Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Carrier Has Duty to Defend Claim for Active Malfunction of Product

October 19, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Rejecting that the underlying claim was based solely on faulty workmanship, the Third Circuit held the insurer had a duty to defend allegations of a malfunctioning product. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. 200 Christina Street Partners LLC, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 22118 (3d Cir. July 16, 2020). The insureds were sued by homeowners in two separate suits alleging defects in the construction of their homes. Nautilus defended under a reservation of rights. Nautilus filed suit in District Court and moved for judgment on the pleadings. The District Court denied the motion, finding Nautilus had a duty to defend because the underlying claims sufficiently alleged product--related tort clams that could fall within the scope of coverage under the relevant policies. The Third Circuit affirmed. There was a distinction between a claim of faulty workmanship, for which the insurer did not have a duty to defend, and a claim of "active malfunction" of a product, for which an insurer did have such a duty. An active malfunction was sufficiently fortuitous as to constitute an "occurrence." 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

Spreading Cracks On FIU Bridge Failed to Alarm Project Team

May 20, 2019 — Scott Judy & Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
On the morning of last year’s Florida International University pedestrian bridge collapse, when the engineer of record assured project team members that there were no safety risks related to cracks propagating across a part of the unusual single-truss structure, other project team members voiced mild concern, but no alarm. In hindsight, considering that the bridge had no inherent structural redundancy as it sat, incomplete, straddling a busy highway—and would suffer a sudden, catastrophic and deadly collapse just hours later—the team’s lack of urgency remains puzzling, say engineering experts contacted by ENR for comment. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Judy, ENR and Richard Korman, ENR Mr. Judy may be contacted at mailto:judys@enr.com Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Florida’s Construction Defect Statute of Repose

August 24, 2017 — David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
Butler Weihmuller of Katz Craig LLP discussed Florida’s 10-year statute of repose law: “Under § 95.11(3)(c), the action must commence within 10 years after the date of actual possession by the owner, the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the date of abandonment of construction if not completed, or the date of completion or termination of the contract between the professional engineer, registered architect, or licensed contractor and his or her employer, whichever date is latest.” However, Weihmuller explains that parties may disagree on the specific date For instance, in Busch v. Lennar Homes, LLC, Florida’s 5th DCA recently “reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a homeowner’s construction defect claim that was filed just beyond 10 years after the closing date on the property.” The previous decision had been based on the notion that the contract had been completed upon the date of closing. The 5th DCA declared that “a contract is not completed until both sides of a contract have been performed” and “pointed to the ‘inspection and punch-list clause’ of the contract.” The clause indicated that “[a]ny remaining items that Seller has agreed to correct will be corrected by Seller at Seller’s sole cost and expense prior to closing or at Seller’s option within a reasonable time after closing.” Since not all punch-list items had been completed prior to closing, the 5th DCA held that the contract had not been completed at closing, and therefore the statute of repose did not begin until the punch-items had been accomplished. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

San Francisco Half-Built Apartment Complex Destroyed by Fire

March 12, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to San Jose Mercury News, a 250 million dollar apartment complex being built in San Francisco, California received “catastrophic damage” from a fire on March 11th. The complex was being developed by BRE Properties, Inc., and “was slated to open sometime later this year.” Initial reports blamed high winds for the start of the blaze, however, San Jose Mercury news reported that “downtown San Francisco experienced wind speeds of no more than 10 mph Tuesday, and that heavy winds were not expected Tuesday night” according to the National Weather Service. “Representatives for [BRE Properties, Inc.] were not available for comment,” as reported by San Jose Mercury News. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Firm Offers Tips on Construction Defects in Colorado

February 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Although the Tenth Circuit Court determined that construction defects are occurrences under a general liability policy and the passage of CRS Section 13-20-808, in which the Colorado Legislature addressed the definition of occurrences as they relate to construction defects, the insurance industry “will continue to challenge the very concept of coverage for construction defects,” according to five attorneys at the law firm Sherman & Howard. They suggest that there are lessons to be learned from two recent cases that were recently decided by the Colorado Court of Appeals, TCD, Inc. v. American Family and Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company. They suggest that construction professionals to be certain that their insurers are “firmly rooted in insuring the construction industry.” Their broker should also have “specific expertise in insuring the construction industry.” And don’t buy on price alone. Finally, they suggest that construction professionals should “engage an experienced coverage attorney to assess pursuing coverage when an insurance company denies coverage for a construction defect claim.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Duty to Defend Affirmed in Connecticut Construction Defect Case

August 13, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to an article by Matthew Vocci of Ober | Kaler in JD Supra, the Supreme Court of Conneticut affirmed in Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Netherlands Ins. “that allegations of years-long, continuing and progressive water intrusion caused by alleged construction defects triggered a duty to defend under CGL coverage language.” Vocci stated that the result demonstrated “the importance of the wording of the allegations relating to construction defects, resulting damage and when the parties were on notice of the issues. For property owners, contractors/builders/developers and their insurers, the allegations in the complaint guide what can be a difficult and contentious determination regarding whether the insured is provided with a defense from its CGL carrier.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Fifth Circuit Certifies Questions to Texas Supreme Court on Concurrent Causation Doctrine

August 07, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fifth Circuit certified unanswered questions on the concurrent causation doctrine to the Texas Supreme Court. Overstreet v. Allstate Vehicle & Prop, Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 13582 (5th Cir. May 19, 2022). The insured alleged that a hail storm damaged his roof. The roof was three years old when he purchased a policy from Allstate. An adjuster sent by Allstate valued the loss at $1,263.123, less than the policy deductible. Allstate contended that the roof damage was due to uncovered causes, namely a combination of wear and tear and earlier hail storms that hit the roof before the insured purchased the policy. The insured disagreed because the roof had never leaked before the hail storm, but only after the storm. The insured's expert inspected the roof and determined it had been damaged by hail. The district granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment because the insured had not carried his burden of proving how much damages came from the hail storm alone. 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

Brief Overview of Rights of Unlicensed Contractors in California

September 10, 2014 — William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers Blog
Under California Contractor’s State License Law enumerated in Business and Professions Code Sections 7000 to 7191, a contractor may not “bring or maintain” any action for compensation for performing any act or contract for which a license is required unless the contractor was duly licensed “at all times” during performance. Bus & Prof Code Section 7031(a). What does this mean and who does it include? This is a question that often has to be answered on a case by case basis. Basically, California does not want unlicensed contractors to be able to get paid for work that should be performed by a licensed contractor. The law has set forth some general parameters. General contractors, subcontractors, and master developers must be licensed. However, suppliers, manufacturers, laborers and equipment lessors are exempt and do not need a contractor’s license. Essentially, those parties that merely furnish material or supplies without fabricating them into, or consuming them in the performance of work, do not need to be licensed. Bus & Prof Code Section 7052. There are sever fines and penalties for those who improperly perform construction work without a license. A contract between any contractor and an unlicensed subcontractor is a misdemeanor. Lack of a license bars all actions in law or in equity for collection of compensation for the performance of work requiring a license. There are very few exceptions to this rule. A “savvy” unlicensed contractor cannot simply avoid these requirements by “subbing” out all the work to licensed contractors. Any person who uses the services of an unlicensed contractor may file a court action or cross-complaint to recover all payments made to the unlicensed contractor. In addition, a person who uses the services of an unlicensed contractor is a victim of a crime and eligible for restitution of economic losses regardless of whether that person had knowledge that the contractor was unlicensed. Bus. & Prof Code Sections 7028, 7028.16. It goes without saying that performing work without a license on projects is a bad idea. Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES