanns filed suit against Hambuchen for breach of the construction contract by failing to build their home in a workmanlike manner. The Lessmanns filed suit in May 2009. Auto-Owners was not aware of the suit until 2015 when it received notice that the Lessmanns had filed an amended complaint. The Lessmans' suit went to trial and Hambuchen prevailed. 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

Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

November 21, 2017 — Theresa A. Guertin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Blog
Originally published by CDJ on January 13, 2017 The Supreme Court of Oregon issued a decision at the end of last year which perfectly illustrates the lengths to which a court may go to grant a contractor’s claim for defense from its insurer in a construction defect suit. In West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc.,1 the Court held that a subcontractor’s insurer had a duty to defend a general contractor as an additional insured because the allegations of a homeowner’s association’s complaint could be interpreted to fall within the ambit of coverage provided under the policy—despite the fact that the policy only provided ongoing operations coverage, and despite the fact that the subcontractor was never mentioned in the complaint. The decision is favorable to policyholders but also provides an important lesson: that contractors may avoid additional insured disputes if those contractors have solid contractual insurance requirements for both ongoing and completed operations risks. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com

Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Damage Caused by Tar Escaping From Roof

October 27, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer prevailed on summary judgment establishing it had no duty to defend the insured roofing contractor for damage caused by tar escaping from a roof. Mesa Underwriters Spec. Ins. Co. v. Myers, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108444 (W.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2016). Myers contracted to do roofing work for Sireco III LLC. Myers removed stones from the roof, patched all bad sections, and sealed the roof. To seal the roof, Myers used a roofing-tar sealant. The substance was a skin irritant and harmful or fatal if swallowed. Myers expected the sealant to harden within twenty-four hours. When rain hit the area eleven days later, however, it washed the sealant off the roof and into the downspouts. It then flowed into the city's sewer system and eventually into Lake Erie. 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

Are Proprietary Specifications Illegal?

April 11, 2018 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
A friend came to me with a question regarding a case he was working: “can a public owner require that bidders use a specific brand name product?” “Of course not,” I said “proprietary specifications are illegal.” Or, at least that’s what I assumed. To my surprise, the law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is not as clear as it is in other jurisdictions. What is a proprietary specification? A proprietary specification lists a product by brand name, make, model and/model that a contractor must (shall) utilize in construction. A basic example of a proprietary specification would state:

“Air Handlers shall be “Turbo Max” as manufactured by Chiller Corp.”

There are two problems with a proprietary specification (other than potentially being illegal): (a) they limit competition, and (b) invite steered contract awards. They limit competition because it limits the type of material that can be used on the project. In the example above, there could be equivalent air handlers available at a better price but the contractor could not use that lower priced product in its bid. Thus, the taxpayers end up paying more for tile. Also, contractors may not be able to secure a certain brand name product because of exclusive distribution agreements. Again, using the example above, contractor A’s competitor may have the exclusive distribution agreement with Chiller Corp. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Colorado Drillers Show Sensitive Side to Woo Fracking Foes

September 03, 2014 — Zain Shauk and Bradley Olson – Bloomberg
A fight over fracking is looming in Texas. Another stand-off is shaping up in Colorado. Yet drillers’ reactions couldn’t be more different. In Texas, drillers are doing their noisy in-your-face fracking as usual. Meanwhile, on a small farm about an hour from the Colorado Rocky Mountains, the oil industry is giving fracking a makeover, cutting back on rumbling trucks and tamping down on pollution. Oil companies in Colorado are responding to a rising tide of resentment as local communities and environmental activists vie to impose measures to ban fracking or restrict drilling. A series of ballot initiatives and other grass roots opposition around the country is seen as threatening the booming shale industry, even in oil-friendly Texas, where the U.S. energy renaissance began. Reprinted courtesy of Zain Shauk, Bloomberg and Bradley Olson, Bloomberg Mr. Shauk may be contacted at zshauk@bloomberg.net; Mr. Olson may be contacted at bradleyolson@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES