Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Court Requires Adherence to “Good Faith and Fair Dealing” in Construction Defect Coverage

September 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Allied Framers, Inc. v. Golden Bear Insurance Company. Allied had been sued in a construction defect case and its primary insurer had become insolvent. Coverage for Allied’s defense was paid for by the California Insurance Guarantee Association through June 8, 2006. When warned that CIGA’s involvement was ending, Allied notified Golden Bear, which declined to provide coverage.

In the matters that followed, Golden Bear claimed that Allied had not exhausted its $1 million in primary insurance. Allied then showed that $1 million had already been paid out in the case. A few months thereafter, Golden Bear offered a $500,000 settlement on behalf of Allied which was rejected. Thereafter, Golden Bear hired new counsel to defend Allied. Golden Bear received, but allegedly did not pay, invoices Allied sent from their former counsel. Golden Bear finally settled the construction defect case for $2 million.

Allied’s original counsel sued Allied for payment. Golden Bear declined coverage. Allied then claimed that Golden Bear liable on several counts, arising from its failure to settle the construction defect action earlier than it did and its failure to pay Allied’s counsel. Golden Bear demurred, arguing that Allied had now exhausted is coverage with the $2 million settlement. The lower court sustained Golden Bear’s demurrer, dismissing Allied’s complaints.

The appeal court reviewed Allied’s seven complaints and sustained most of them. However, the court did reverse the trial court’s order in regard to Allied’s complaint that Golden Bear breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The appeals court was not convinced that Golden Bear properly evaluated the settlement demand in the underlying construction defect case. The court found three other ways in which Golden Bear’s actions might show bad faith, in refusing to pay defense fees “after promising [Allied] such costs would be paid in full,” “failing to advise Allied about ‘actual or potential negative consequences of agreeing to the proposed settlement,’” and that their choice of counsel “failed to protect [Allied’s] interests in the negotiation.”

Read the court’s decision…

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

Deadline for Hurricane Ian Disaster Recovery Applications Announced

October 17, 2022 — Lewis Brisbois
Washington, D.C. (October 11, 2022) - On Friday, October 7, 2022, the Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) announced that applications for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Public Assistance Grant Program are due by October 29, 2022. FEMA provides disaster recovery assistance to eligible individuals, families, governments, and private non-profit entities. However, the process for recovering costs is complicated, and FEMA has broad discretion to determine whether applicants and their expenses are eligible. All too often, failure to understand FEMA regulations or submit sufficient documentation results in FEMA denying applicants’ claims, leaving individuals, local governments, and non-profits to bear the full cost of recovery. While ensuring successful recovery through the FEMA grant program can be challenging, clients can increase their likelihood of success when preparing the initial application and documentation by enlisting experienced legal counsel who understand the FEMA process and regulations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Toronto Contractor Bondfield Wins Court Protection as Project Woes Mount

May 27, 2019 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
A Toronto area contractor at the center of a series of delays to major projects in Ontario, including a $139-million hospital expansion, has won court protection from its creditors. The Ontario Superior Court earlier this month granted Bondfield Construction Co.’s application for protection, court records show. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, ENR

New Illinois Supreme Court Trigger Rule for CGL Personal Injury “Offenses” Could Have Costly Consequences for Policyholders

March 09, 2020 — Michael S. Levine & Kevin V. Small - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The Illinois Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sanders v. Illinois Union Insurance Co., 2019 IL 124565 (2019), announced the standard for triggering general liability coverage for malicious prosecution claims under Illinois law. In its decision, the court construed what appears to be a policy ambiguity against the policyholder in spite of the longstanding rule of contra proferentem, limiting coverage to policies in place at the time of the wrongful prosecution, and not the policies in effect when the final element of the tort of malicious prosecution occurred (i.e. the exoneration of the plaintiff). The net result of the court’s ruling for policyholders susceptible to such claims is that coverage for jury verdicts for malicious prosecution – awarded in today’s dollars – is limited to the coverage procured at the time of the wrongful prosecution, which may (as in this case) be decades old. Such a scenario can have costly consequences for policyholders given that the limits procured decades ago are often inadequate due to the ever-increasing awards by juries as well as inflation. Moreover, it may be difficult to locate the legacy policies and the insurers that issued such policies may no longer be solvent or even exist. A copy of the decision can be found here. The Sanders case arose out of the wrongful conviction of Rodell Sanders in 1994 by the City of Chicago Heights (the “City”). Mr. Sanders sought recompense for, among other things, malicious prosecution through a federal civil rights action against the City. In September 2016, Mr. Sanders obtained a consent judgment for $15 Million; however, at the time of the wrongful conviction, seventeen years earlier, the City’s only applicable insurance policy provided just $3 million in coverage. The City contributed another $2 million towards the judgment and, in exchange for Mr. Sanders’s agreement not to seek the $10 million balance from the City, assigned its rights under the policies for the 2012 to 2014 period. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

How Construction Contracts are Made. Hint: It’s a Bit Like Making Sausage

October 07, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Construction can be a messy affair. In a sense, that’s to be expected when you’re building a complex structure, involving the coordination of several parties and numerous persons, in the natural environment and in the elements, subject to an increasing array of laws, regulations, ordinances and codes, and often at the cost of hundreds if not billions of dollars. So too can construction contracts. There’s the plans, the specifications, the general conditions, the special conditions, the addenda, the prime contract, the subcontracts, the purchase orders, and the change orders, to name just a few of the documents which bind parties, which should ideally be consistent and complimentary with one another, when the reality is that the parties bound to those contracts often have very different interests. Perhaps the analogy goes a little too far afield, but it makes the point, that it can sometimes be a bit like making sausage. The next case, Watson Bowman Acme Corporation v. RGW Construction, Inc., California Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, Case No. F070067 (August 9, 2016), highlights the problems which can arise from the numerous documents which make up the typical construction contract today and the lengths that juries and judges must go to interpret what those agreements mean. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Insurers Get “Floored” by Court of Appeals Regarding the Presumptive Measure of Damages in Consent Judgments

May 13, 2014 — Mark Scheer and Brent Williams-Ruth – Scheer & Zehnder LLP
CASE: Miller v. Kenny, 68594-5-I, 2014 WL 1672946 (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2014). Snapshot Synopsis: $21 million bad faith consent judgment verdict upheld. $4.15 million underlying stipulated consent judgment was the “floor,” and additional damages allowed. ISSUES: 1. Can a jury award damages for an insurer’s bad faith in excess of the amount of the stipulated covenant judgment? YES 2. Can a trial court admit evidence of insurance liability reserves in a bad faith action? YES 3. *Note: Other evidentiary and procedural issues were addressed by the court in its decision but not analyzed in this summary* FACTS: This appeal arose out of an automobile accident on August 23, 2000. Patrick Kenny was driving a 1994 Volkswagen Passat owned by one of the passengers, when he rear-ended a cement truck. The accident severely injured his three passengers: Ryan Miller, Ashley Bethards, and Cassandra Peterson. Kenny was covered for liability under the insurance policy issued to Peterson's parents by Safeco Insurance Company. Safeco defended Kenny without a reservation of rights. Reprinted courtesy of Mark Scheer, Scheer & Zehnder LLP and Brent Williams-Ruth, Scheer & Zehnder LLP Mr. Scheer may be contacted at mscheer@scheerlaw.com; Mr. Williams-Ruth may be contacted at bwilliamsruth@scheerlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Says KBR Construction Costs in Iraq were Unreasonable

August 27, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Mike Bosse of Bernstein Shur, analyzed a case involving Kellogg Brown and Root Services Inc. (KBR) and the U.S. Army for services that KBR provided during Operation Iraqi Freedom, according to JDSupra Business Advisor: “The court case involved KBR’s construction of dining facility services near Mosul, Iraq under a cost-plus fee arrangement. Under this contractual arrangement, all allowable costs were reimbursed by the government plus the contractor was paid an additional fee.” KBR first started on a prefabricated metal dining hall that would serve 2,500 people, but part way into building they were told to stop construction and to instead start on a new reinforced concrete building that would serve almost three times as many people. “After construction was finished, a defense contract auditing agency suspended some of the payments to KBR and instead of the $12.5 million it expected to receive, KBR was paid only $6.7 million,” reported JDSupra Business Advisor. “After trial, the court concluded KBR did not meet its burden to show the costs it incurred were reasonable under the circumstances.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Bid Bonds: The First Preventative Measure for Your Project

September 03, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday, Construction Law Musings welcomes Danielle Rodabaugh. Danielle is a principal for Surety Bonds.com, an agency that issues surety bonds to individuals and businesses across the nation. She writes articles to clarify bonding rules and regulations for those who have a stake in the surety bond industry–from contractors to telemarketers, and every professional in between. In construction we often value performance and payment bonds when considering how to protect the financial investments put into a project. We do so because these bonds provide a legal financial guarantee that the selected contractor will fulfill the contract. However, a third, equally protective kind of construction bond is often overlooked. Before an official contract has been agreed to and successfully executed, bid bonds guarantee that the selected low-bidder will officially enter into the contract at a later date. Bidders must submit a bid bond with their bid. Without doing so, the bidder becomes non-responsive–or an invalid candidate. Sometimes we overlook the benefits provided by this kind of Virginia surety bond, and yet they frequently act as the only legal protection for a project prior to groundbreaking. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES