Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Ohio: Are Construction Defects Covered in Insurance Policies?

January 09, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Amanda M. Leffler of Brouse McDowell analyzed Ohio’s 2012 Supreme Court case Westfield Ins. Co. v. Custom Agri Sys., Inc., which ruled that “’[c]laims of defective construction or workmanship brought by a property owner are not claims for ‘property damage’ caused by an ‘occurrence’ under a commercial general liability policy.’” Leffler stated that the Ohio Supreme Court decision wasn’t as “sweeping” as it might at first appear: “Rather, the Ohio Supreme Court adopted the rule that construction defects are covered ‘occurrences’ within the meaning of commercial general liability (‘CGL’) policies, but only to the extent that property other than the policyholder’s own work is damaged.“ Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Professional Services Exclusion in CGL Policies

December 05, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A professional services exclusion in a commercial general liability policy means something. It’s an exclusion an insurer will rely on to avoid insurance coverage based on “professional services” performed or rendered by the insured. Don’t take it from me. Take it from the recent opinion in Colony Insurance Company v. Coastal Construction Management, LLC, 2022 WL 16636697 (M.D.Fla. 2022) where the trial court granted a commercial general liability insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the professional services exclusion. Here, an owner sued, among other parties, an entity performing only construction management services based on construction defects at its project. The construction manager did not perform any design or physical construction. It was hired to make site inspections of the construction, review construction quality and finish standards, ensure workmanship quality, coordinate the punchlist process, and supervise management and administration of the project. The construction manager’s commercial general liability insurer sued for declaratory relief claiming it owed no duty to defend or indemnify based on the professional services exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

The Clock is Ticking: Construction Delays and Liquidated Damages

September 18, 2023 — Tiffany Harrod - ConsensusDocs
With the on-going shortage of construction workers in the industry and other factors ranging from weather to procurement problems, the threat of project delay is real. When a contract contains a liquidated damages clause for assessing project delays, real financial consequences for contractors can result. Courts have long allowed parties to apportion contractual risks as they deem appropriate especially in the commercial context where the parties are considered to be sophisticated even if their bargaining power is not equal. Liquidated damage provisions such as those for delay that are found in construction contracts are not unusual but they must be crafted in such a way as to be enforceable and not violate public policy. A liquidated damage clause in a construction contract is a customary way for the parties to deal with the possibility of delay in the completion of a project and the potential losses flowing from the delay.[1] In their most basic form, the party in breach, which is more often than not the contractor, is obligated to pay the non-breaching party, usually the project owner, some fixed sum of money for the period that exceeds the designated completion date that was agreed upon in advance and memorialized in the contract. (It is after all no secret that these provisions are primarily for the owner’s benefit.) The non-breaching party is then compensated for losses associated with the delay without the time and expense of having to prove in either a civil suit or an arbitration proceeding what the actual damages are. This option is particularly attractive to project owners because the liquidated damages assessment can simply be withheld from payments owed to the contractor once the agreed-upon completion date has been passed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Harrod, Peckar & Abramson
Ms. Harrod may be contacted at tharrod@pecklaw.com

No Coverage Based Upon Your Prior Work Exclusion

October 01, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's determination of no coverage for construction defects based upon the policy's prior work exclusion. Yu v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 2014 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5966 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2014). Plaintiff was the owner and developer of a hotel. She contracted with ATMI Design Build to act as general contractor to construct the hotel. C&A Framing Company was a subcontractor to provide rough framing for the project. In May 2003, ATMI fired C&A before it had completed all the work required by the subcontract. After May 2003, C&A never returned to the construction site. Notice of Completion for the project was recorded April 15, 2004. In September 2004, Landmark issued to C&A a CGL policy for the period September 18, 2004 to September 18, 2005. The policy was later cancelled, effective January 14, 2005. The policy contained an endorsement entitled, "Exclusion - Your Prior Work." The exclusion barred coverage for "'property damage' arising out of 'your work' prior to 9/18/04." 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

COVID-19 Business Closure and Continuity Compliance Resource

March 30, 2020 — Adam Chelminiak, Joshua Mooney & Ryan Udell - White and Williams LLP
In less than a few weeks’ time, COVID-19 has changed the way we live and work. Businesses, large and small, have had to grapple with unprecedented challenges, including orders to close or significantly curtail operations in order to stem the transmission of the coronavirus. Often, these orders have not been clear or businesses are unsure whether they fit in a category that is deemed essential, life sustaining or other similar category that permits them to continue to operate. Or, the business believes that it is necessary for it to continue to operate for reasons that may not have been apparent to the governmental authority issuing the order. White and Williams has been busy assisting our clients in Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and other states in understanding these orders. Below are government orders, and related resources, that have been announced and/or are currently in effect. White and Williams will continue to monitor these orders and add additional orders and resources as they are announced. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Adam Chelminiak, Joshua Mooney and Ryan Udell Mr. Chelminiak may be contacted at chelminiaka@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Mooney may be contacted at mooneyj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Udell may be contacted at udellr@whiteandwilliams.com Read the full story for government orders, and related resources, that have been announced and/or are currently in effect. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Resumes after Defects

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
When inspectors found defective bolts in the construction of the Media Arts Center at L. A. Mission College, the contractor walked off the job. The project had been underway for about eighteen months. After problems were found with welds and bolts, the contractor informed the school that it could not complete the job. The California Division of the State Architect then required inspection of every weld and joint, leading to a dispute as to who was going to pay for it. At this point, only the first story has been inspected. Although the other two stories must be inspected, the new contractor is about to begin work on the building. James O’Reilly, the executive director for facilities, planning and development, said that “the main focus is on fixing the defective issues and getting construction completed so we can serve the Mission campus.” Still at question is how much SMC Construction received before they walked off the job. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Illinois Insureds are Contesting One Carrier's Universal Denial to Covid-19 Losses

May 11, 2020 — Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
In response to the large number of COVID-19-related losses that businesses are experiencing, insurers have begun issuing statements informing their insureds of whether their policies will respond to the losses, and if so, what coverage will be afforded. Insurers cannot take a “one-size-fits-all” approach to the COVID-19 losses because, besides factual differences, the losses are occurring within all fifty states which means 50 different state law interpretations will apply. Recently, on March 27, 2020, a number of restaurants and movie theaters located in and around Chicago (the “Insureds”) filed a declaratory judgement action, titled Big Onion Tavern Group, LLC et al. v. Society Insurance, Inc., against their property insurance carrier, Society Insurance, Inc. (“Society”), seeking coverage for business interruption resulting from the shutdown order issued by the governor of Illinois. The suit alleges that Society improperly denied their business interruption claims by using a boiler plate denial. The denial issued by Society is allegedly used for all COVID-19 losses regardless of the applicable jurisdiction’s interpretation of the policy language and the specific coverage purchased by the insured. Further, in its denial, Society takes the position that any loss related to a government-issued closure order is uncovered, even though the Insureds specifically purchased business interruption coverage and their policies did not contain an exclusion for losses caused by viruses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Perry may be contacted at amp@sdvlaw.com

Economic Damages and the Right to Repair Act: You Can’t Have it Both Ways

March 16, 2017 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
In 2002, the California State Legislature passed Senate Bill 800 also known as the Right to Repair Act (Civil Code Sections 895 et seq.) in an effort to stem a then rising tide in residential construction defect litigation. SB 800, which applies to newly constructed residential units including single-family homes and condominiums (but not condominium conversions) sold after January 1, 2003, was intended to curb residential construction defect lawsuits by giving developers and others in the construction chain an opportunity to repair construction defects before being sued in court. SB 800 also provides minimum construction standards and limits the time in which a homeowner can bring a claim for construction defects. In Acqua Vista Homeowners Association v. MWI, Case No. D068406 (January 26, 2017), the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District examined the circumstances in which homeowners can sue a material supplier under the Right to Repair Act. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES