Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Sellers' Alleged Misrepresentation Does Not Amount To An Occurrence

November 30, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer successfully established on summary judgment that the insureds' alleged misrepresentation in the sale of a condominium was not an occurrence. Novak v. St. Maxent-Wimberly House Condo., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167397 (E.D. La. Sept. 14, 2020). State Farm issued the sellers a condominium unit owner's policy. The buyers sued the sellers, contending the sellers had made misrepresentations in the sale process. The sellers allegedly failed to disclose defects in the condominium before and at the time of the sale. State Farm intervened, seeking a declaration that it was not required to defend or indemnify the sellers because there was no 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

Tetra Tech-U.S. Cleanup Dispute in San Francisco Grows

July 15, 2019 — Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record
The U.S. Justice Dept. and consultant Tetra Tech are ramping up a battle over alleged false claims for payment the firm submitted to the U.S. Navy under $261 million in contracts for radiological tests and cleanup at San Francisco’s former Hunters Point base, a Superfund site being developed for up to 12,000 residential units. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Three-Year Delay Not “Prompt Notice,” But Insurer Not “Appreciably Prejudiced” Either, New Jersey Court Holds

November 04, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
In Harleysville Preferred Insurance Company v. East Coast Painting & Maintenance, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135295 (D.N.J. Aug. 12, 2019) (East Coast Painting), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that an insurer, which received notice of a bodily injury accident three years after it happened, was not “appreciably prejudiced” by such late notice, even as the court acknowledged notice three years later did not satisfy the policy’s “prompt notice” condition. The court also held that the policy’s “Operational Exclusion,” which excluded coverage for bodily injury arising out of the operation of “cherry pickers and similar devices,” did not apply because the accident arose out of the use of a “scissor lift,” which is not a device similar to a cherry picker. East Coast Painting arose out of a Queens, New York bridge-painting project, during which an employee of the insured, East Coast Painting and Maintenance LLC was injured while “standing on a scissor lift mounted to the back of a truck,” owned and operated by East Coast. The employee sued various project-related entities which, in turn, joined East Coast as a defendant. East Coast sought coverage under its business auto policy, and the insurer agreed to defend the insured under a reservation of rights. The insurer subsequently sought a declaration that it did not owe coverage based on, among other things, the policy’s “Operational Exclusion,” and the insured’s failure to satisfy the policy’s “prompt notice” condition. The insurer moved for summary judgment on both of those bases, but the court in East Coast Painting denied the motion. As for the insurer’s “prompt notice” defense, the court in East Coast Painting concluded that, the insured’s notice to the insurer was not prompt because it did not receive notice until three years after the accident. But, the court added, the inquiry does not end there. “[T]his Court must determine whether [the insurer] was appreciably prejudiced by that delay.” Reviewing the facts, the court held that the insurer was not “appreciably prejudiced,” even though during the three-year delay the lift truck was “not properly maintained” or “in the same condition it was at the time of the Accident.” The court observed that the insurer had “ample other evidence with which it can defend itself,” such as experts who inspected the lift truck and opined about the cause of the accident.” [Emphasis added.] Further, “there are multiple contemporaneous accident reports,” “a list of the East Coast employees on site at the time,” “photographs of the lift truck and its location when [the employee] was injured,” and “depositions of [the employee] and others regarding the events at issue.” Thus, the court held, the insurer was not prejudiced and summary judgment was inappropriate. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Coverage Exists for Landlord as Additional Insured

September 03, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Indiana Court of Appeals determined the landlord was entitled to coverage as an additional insured under the tenant's policy. Selective Ins. Co. v. Erie Ins. Exch., 2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 365 (Ind. Ct. App. July 30, 2014). Rangeline, LLC owned a warehouse. Rangeline negotiated a lease with Hammons Storage to store insulation manufactured by Knauf Insulation. Pursuant to requirements in the lease, Hammons secured liability coverage with Erie Insurance naming Rangeline as an additional insured. After Hammons moved insulation into the warehouse for storage, the pipes of the sprinkler system burst, causing damage to the insulation. The cause of the loss was determined to be water from the system freezing, which led to the cast iron fittings cracking, causing the failure of the sprinkler heads. 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

Check The Boxes Regarding Contractual Conditions Precedent to Payment

August 21, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Remember this: complying with contractual conditions precedent to payment is important. There is a reason why construction contracts include contractual conditions precedent to payment. The contract does not include this language for sh*ts and giggles. This language is included to establish what is required of the payee before payment becomes due. There may be conditions precedent to the payment of progress payments. There may be conditions precedent to the payment of final payment. Payment is not due until the conditions precedent have been satisfied. Do yourself a favor and consider this language in the construction contract, particularly if a dispute arises. If the condition precedent has not or cannot be satisfied, game plan as to the factual reason. The best thing to do is be prepared – check the boxes regarding conditions precedent to ensure you have considered this contractual language. 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

House of the Week: Spanish Dream Home on California's Riviera

July 30, 2014 — Emily Heffter – Bloomberg
Famous clients of renowned Los Angeles architect Richard Landry are not known for their restraint. The Brentwood estate he designed for Tom Brady and Gisele Bundchen has a moat and just sold to Dr. Dre for $40 million. Michael Jackson died in a home Landry designed (a rental), and he has designed luxurious mansions for Wayne Gretzky, Michael Bolton, Mark Wahlberg and Kenny G. Still, homeowner Lorna Auerbach did something unique when Landry started designing her dream home in Pacific Palisades: She flew him to Spain, with her, for 10 days. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Emily Heffter, Bloomberg

Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

September 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Supreme Court of North Dakota has ruled in Leno v. K & L Homes, affirming the verdict of the lower court. K & L Homes argued that district court had erred in several ways, including by refusing to instruct the jury on comparative fault, denying a request for inspection, and not allowing a defendant to testify on his observations during jury viewing.

The Lenos purchased a home constructed by K & L Homes, after which they alleged they found cracks, unevenness, and shifting, which they attributed to improper construction. They claimed negligence on the part of K & L Homes. K & L Homes responded that the Lenos were responsible for damage to the home. The Lenos dropped their negligence claim, arguing breach of contract and implied warranties.

Before the trial, after the discovery period had passed, K & L Homes requested to inspect the home. This was rejected by the court. Kelly Moldenhauer, the owner of K & L Homes sought to testify about his observations during the jury’s viewing of the house. The court denied this too. The jury found that K & L was in breach of contract and awarded damages to the Lenos.

The North Dakota Supreme Court noted that K & L Homes gave “warranties that the home had been built according to local building codes and laws, and that the house was fit for its particular purpose as a residence.” The court found that a defective home breached this warranty. Further, the home violated an implied warranty of fitness.

The district court had denied K & L’s request to inspect the home, as the discovery period had ended and it would not give the Lenos time to do further discovery of their own. At the time of the request, there was only twenty-two days before the trial. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not an abuse of discretion of the part of the district court.

The Lenos had requested that Moldenhauer’s testimony not be permitted, as it would “have the same effect as if the court had granted K & L Homes’ pretrial request for inspection.” K & L Homes agreed to this in court, replying, “okay.”

The decision affirms the judgment of the district court and the damages awarded to the Lenos by the jury.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Homebuilders Opposed to Potential Change to Interest on Construction Defect Expenses

January 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In 2008, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded that in calculating interest on the expense of repairing construction defects would start at the time that the defect was repaired. In 2009, the Colorado State Legislature introduced a bill that would have made homeowners eligible for interest back to the purchase date of their homes. The Colorado Springs Business Journal notes that the Colorado Springs Housing and Building Association is concerned that the legislature might take up the issue again, in which case, the HBA would oppose it. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES