Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Statute of Limitations Upheld in Construction Defect Case

September 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Missouri Court of Appeals has ruled in Ball v. Friese Construction Co., finding that Mr. Ball’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

Mr. Ball hired Friese Construction Company to build a single-family home. The sale was completed on March 29, 2001. That December, Mr. Ball complained of cracks in the basement floor. SCI Engineering, n engineering firm, hired by Friese, determined that the home’s footing had settled and recommended that Mr. Ball hire a structural engineer to determine if the footings were properly designed and sized. In September 2002, the structural engineer, Strain Engineering, determined that the cracks were due to slab movement, caused in part by water beneath the slab, recommending measures to move water away from the foundation. In 2005, Mr. Ball sent Friese correspondence “detailing issues he was having with the home, including problems with the basement slab, chimney structure, drywall tape, and doors.” All of these were attributed to the foundation problems. In 2006, Friese stated that the slab movement was due to Ball’s failure to maintain the storm water drains.

In 2009, Ball received a report from GeoTest “stating the house was resting on highly plastic clay soils.” He sued Friese in May, 2010. Friese was granted a summary judgment dismissing the suit, as the Missouri has a five-year statute of limitations. Ball appealed on the grounds that the extent of the damage could not be determined until after the third expert report. The appeals court rejected this claim, noting that a reasonable person would have concluded that after the conclusion of SCI and Strain Engineering that “injury and substantial damages may have occurred.”

The court concluded that as there were not “continuing wrongs causing new and distinct damages,” he should have filed his lawsuit after the first two expert reports, not waiting seven years for a third expert to opine.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Motion to Strike Insurer's Expert Opinion Granted

August 13, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court granted the insured's motion to strike the testimony of the insurer's expert because the opinion lacked sufficient explanation or analysis. Affinity Mut. Ins. v. Thacker Air Conditioning Refrigeration Heating, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84713 (N.D. Ind. May 20, 2019). The insured owned a market that needed renovations. The roof over an addition to the market extended from the wall of the extension to the top of the existing roof. The area between the old and new roofs was filled with blown-in insulation, so that the structural support from the new overbuilt roof was not visible. The weight of the overbuilt roof rested on top of the existing roof at the point where they met. This added additional weight on the trusses supporting the main roof. In 2014, the market upgraded the building with heating and insulation. Thacker was a subcontractor for work on the hearing system. Six gas furnaces, spaced about 35 feet apart along the length of the building, were placed by Thacker. The total weight of each unit was estimated at 280 pounds. 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

Construction Defect Claim Survives Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion Due to Lack of Evidence

December 23, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment on a construction defect claim due to lack of evidence. Statesboro Erectors, Inc. v. Owners Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176555 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2024). Griffco was the general contractor for a construction project. King Steel was hired as the "steel fabricator." King Steel subcontracted with Statesboro Erectors to complete certain construction work at the site. Statesboro agreed to the complete, proper and safe erection of the structural steel. A steel collapse occurred at the construction site. According to King Steel, the collapse "appeared to have occurred due to lack of temporary cables or bracing for steel columns." Because of the collapse, King Steel was required to supply additional materials to replace the structural damage caused by the collapse. 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

Guardrail Maker Defrauded U.S. of $175 Million and Created Hazard, Jury Says

October 22, 2014 — Patrick G. Lee – Bloomberg
Secret changes by Trinity Industries Inc. to its guardrail systems were found to have cheated the U.S. government, exposing the company to $1 billion in damages and penalties and sending shares plummeting as states question the safety of the product. The east Texas jury’s verdict comes as scrutiny of the highway-safety product called the ET-Plus intensifies across the country after it’s been blamed for multiple deaths. The Federal Highway Administration this month asked all states to start submitting information on crashes involving the ET-Plus to the agency’s safety office. The agency will evaluate the findings of the case and “consider whether it affects the continued eligibility of the ET-Plus,” Brian Farber, a spokesman for the Department of Transportation, said in an e-mail. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick G. Lee, Bloomberg
Mr. Lee may be contacted at plee315@bloomberg.net

Axa Unveils Plans to Transform ‘Stump’ Into London Skyscraper

June 17, 2015 — Patrick Gower – Bloomberg
Plans for a skyscraper at 22 Bishopsgate in the City of London go on show for the first time today before developers Axa Real Estate and Lipton Rogers seek planning approval. Axa bought the site in February, three years after work halted on the tower during the financial crisis. The plot became known as “the stump” because only the foundations, basements and the lift core up to level nine were built. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Gower, Bloomberg

Know When Your Claim “Accrues” or Risk Losing It

August 20, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have discussed statutes of limitation on construction claims in various contexts from issues with a disconnect on state projects to questions of continuous breach here at Construction Law Musings. For those that are first time readers, the statute of limitations is the time during which a plaintiff can bring its claim, whether under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA), for breach of contract, or for any other legal wrong that was done to him, her or it by another. The range of limitations runs the gamut of times, for instance it is 5 years for breach of a written contract and 6 months for enforcement of a mechanic’s lien. This time period is calculated from the “accrual” of the right of action. “Accrual” is, in general terms, when the plaintiff was originally harmed or should have known it was harmed (depending on the particular cause of action). A recent case out of the Circuit Court of Norfolk, Virginia examined when a cause of action for a construction related claim under the VCPA accrued and thus whether the plaintiff’s claim was timely. In Hyde Park Free Will Baptist Church v. Skye-Brynn Enterprises Inc., the Court looked at the following basic facts (pay attention to the dates): The Plaintiff, Hyde Park Baptist Church, hired the Defendant, Skye-Brynn Enterprises, Inc., to perform certain roof repairs that were “completed” in 2015. Shortly after the work was done, in 2015, the Plaintiff informed Defendant that the roof still leaked and that some leaks were worse than before. The Defendant unsuccessfully attempted repair at the time. 14 months later in 2017, the church had other contractors examine the roof and opine as to its faulty installation. Also in 2017, the church submitted roof samples to GAF, the roof membrane manufacturer and in February 2018 GAF responded stating that the leaks were not due to manufacturing defects. The church filed its complaint on October 1, 2018 breach of contract, breach of warranty of workmanship and fraud in violation of the VCPA. Defendant responded with a plea in bar, arguing that the statute of limitations barred the claim. 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

Insurance Law Client Alert: California FAIR Plan Limited to Coverage Provided by Statutory Fire Insurance Policy

February 07, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In St. Cyr v. California Fair Plan Association (No. B243159, filed 1/31/14), a California appeals court held that the state's high risk property insurance plan is not obligated to provide any greater coverage than that mandated for the state's statutory fire insurance policy. The plaintiff-policyholders lived in high fire risk areas and were insured under the California FAIR Plan, which provides property insurance to the otherwise uninsurable. Following loss of their homes and other property in wildfires, the policyholders were paid the full amount of their policy limits, but contended that they were entitled to additional payments. Specifically, the policyholders alleged that the FAIR plan provided less protection than statutorily mandated by Insurance Code sections 10090 through 10100.2, which spells out the "Basic Property Insurance Inspection and Placement Plan" of the FAIR program. The policyholders contended that FAIR was required to issue a policy not only in accordance with the standard form fire insurance policy set forth in Insurance Code section 2071, but also the "'Basic Property Insurance' written in the normal market . . . known as the 'HO-3'," referring to the copywrited homeowners policy form promulgated by the Insurance Services Office (ISO). Reprinted Courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP and Chris Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com and Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New York Appellate Court Affirms 1966 Insurance Policy Continues to Cover WTC Asbestos Claims

January 02, 2019 — Michael S. Levine & Joshua S. Paster - Hunton Andrews Kurth
In a prior post, we discussed a New York trial-court decision that found an insurance policy issued in 1966, to insure the construction of the World Trade Center, continues to cover modern-day asbestos claims, with each claim constituting an individual occurrence. Last week, in American Home Assurance Co. v. The Port Authority of N.Y. and N.J., 7628-7628A (1st Dep’t Nov. 15, 2018), an intermediate appellate court affirmed that decision, agreeing that coverage is triggered for claims tied to alleged asbestos exposure at the WTC site in the 1960s and ’70s. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Joshua S. Paster, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Paster may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES