Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Eye on Housing Examines Costs of Green Features

July 09, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The National Association of Home Builders’ Eye on Housing reported that it costs more to build a green home, however, builder’s experience with green techniques reduces costs. According to McGraw Hill Construction survey data (as quoted by Eye on Housing), “the incremental cost for builders to construct green homes was 8% in 2013. For remodelers, green projects raised costs by 9% on average.” Furthermore, “McGraw Hill’s analysis found that the cost to build green varied to some degree by the amount of green construction undertaken.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New York Appellate Court Applies Broad Duty to Defend to Property Damage Case

January 03, 2022 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In the recent case of New York Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. Eastman Cooke & Associates, 153 N.Y.S.3d 840, 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dept. 2021), New York’s first department affirmed a duty to defend under New York law. In the underlying action, the plaintiff alleged property damages due to prolonged construction work in a different unit of the subject property. The underlying plaintiff sued the owner of the subject property, which in turn sued Eastman Cooke, the general contractor at the premises. New York Marine denied coverage to Eastman Cooke, asserting that the underlying suit did not seek damages occurring during the New York Marine policy period, and commenced a declaratory judgment action. The trial court held—and the First Department affirmed—that New York Marine has a duty to defend Eastman Cooke. Initially, the court found that the underlying suit alleged property damage as required for coverage, because there were allegations regarding loss of use of the property. The court also found that the underlying suit alleged damages occurring during the New York Marine policy period. Although the underlying complaint alleged that the underlying plaintiffs were reimbursed for damages occurring during the New York Marine policy period by another insurer, the court held that the evidence was that the payments only covered a certain part of the damages sought. Accordingly, because there was a reasonable possibility that some unreimbursed damages may fall within the New York Marine policy period. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

Defense Owed to Directors and Officers Despite Insured vs. Insured Exclusion

May 13, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found there the duty to defend a suit filed by the FDIC against officers and directors was not excluded by the insured versus insured provision in the policy. W Holding Co., Inc. v. AIG Ins. Co. - Puerto Rico, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5943 (1st Cir. March 31, 2014). Regulators ordered the closure of the insured bank and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was appointed as receiver. FDIC concluded certain bank directors and officers had breached their fiduciary duty by jeopardizing the bank's financial soundness. The FDIC concluded these breaches had caused more than $367 million in losses and demanded reimbursement by the directors and officers. 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

New Jersey Court Washes Away Insurer’s Waiver of Subrogation Arguments

May 27, 2019 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
Subrogating insurers often address waiver of subrogation clauses in the form contracts drafted by the American Institute of Architects. In ACE Am. Ins. Co. v. Am. Med. Plumbing, No. A-5395-16T4, 2019 N.J. Super. LEXIS 45 (App. Div.), ACE American Insurance Company (ACE) argued that the waiver clause in the AIA General Conditions form A201-2007 did not extend to the post-construction loss at issue. Adopting what the court termed the “majority” position, the Appellate Division held that, by reading §§ 11.3.5 and 11.3.7 together, the waiver applied to bar the insurer’s subrogation claim. The Appellate Court’s ruling makes pursuing subrogation against New Jersey contractors using AIA contract forms more difficult. In this matter, Equinox Development Corporation (Equinox Development), ACE’s insured, contracted with Grace Construction Management Company, LLC (Grace Construction) to build the “core and shell” of a new health club (the Work). Grace Construction subcontracted the plumbing work to American Medical Plumbing, Inc. (AM Plumbing). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

Another Law Will Increase Construction Costs in New York

May 29, 2023 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
New York recently enacted legislation known as Carlos’ Law, which increases penalties for corporate liability for the death of, or serious injury to, an employee. The bill, S.621B / A.4947B, was named after Carlos Moncayo, a construction worker killed in a trench collapse on a New York City construction project. Moncayo’s employer repeatedly flouted safety rules and ignored warnings of dangerous conditions on its construction site before failing to properly support the trench that collapsed and killed Moncayo. Moncayo’s employer was convicted for his death, but the penalty was light. The company was sentenced to pay only $10,000, the maximum penalty at the time for any company convicted of a felony in New York State. The legislature responded with Carlos’ Law, which increases accountability for “employers,” and expands the scope of “employees” covered. The corporate criminal law, NY Penal § 20.20(2)(c)(iv), imposes liability on an employer when “the conduct constituting the offense is engaged in by an agent of the corporation while acting within the scope of his employment and on behalf of the corporation, and the offense is . . . in relation to a crime involving the death or serious physical injury of an employee where the corporation acted negligently, recklessly, intentionally, or knowingly.” An “agent” of an employer is any “director, officer or employee of a corporation, or any other person who is authorized to act on behalf of the corporation.” § 20.20(a). An “employee” now includes any person providing labor or services for remuneration for a private entity or business within New York State without regard to an individual’s immigration status, and includes part-time workers, independent contractors, apprentices, day laborers and other workers. § 10.00 (22). The penalties for criminal corporate liability for the death or serious injury of an employee now include maximums of $500,000 when centered on a felony, and $300,000 when centered on a misdemeanor. § 80.10(1)(a) and (b). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Policyholder Can “Stack” the Limits of Each Primary Policy After Asbestos Claim

December 19, 2018 — Michael S. Levine & Alexander D. Russo - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A Georgia Court of Appeals judge recently ruled that Scapa Dryer Fabrics was entitled to $17.4 million worth of primary coverage from National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA for claims of injurious exposure to Scapa’s asbestos-containing dryer felts. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc., No. A18A1173, 2018 WL 5306693, at *1 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2018). Scapa sought coverage under five National Union policies issued from 1983–1987. The 1983, 1984 and 1985 National Union policies had limits of $1 million per occurrence and $1 million in the aggregate. The liability limits for the 1986 and 1987 renewal policies were amended by endorsement to $7.2 million. Scapa sought to recover the full $17.4 million from all five policies. National Union argued that a “Non-Cumulative Limits of Liability Endorsement” in the 1986 and 1987 policies limited Scapa’s recovery to only $7.2 million. Scapa sued National Union and its sister company, New Hampshire Insurance Company (from which Scapa purchased excess liability coverage), in Georgia state court. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Alexander D. Russo, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Russo may be contacted at arusso@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Multiple Construction Errors Contributed to Mexico Subway Collapse

June 21, 2021 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
The May 3 collapse of an elevated section of the Line 12 subway in Mexico City that killed 26 passengers appears to have resulted from multiple construction faults, according to a risk management firm's preliminary report. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAUTION: Terms of CCP Section 998 Offers to Compromise Must Be Fully Contained in the Offer Itself

May 12, 2016 — Jesse M. Sullivan & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Sanford v. Rasnick, (Ct. of Appeal, 1st App. Dist., No. A145704) the First Appellate District addressed whether a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise requiring plaintiff to execute a release and enter into a separate settlement agreement was valid. Because the settlement agreement could potentially contain additional terms not stated in the CCP 998 Offer, the Court of Appeal held that it was not. Plaintiff alleged he was injured when the 17-year-old Defendant ran a stop sign and struck his motorcycle. Plaintiff sued the 17-year-old and his father (the owner of the vehicle) for vehicular negligence and general negligence. Just after discovery closed, defendants jointly served a CCP § 998 Offer to Compromise to plaintiff in the amount of $130,000. The offer contained a condition requiring that in order to accept, plaintiff must provide a “notarized execution and transmittal of a written settlement agreement and general release. Each party will bear its own fees, costs and expenses.” Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Reprinted courtesy of Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES