Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

When Does a Claim Against an Insurance Carrier for Failing to Defend Accrue?

November 07, 2012 — David McLain, Colorado Construction Litigation
The following is an update on our December 20, 2010 article regarding United States Fire Insurance Company v. Pinkard Construction Company, Civil Action No. 09-CV-01854-MSK-MJW, and its underlying dispute, Legacy Apartments v. Pinkard Construction Company, Case No. 2003 CV 703, Boulder County Dist. Ct. That article can be found here. The present action, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., et al. v. The North River Insurance Co., et al., Civil Action No. 10-CV-02936-MSK-CBS, encompasses the coverage battle that ensued between Pinkard’s insurers, Travelers Indemnity Company of America (“Travelers”) and United States Fire Insurance Company (“USFI”), following the settlement of Legacy’s construction defect claims against Pinkard. A short history of the underlying facts is as follows: In 1995, Pinkard constructed the Legacy Apartments housing complex in Longmont, Colorado. Following construction, Legacy notified Pinkard of water leaks associated with various elements of construction. Legacy ultimately filed suit against Pinkard in 2003, and would go on to clarify and amend its defect claims in 2004, 2006, and again in 2008. Following Pinkard’s notification of Legacy’s claims, USFI provided a defense to Pinkard, but Travelers refused to do so, on the purported basis that Legacy’s allegations did not implicate property damage under the terms of Travelers’ policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Risk Transfer: The Souffle of Construction Litigation

December 13, 2022 — Alexa Stephenson & Ivette Kincaid - Kahana Feld
Who does not love a good souffle?! Enthusiasts will know that a great souffle is not something you can obtain quickly. Rather, it is common in restaurants to order the souffle as dessert at the beginning of the meal because it takes an hour to bake. Risk transfer – like a good souffle – also requires planning, preparation, and the right ingredients. In construction litigation, attorneys are often not retained until after the project has been completed for several years as the dispute between the homeowner and the general contractor or developer took time to escalate to formal litigation. A significant part of defense counsel’s legal analysis involves assessing and evaluating risk transfer opportunities. For example, in the case of a general contractor or developer who did not self-perform the construction work but instead retained subcontractors to do so, counsel will assess if risk can be transferred from the general contractor or developer to the subcontractors who performed the work which the homeowners allege is defective. In other words, a developer or general contractor can reduce their risk (i.e. liability and money owed) by transferring said risk (i.e. pointing the finger at) to a third party. Sounds easy, right? Unfortunately, just like the souffle making process, it is easier said than done. This task can be exceedingly difficult in the absence of contracts that contain strong indemnity and insurance provisions – the essential ingredients to effect risk transfer. Worry not! We have provided “baking” instructions for you below to help you get a great risk transfer souffle time and again. Reprinted courtesy of Alexa Stephenson, Kahana Feld and Ivette Kincaid, Kahana Feld Ms. Stephenson may be contacted at astephenson@kahanafeld.com Ms. Kincaid may be contacted at ikincaid@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contract Change #9: Owner’s Right to Carry Out the Work (law note)

March 28, 2018 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
In prior versions of the General Conditions, if a contractor defaulted and the Owner (after giving notice) opted to cure by carrying out the work itself, an appropriate Change Order would be issued. However, a Change Order is a contract that requires an agreement by both the Owner and Contractor, and, obviously, Contractors were reluctant to agree that they were in default and responsible for a deductive change order. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Confirms Carrier Owes No Duty to Defend Against Claims for Faulty Workmanship

April 05, 2021 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Marianne Bradley - White and Williams LLP
On March 17, 2021, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued its decision in Estate Chimney & Fireplace v. IFG Companies & Burlington Insurance Company, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50360 (E.D. Pa. March 17, 2021), finding that an insurance carrier had no duty to defend its insured where the allegations in the underlying litigation involved claims of faulty workmanship. Estates Chimney & Fireplace, LLC (Estates Chimney) had performed inspections and replaced chase covers for a number of chimneys in a condominium complex. Chase covers are pieces of metal, which are placed over chimneys in order to keep out environmental elements. Several condominium owners sued Estates Chimney, alleging that Estates Chimney had improperly installed, then improperly replaced, their chimney caps, which caused their chimneys to cease working properly. As a result, the underlying plaintiffs allegedly incurred costs to repair or replace the chimney caps and chimneys. Estates Chimney sought coverage from its carrier, who denied coverage based upon its determination that the claims in the underlying lawsuits arose out of faulty workmanship, which did not result in damage to the property of a third party. Estates Chimney filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that it was entitled to coverage under the policy. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the Eastern District ruled in favor of the carrier. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Marianne Bradley, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Bradley may be contacted at bradleym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

School Board Settles Construction Defect Suit

October 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Lafayette Parish School Board has settled a claim that water intrusion was caused by faulty design and construction. The board initially sued the contractor and the design firms, but under Louisiana law, the suit came too late to sue the contractor, so Ratcliff Construction was dropped from the suit. The two design firms, Corne-Lemaire Group, which did the architectural design for the school, and Beaullieu & Associates, which did the engineering, also sought to be removed from the suit due to the statute of limitations, but an appeals court concluded that the law at the time of construction did not allow this. Details of the settlement were not released. Tim Basden, the attorney for the school board acknowledged that “the principal problems were related to construction, but the lawsuit wasn’t filed timely.” According to Basden neither design firm conceded “liability or malpractice of any kind.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Supreme Court Holds That Prevailing Wage Statute is Constitutional

November 28, 2022 — Cassidy Ingram - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
The Supreme Court recently held[1] that Senate Bill 5493 (“SSB 5493”), which alters the method for how the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ industrial statistician sets the prevailing wages for employees on public works projects, is constitutional. Prior to the enactment of SSB 5493, the industrial statistician set prevailing wages for each trade on a county-by-county basis based on either the majority or average wage rate in that specific county. Following SSB 5493’s enactment, the industrial statistician would be required to adopt the prevailing wage rate for a county solely based on collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) for that trade. If a trade has more than one CBA in a county, the highest wage rate will prevail. SSB 5493 has negative impacts on employers because it creates the potential for wage rates to be set based on CBAs that represent the minority of hours worked in a county. The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 302, provides an example of this. AGC began negotiations with an operators’ union for a master labor agreement, which would cover almost all operating engineers in 16 Washington State counties. When they could not reach an agreement, Local 302 called a strike against the employers. After one week of the strike, Local 302 approached small employers and negotiated a side agreement. Some of these employers were also card-carrying members of Local 302. A few weeks later, AGC ratified a new agreement with Local 302 that included lower wages than the side agreements. Because the rates in the side agreement were higher, those wage rates became the prevailing wage in 16 counties even though they represented a minority of the hours worked. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Cassidy Ingram, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Ms. Ingram may be contacted at cassidy.ingram@acslawyers.com

Construction Termination Part 2: How to Handle Construction Administration When the Contractor Is Getting Fired

August 01, 2023 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
If you’ve been working as a design professional for any length of time, you know that you must be a chameleon on the construction project. You need to “step into the skin” of both the Owner and the Contractor to determine who is at fault, and who should pay. You are usually the Initial Decision Maker (IDM), and so you have a duty under the AIA documents to act fairly and impartially in making those decisions. See AIA B101§3.6.2.4. Even if you are not under an AIA contract, you still have that duty if you are the IDM or handling construction administration for the project. More often than not, however, it will be the owner asking you to support its termination of the contractor “for cause.” Should you do so? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

When to Withhold Retention Payments on Private or Public Projects

August 29, 2018 — Nicholas Karkazis - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
To ensure that construction contractors and subcontractors receive timely progress and retention payments, the California Legislature enacted statutes that impose deadlines and penalties on owners and direct (general) contractors who delay payments. (Cal. Civ. Code, §§ 8800, 8802, 8812, 8814; Pub. Contract Code, §§ 7107, 10262.5; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7108.5.) However, there is an exception to these deadlines and penalties on both private and public projects. The exception allows an owner or direct contractor to withhold payment1 when there is a good faith dispute between an owner and a direct contractor or between a direct contractor and a subcontractor. (Civ. Code, §§ 8800, subd. (b), 8802, subd. (b), 8812, subd. (c), 8814, subd. (c); Pub. Contract Code, §§ 7107, subds. (c), (e), 10262.5, subd. (a); Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7108.5, subd. (a).) But the term “good faith dispute” has been a source of confusion where direct contractors owe subcontractors retention payments, but want to withhold the payment because of a dispute.2 California appellate courts were split, with one court finding that any type of bona fide dispute justified withholding, and another finding that only disputes related to the payment itself justified withholding. (Compare Martin Brothers Construction, Inc. v. Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1401 [any bona fide dispute could justify withholding] with East West Bank v. Rio School Dist. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 742 [disputes related to the payment itself may justify withholding].) In May 2018, the California Supreme Court clarified that for a direct contractor to withhold a retention payment on a private project, the good faith dispute must somehow relate to the payment itself. (United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1082, 1097-1098.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas Karkazis, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Karkazis may be contacted at nkarkazis@grsm.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES