FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Crisis Averted! Pennsylvania Supreme Court Joins Other Courts in Finding that Covid-19 Presents No Physical Loss or Damage for Businesses

October 21, 2024 — Edward M. Koch & Marc L. Penchansky - White and Williams LLP
Seeking to find some relief from business losses experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses turned to their property insurers for coverage for their lost income. A clear national trend emerged among courts deciding the issue, as most businesses could not establish coverage because they had not experienced a “direct physical loss of or damage to their covered property” as required by most policies. While this legal question may have become an afterthought for many attorneys, the question remained an open one in Pennsylvania while the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered two contradictory holdings issued in the Superior Court on this topic. Compare Macmiles, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exch., 286 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding there was no coverage for loss of use of a commercial property unaccompanied by any physical alteration or other physical condition that rendered the property unusable or uninhabitable) with Ungarean v. CNA, 286 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding that the policy at issue was ambiguous and therefore the policy covered the insured for COVID-related business losses). Last week, the Supreme Court considered the Superior Court’s holdings in Macmiles and Ungarean and held, at long last, that COVID-19 did not cause a direct physical loss of or damage to covered property. Reprinted courtesy of Edward M. Koch, White and Williams LLP and Marc L. Penchansky, White and Williams LLP Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Penchansky may be contacted at penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Licensing Reciprocity Comes to Virginia

May 15, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Remember my admonishment to get your Virginia contractor’s license? Well, that will get easier for experienced construction professionals that hold a license from a state or territory outside of Virginia beginning on July 1, 2023. In this past session of the General Assembly, the Youngkin administration pushed and the legislature passed a universal licensure statute that (with some exceptions for professional services as defined in Va. Code 2.2-4301) will allow those (including contractors) who are licensed in other states to use that license to obtain a Virginia license. The new legislation will require DPOR to recognize another state’s license where the contractor meets the following requirements:

1. The individual holds a current and valid professional or occupational license or government certification in another state in a profession or occupation with a similar scope of practice, as determined by the board in the Commonwealth

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

---

Construction Law Breaking News: California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Beacon Residential Community Association

July 09, 2014 — Steven M. Cvitanovic – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On July 3, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion affirming the First District Court of Appeal in the case of Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (Case No. S208173). The issue in the Beacon case is whether the architects of a residential project owe a duty to future third party homeowners under SB800 and common law. In 2011, Judge Richard Kramer of the San Francisco Superior Court sustained demurrers of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill and HKS Architects to the homeowners association complaint without leave to amend. The homeowners association appealed and the First District Court of Appeal reversed Judge Kramer, ruling that the homeowners could assert SB800 and common law claims against the architects of the project even in the absence of privity of contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com

---

San Diego: Compromise Reached in Fee Increases for Affordable Housing

October 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A San Diego City Council committee has forwarded a revised plan to increase affordable housing in the city, which reduces the linkage fees increases, reported the U-T San Diego. The first proposal would have increased linkage fees by five times, while this new plan doubles current fees. The Times of San Diego reported that “[t]he fee had been halved in 1996 as an economic stimulus and was supposed to be reviewed annually, but wasn't.” However, Andrea Tevlin, the city of San Diego’s Independent Budget Analyst, estimated that “costs on developers would have jumped 400 percent to more than 700 percent, depending on the type of project.” The new proposal also contains exemptions for “developers of manufacturing facilities, warehouses and nonprofit hospitals from paying any fees at all,” according to U-T San Diego. “Developers of research and science-related projects would still have to pay fees, but they would be exempt from the proposed increase.” However, not everyone is satisfied by the compromise. “While the November 2013 proposal went too far, this new proposal doesn’t go far enough,” Tevlin told U-T San Diego. The vote had been deadlocked, 2-2, but will be forwarded to the main council because Republican Lori Zapf, committee chair, could break the tie. The new plan “created jointly by the San Diego Housing Commission and a group of business leaders called the Jobs Coalition, would increase the linkage fees’ annual yield from $2.2 million to an estimated $3.7 million and allow construction of 37 affordable housing units per year instead of 22,” U-T San Diego reported. Read the full story, U-T San Diego... Read the full story, Times of San Diego... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Building Group Has Successful 2012, Looks to 2013

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The North State Building Industry Association has looked back at 2012, and feels that they are “well-positioned to addressed future challenges in 2013 and beyond.” The organization, which represents home builders in Northern California, had several major accomplishments in 2012. The NSBIA has managed to reduce fees that builders must pay. Due to their work with the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District and the Sacramento Area Sewer District over the last several years, a new rate and fee methodology has been adopted, saving builders $3,000 per single family unit in SRCSD fees and $1,000 per acre in SASD fees. Fees were also reduced through agreements with the Folsom Cordova unified and Elk Grove school districts. The city of Rancho Cordova reduced its transportation fee by $3,500 per home. In addition to their advocacy work, the NSBIA has continued its worker training programs. During 2012, 113 people participated in their Journeyman Upgrade classes, an increase of 20 from the prior year. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Boston Tower Project to Create 450 Jobs

November 18, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Continuing the development of Boston’s Theater District, Millennium Partners broke ground for the building of Hayward Place, a 15-story residential tower with street-level shops. The project is expected to take two years to complete and will employ about 450 construction workers.

Thomas Menino, the mayor of Boston said that the “ground breaking of Hayward Place is another sign of economic growth and forward progress on the revitalization of this area.” The project will be built by Suffolk Construction. John Fish, their CEO, said they were “fortunate as a contractor to be the beneficiary of this.”

The report in the Boston Herald notes that a few blocks away, the site of the former Filenes department store is still “an empty eyesore.” Menino joked, “anyone want to bid for it?” He promised that site would also be developed.

Read the full story…

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

---

Staying the Course, Texas Supreme Court Rejects Insurer’s Argument for Exception to Eight-Corners Rule in Determining Duty to Defend

April 27, 2020 — John C. Eichman, Sergio F. Oehninger, Grayson L. Linyard & Leah B. Nommensen - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In responding to a certified question from the Fifth Circuit in Richards v. State Farm Lloyds, the Texas Supreme Court held that the “policy-language exception” to the eight-corners rule articulated by the federal district court is not a permissible exception under Texas law. See Richards v. State Farm Lloyds, 19-0802, 2020 WL 1313782, at *1 (Tex. Mar. 20, 2020). The eight-corners rule generally provides that Texas courts may only consider the four corners of the petition and the four corners of the applicable insurance policy when determining whether a duty to defend exists. State Farm argued that a “policy-language exception” prevents application of the eight-corners rule unless the insurance policy explicitly requires the insurer to defend “all actions against its insured no matter if the allegations of the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent,” relying on B. Hall Contracting Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 447 F. Supp. 2d 634, 645 (N.D. Tex. 2006). The Texas Supreme Court rejected the insurer’s argument, citing Texas’ long history of applying the eight-corners rule without regard for the presence or absence of a “groundless-claims” clause. The underlying dispute in Richards concerned whether State Farm must defend its insureds, Janet and Melvin Richards, against claims of negligent failure to supervise and instruct after their 10-year old grandson died in an ATV accident. The Richardses asked State Farm to provide a defense to the lawsuit by their grandson’s mother and, if necessary, to indemnify them against any damages. To support its argument that no coverage under the policy existed, and in turn, it had no duty to defend, State Farm relied on: (1) a police report to prove the location of the accident occurred off the insured property; and (2) a court order detailing the custody arrangement of the deceased child to prove the child was an insured under the policy. The federal district court held that the eight-corners rule did not apply, and thus extrinsic evidence could be considered regarding the duty to defend, because the policy did not contain a statement that the insurer would defend “groundless, false, or fraudulent” claims. In light of the extrinsic police report and extrinsic custody order, the district court granted summary judgment to State Farm. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys John C. Eichman, Sergio F. Oehninger, Grayson L. Linyard and Leah B. Nommensen Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Linyard may be contacted at glinyard@HuntonAK.com Ms. Nommensen may be contacted at leahnommensen@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

General Indemnity Agreement Can Come Back to Bite You

October 21, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I talk about payment bonds often here at Construction Law Musings. I talk a bit less about performance bonds and even less about the General Indemnity Agreements (GIA) that are signed by companies and their principals as part of the agreement between a construction company and its bonding company for the provision of these bonds. However, this does not mean that these GIA’s are not important. In fact, these are the agreements that allow a bonding provider to recoup any money paid out pursuant to either a payment or performance bond. A 2018 case illustrates their importance. In Allegheny Cas. Co. v. River City Roofing, LLC, the Court considered a claim by Allegheny seeking both specific performance of the collateral agreement and reimbursement of certain expenses and investigative costs expended by Allegheny pursuant to its performance bond. Allegheny sought to be reimbursed for certain payments for siding work, investigative costs, and costs spent enforcing the GIA. Allegheny further sought to force the defendants to post sufficient collateral. To do so, Allegheny sued in the Eastern District of Virginia and then moved for summary judgment stating that the GAI uneuivocally required such a result due to the good faith payment for the siding work and the plain language of the GIA. In response, the Defendants, River City Roofing and its principals that had personally guaranteed the indemnity, argued that the GIA did not apply to the siding work because only the roofing contract was subject to the performance bond and that any bond claims for which collateral was demanded were inchoate and therefore not proper for specific performance. 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

---