Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

No Duty to Indemnify Where No Duty to Defend

February 08, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Montana Supreme Court held that because there was no duty to defend the insureds' intentional acts, the insurer had no duty to defend. Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Wessel, 2020 Mont. LEXIS 2617 (Mont. Dec. 22, 2020). The insureds' property was accessed by Turk Road. Turk Road was also used by the neighbors to access their land. The insureds asked for permission to snowmobile across the neighbors' property. Permission was denied because the property was in a conservation easement which prohibited motorised used. The insureds' thereafter retaliated by not allowing the neighbors to use Turk Road. The neighbors then purchased an easement from another landowners to construct a new driveway which did not traverse the insureds' property. The insureds built snow berms and gates, felled trees, and created other obstacles to prevent the neighbors from using the new driveway. Physical threats were also made by the insureds. 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

Just Because You Caused it, Doesn’t Mean You Own It: The Hooker Exception to the Privette Doctrine

March 06, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
We’ve written before about the Privette doctrine, which establishes a presumption that a hirer of an independent contractor delegates to the contractor all responsibility for workplace safety. In other words, if a general contractor hires a subcontractor, the subcontractor is solely responsible for the safety of its workers. There are two major exceptions to the Privette doctrine. The first, the Hooker exception, holds that a hirer may be liable when it retains control over any part of the independent contractor’s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the worker’s injury. The second, the Kinsman exception, holds that a hirer may be liable for injuries sustained by a worker of an independent contractor if the hirer knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard on the property that the contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered and the hirer failed to warn the contractor of the hazard. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Discussion of the Discovery Rule and Tolling Statute of Limitations

February 26, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Attorney Clay Olson analyzed a recent South Carolina appeals case that “discussed the threshold for ‘notice’ as it pertains to statute(s) of limitations in construction defect cases. At the root of this action was a 2003 forensic report obtained by the HOA which was not acted upon until 2009.” Olson presented the background of the case as well as the case progression. Olson concluded, “It is well settled that an expert’s findings, when presented to a claimant, trigger the statute of limitations as to the specific defective conditions and locale where defects are present. This case is interesting in its treatment of the initial report as a trigger of all defects in not only the main building which was subject of the 2003 report, but additional structures.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Supreme Court Holds that Requirement of Prejudice for Late Notice Defense is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State for Choice of Law Analysis

November 04, 2019 — Lorelie S. Masters, Michael S. Levine & Michelle M. Spatz - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
California’s highest court held yesterday in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., that the state’s insurance notice-prejudice rule is a “fundamental public policy” for the purpose of choice of law analyses. This unanimous ruling, issued in response to certified questions from the Ninth Circuit, confirms and emphasizes California’s common law rule that policyholders who provide “late notice” may proceed with their insurance claim, absent a showing by the insurer of substantial prejudice. The California Supreme Court also extended the prejudice requirement, holding that a first-party insurer must show that it was prejudiced before denying coverage under a policy’s “consent provision,” which typically provides that the policyholder must obtain the insurer’s “consent” before incurring costs and expenses. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys Lorelie S. Masters, Michael S. Levine and Michelle M. Spatz Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Unwrapped Pipes Lead to Flooding and Construction Defect Lawsuit

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Homeowners in New Jersey have filed a lawsuit over unwrapped pipes in exterior walls. During the cold winter weather, the pipes froze, leading one homeowner to experience a “massive leak.” A plumber was able to end the flooding by shutting off water to the house. He then told the homeowner, Robert Long, that he had been doing the same at other homes in the community. The Longs are now party to a class-action lawsuit which seeks that the homebuilder, Ryan Homes, tell those who have purchased homes about the defect. Further, the suit seeks compensation for those whose home have been damaged, and repairs to assure that additional homes do not have their pipes burst. Stephen P. DeNittis, who is representing the Longs, said that “the code violation alleged in this case is particularly troublesome because it involves unprotected pipes hidden inside an exterior wall.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Seven Proactive Steps to Avoid Construction Delay Disputes

September 29, 2021 — Michael Pink - Construction Executive
Delays, cost overruns and disputes have long been part of the commercial construction industry, making the work of reactive forensic analysis by consultants and attorneys a necessary component. Yet many internal practices and issues within construction companies strongly correlate with projects that result in legal disputes and financial losses. There are seven proactive steps that can help companies minimize losses and claims. Prepare a Cost- and Resource-Loaded Critical Path Method Schedule This is the first step any contractor can take to establish and document a manpower plan, a timeline and an intended flow for its work. Doing so is beneficial for two reasons: it will become the basis for measuring impacts and variances to both cost and schedule in a delay, dispute or claim setting; and it will serve as a great project management resource or tool. Without thinking through manpower, durations and workflow in great detail at the beginning of the project, contractors put themselves at risk of becoming delayed and blowing the budget. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Pink, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Triple Points to the English Court of Appeal for Clarifying the Law on LDs

July 01, 2019 — Vincent C. Zabielski & Julia Kalinina Belcher - Gravel2Gavel
Can an employer recover liquidated damages (LDs) from a contractor if the contract terminates before the contractor completes the work? Surprisingly, heretofore, English law provided no clear answer to this seemingly straightforward question, and inconsistent case law over the past century has left a trail of confusion. Given the widespread use of English law in international construction contracts, this uncertainty had gone on far too long. The good news is that drafters of construction contracts throughout the world can now have a well-deserved good night’s sleep courtesy of the English Court of Appeal’s March 2019 decision in Triple Point Technology, Inc. v PTT Public Company Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 230. The Triple Point case concerned the delayed supply by Triple Point (the “Contractor”) of a new software system to employer PTT. The contract provided for payments upon achievement of milestones, however order forms incorporated into the contract set out the calendar dates on which fixed amounts were payable by PTT, resulting in an apparently contradictory requirements on when payment was due. Triple Point achieved completion (149 days late) of a portion of the work milestones, and were paid for that work. Triple Point then sought payment for the work which was not yet completed, relying on the calendar dates in the order forms rather than achievement of milestone payments. Things got progressively worse as PTT refused payment, Triple Point suspended the work for PTT’s failure to pay, PTT terminated the contract and then appointed a new contractor to complete the work. Reprinted courtesy of Vincent C. Zabielski, Pillsbury and Julia Kalinina Belcher, Pillsbury Mr. Zabielski may be contacted at vincent.zabielski@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Belcher may be contacted at julia.belcher@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Fifth Circuit Asks Texas Supreme Court to Clarify Construction Defect Decision

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
The Fifth Circuit Court has withdrawn its decision in Ewing Construction Company v. Amerisure Insurance Company, pending clarification from the Texas Supreme Court of its decision in Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London. The Fifth Circuit had applied the Gilbert case in determining that a contractual liability exclusion barred coverage for faulty workmanship. The Insurance Journal reports that this decision was both applauded and criticized, with a concern noted that “an insurer would now have its pick of either the ‘your work’ exclusion or the contractual liability exclusion without the exception for subcontracted work.” The Fifth Circuit is now asking the Texas Supreme Court two questions to clarify Gilbert, which Brian S. Martin and Suzanne M. Patrick see as a sign that the Court has realized that it overly expanded the scope of the earlier ruling. A response is expected from the Texas Supreme Court by spring 2013. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES