Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Multiple Occurrences Found For Claims Against Supplier of Asbestos Products

May 07, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court found that various claims for bodily injury against a supplier of asbestos products arose from multiple occurrences, increasing indemnity amounts available under the policy. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45437 (N.D. Ohio April 7, 2015). Mahoning Valley Supply Company (MVS) was sued by numerous claimants who alleged that they had been injured by asbestos-containing products manufactured by third parties, but supplied by MVS. The claimants alleged exposure to asbestos fibers at a variety of job sites, on numerous dates, and under a variety of conditions. Two insurers shared defense and indemnity costs. In 2013, Continental informed MVS that the three policies issued to MVS were nearly exhausted. Therefore, the parties disputed whether MVS' asbestos claims arose out of a single "occurrence" rather than multiple occurrences. The policies defined "occurrence" as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured." 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

Construction News Roundup

September 19, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Much happened in the last week or so in Virginia construction, both legally and otherwise. I thought a quick roundup was in order. On the green front we has a great article in ENR relating to the liability risk of green building and the great interest in the AGCVA Green Building Breakfast. Also, the Virginia courts decided several interesting cases: The first is Travelers Property Cas. Co. of America a/s/o Covenant Woods v. Premier Project Mgmt. Group LLC v. Haskell Co. a case that reminds everyone that waivers of third party rights under the contract will be enforced in Virginia. 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

Wilke Fleury Attorneys Awarded Sacramento Business Journal’s Best of the Bar

September 30, 2019 — Dan Egan, Steve Williamson & David Frenznick - Wilke Fleury
Wilke Fleury congratulates attorneys Dan Egan, Steve Williamson and David Frenznick on their inclusion in the Sacramento Business Journal 2019 Best of the Bar! The Sacramento Business Journal annually honors the region’s top attorneys after a rigorous process of selection. To be awarded the Best of the Bar, attorneys are nominated by fellow attorneys and then vetted by a panel of peers. Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury attorneys Dan Egan, Steven J. Williamson and David A. Frenznick Mr. Egan may be contacted at degan@wilkefleury.com Mr. Williamson may be contacted at swilliamson@wilkefleury.com Mr. Frenznick may be contacted at dfrenznick@wilkefleury.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insured Under Property Insurance Policy Should Comply With Post-Loss Policy Conditions

June 10, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Your property insurance policy will contain post-loss policy conditions. Examples include submitting a sworn statement in proof of loss, providing documentation to your insurer, and sitting for an examination under oath. Insurers will require you, as the insured, to comply with post-loss policy conditions unless they elect to promptly deny coverage. If you do not comply with such post-loss policy conditions you can forfeit coverage under the policy and/or give the insurer the argument that any lawsuit you filed against the property insurer is premature. Thus, there really is no upside in refusing to comply with the post-loss policy conditions, which should be done in consult with an attorney or, as the case may be, a public adjuster. 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

Can a Home Builder Disclaim Implied Warranties of Workmanship and Habitability?

August 30, 2021 — Kevin J. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, Zambrano v. M & RC II LLC, 2021 WL 3204491 (7/29/2021), the Court of Appeals addressed the question whether a home builder’s attempt to disclaim implied warranties of workmanship and habitability was effective. In that case, the buyer initialed the builder’s prominent disclaimer of all implied warranties, including implied warranties of habitability and workmanship. After the purchase, the buyer sued the builder, claiming construction defects. The builder moved for summary judgment, seeking enforcement of the disclaimer of warranties. The trial court granted the builder’s motion for summary judgment, thereby enforcing the disclaimers. The buyer appealed. The Court of Appeals addressed the question whether – as a matter of public policy – the implied warranties of workmanship and habitability were waivable. The Court of Appeals started the analysis by noting that the Arizona Supreme Court had, in a 1979 case, judicially eliminated the caveat emptor rule for newly built homes. The court further noted the long history of cases detailing the public policy favoring the implied warranties. But the court also noted the competing public policy of allowing parties to freely contract; explaining that the usual and most important function of the courts is to maintain and enforce contracts rather than allowing parties to escape their contractual obligations on the pretext of public policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com

Colorado Senate Revives Construction Defects Reform Bill

March 01, 2017 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A re-booted construction defects reform bill recently passed its first Senate committee, according to the Denver Business Journal. Next, Senate Bill 156, sponsored by Sen. Owen Hill, R-Colorado Springs, heads to the Senate floor for debate. SB 156 “would require that condominium owners alleging construction defects take their disputes to arbitration or mediation if requested by builders,” the Denver Business Journal reported. “It also would require that homeowners be informed of the consequences of filing legal actions over purported disputes and that a majority of all owners in a condominium complex vote to proceed with legal action, rather than just a majority of homeowners association board members.” However, it is almost identical to the failed measures that were introduced in 2014 and 2015. Homeowners association group members and owners of defective condominiums argued against the measure, stating “that the effort would not improve the quality of building in the state, but simply would block aggrieved Coloradans from taking their complaints before a jury of their peers.” Proponent of the bill, Tom Clark, CEO of Metro Denver Economic Development Corp., said “that Denver’s housing costs have risen since the first bill was introduced in 2013 to the sixth-most-expensive in the country – and are tops for any metro area not on a coast.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Agrees to Stay Coverage Matter While Underlying State Action is Pending

October 29, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court granted the insured's motion to stay the coverage action while the construction defect case was pending in state court. Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Essex Homes Southeast, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133120 (D. S.C., Sept. 23, 2014). The homeowners sued Essex Homes in state court for construction defects in a home built and sold to them by Essex Homes. The suit sought damages for property damage based on negligence, breach of implied warranty, and breach of express warranties arising out of the alleged construction defects. The complaint alleged that a water leak in the house caused water damage and resulted in mold growth that was not discovered for several years. 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

Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes

November 04, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
The Federal Miller Act is a great tool that subcontractors and suppliers on Federal projects can use for collection of wrongfully withheld amounts due. However, as a recent federal case from the Eastern District of Virginia points out, the construction contract’s terms affect when a subcontractor or supplier can use this great collection tool and how much it can recover. In Aarow v Travelers the Court looked at the interaction between a typical termination clause, a “pay when paid” clause, and the Miller Act. The key facts are these. The general contractor on the project at issue, Syska, did not get paid some disputed amounts by the owner and subsequently did not pay Aarow, the plaintiff and a subcontractor on the project. Aarow then refused to continue work and was terminated by Syska who then took over the completion of the work. Aarow sued, seeking damages for the value of its work prior to the termination. Travellers, the surety defended stating that, if Aarow was properly terminated for cause by Syska, then Aarow was not entitled to payment under the contract until such time as the work was completed and accepted by the owner. The termination clauses are set out in the linked opinion. The Court agreed with Travelers, stating that the pay when paid clause created a situation whereby Aarow could not stop work merely because of a non-payment by Syska attributed to non-payment by the owner. The Court was clear in stating that the Miller Act trumps “pay when paid” in instances where the only cause for non-payment is non-payment by an owner. The Court then reasoned that it is the interaction between the termination and “pay when paid” provisions, and not the “pay when paid” clause itself, that exonerated Travelers because it created the default by Aarow due to its refusal to continue work. In short, Aarow was properly terminated for cause because it left the job without justification and therefore Travelers was not liable. 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