Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

BP Is Not an Additional Insured Under Transocean's Policy

April 01, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Responding to a certified question from the Fifth Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court determined that BP was not an additional insured under Transocean's liability policy and had no coverage under the policy for the deaths caused by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon. In re Horizon, 2015 Tex. LEXIS 141 (Tex. Feb. 13, 2015). We have previously posted on this case in the federal courts here and here. Transocean owned the Deepwater Horizon, a mobile offshore drilling unit operating in the Gulf of Mexico pursuant to a contract with BP. After an explosion in April 2010, the rig caught fire, killing eleven crew members. Both Transocean and BP sought coverage under Transocean's primary and excess policies. Although they did not dispute that BP was an additional insured, Transocean and its insurers argued that BP was not entitled to coverage for pollution-related liabilities arising from subsurface oil releases in connection with the Deepwater Horizon accident. 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

CGL Coverage for Liquidated Damages and the Contractual Liability Exclusion

October 09, 2023 — Stu Richeson - The Dispute Resolver
Liquidated delay damages are common in construction contracts and are generally imposed when a contractor fails to achieve substantial completion within the time required by the contract. While contracts like the AIA A201-2017 have provisions for extending the time to achieve substantial completion when delays are caused by circumstances beyond the contractor’s control, delays can result from factors other than improper management or planning and the like, for which the owner is not required to give the contractor additional time. Courts are split on whether there is ever coverage under a CGL policy for contractually agreed upon liquidated delay damages. Liquidated delay damages are often excluded under the contractual liability exclusion of most CGL policies. The contractual liability exclusion excludes coverage for “liability for which the Insured is obligated to pay damages by reason of the assumption of liability in a contract or agreement.” Courts often find the contractual liability exclusion in a CGL policy precludes coverage for liquidated delay damages, because such damages are contractual in nature and are triggered by the failure to bring the contract to substantial completion by a fixed deadline, regardless of the cause of the delay. However, some courts will look to the cause of the delay and find that there is coverage under a CGL policy for liquidated delay damages that are the result of property damage caused by an accident or occurrence. In Clark Const. Grp., Inc. v. Eagle Amalgamated Serv., Inc., 01-2478-DV, 2005 WL 2092998, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 24, 2005) a general contractor entered a contract for the renovation of the convention center in Memphis. Part of the project included the demolition of a structure attached to the convention center. The demolition work was improperly performed by a subcontractor and resulted in damage to the convention center. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stu Richeson, Phelps
Mr. Richeson may be contacted at stuart.richeson@phelps.com

It’s Not What You Were Thinking!

December 10, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
At least it is not what the lower court was thinking… but the same result for a general contractor seeking to have its comprehensive general liability insurer pay the GC’s defense related to claims for physical damage on a construction project. In reviewing the Massachusetts federal district court’s ruling in favor of the insurer, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals posited: “The principal question is whether a general contractor’s CGL insurance policy covers damage to a non-defective part of the contractor’s project resulting from a subcontractor’s defective work on a different part of that project.” The district court had held under Massachusetts law that the insurer had no duty to defend because the lawsuit “did not allege ‘property damage’ caused by an ‘ occurrence,’ as required for coverage” under the policy (a defense that was urged by the insurer). The Court of Appeals affirmed, “albeit for different reasons.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Signed, Sealed and (Almost) Delivered: EU Council Authorizes Signing of U.S. – EU Bilateral Insurance Agreement

August 02, 2017 — Stella Szantova Giordano - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
On July 14, 2017, the Trump administration released a statement indicating that the United States intends to sign the U.S. – EU bilateral insurance agreement. The announcement came several weeks after the Council of the European Union adopted a decision authorizing the signing of this agreement. The agreement attempts to “level the playing field for U.S. insurers and reinsurers operating in the EU.”[1] This U.S. – EU bilateral agreement is a direct response to EU’s January 2016 enactment of Solvency II. Solvency II is a legislative program implemented in all twenty-eight Member States, aimed at codifying EU insurance regulations in an attempt to protect policy holders and to incentivize risk management. We previously wrote about this comprehensive program of insurer regulatory requirements here. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stella Szantova Giordano, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Giordano may be contacted at ssg@sdvlaw.com

Pollution Exclusion Does Not Apply To Concrete Settling Dust

November 28, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Applying Virginia law, the federal district court determined that the pollution exclusion did not bar coverage. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Zenith Aviation, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14727 (E.D. Va. Aug. 29, 2018). Zenith Aviation, Inc. hired Abby Construction Company to install an elevator at its warehouse. A wet saw was used to cut away concrete, but Abby did not use any water with the wet saw. This created a significant amount of concrete dust to leave the warehouse. Surrounding businesses contacted the fire department because they thought the dust was smoke from a fire. The concrete dust settled inside Zenith's building, damaging airplane parts stored in the warehouse. 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

Contractor Given a Wake-Up Call for Using a "Sham" RMO/RME

October 02, 2015 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & David A. Harris – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Two weeks ago we wrote about a disgorgement case winding its way through the courts where a contractor who let its license lapse after assigning its contract to a related but properly licensed entity was still facing disgorgement of the entire contract amount. Judicial Council of California v. Jacobs Facilities, Inc. (Ct. of Appeal, 1st App. Dis., Div. One, A140890, A141393.) Now another disgorgement case, Jeff Tracy, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera (Ct. of Appeal, 2nd App. District, Div. 2, B258563), shows the risk of not having a genuine RMO/RME. The consequences of disgorgement are potentially devastating and would certainly cause some contractors to go belly-up. The good news for the contractor in this particular case is that the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court. The bad news for the contractor is that damaging facts were revealed during the process of the court trial that will make a victory very difficult to pull off. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Structural Defects in Thousands of Bridges in America

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Writing under the pseudonym “Babbage,” a technology blogger at The Economist takes note of some of the depressing facts about America’s infrastructure. Babbage notes that most of the United States’ transportation infrastructure was “built in a furious burst of road construction during the 1950s and 1960s.” Citing a report from the American Society of Civil Engineers, President Obama recently warned that “we’ve got about $2 trillion of deferred maintenance.” Some of this deferred maintenance can cost lives. The 2007 collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis killed 13 people and injured 145 others. The cost of fixing structural defects in the nation’s bridges was estimated at $32 billion in 2004. In that year, about 66,500 bridges were deemed structurally defective. Another 84,000 were termed “structurally obsolete,” meaning they could be used, but with restrictions on vehicle weight and speed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .

June 21, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Recently, I was talking with my friend Matt Hundley about a recent case he had in the Charlottesville, VA Circuit Court. It was a relatively straightforward (or so he and I would have thought) breach of contract matter involving a fixed price contract between his (and an associate of his Laura Hooe) client James River Stucco and the Montecello Overlook Owners’ Association. I believe that you will see the reason for the title of the post once you hear the facts and read the opinion. In James River Stucco, Inc. v. Monticello Overlook Owners’ Ass’n, the Court considered Janes River Stucco’s Motion for Summary Judgment countering two arguments made by the Association. The first Association argument was that the word “employ” in the contract meant that James River Stucco was required to use its own forces (as opposed to subcontractors) to perform the work. The second argument was that James River overcharged for the work. This second argument was made without any allegation of fraud or that the work was not 100% performed. 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