FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes

September 01, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

This is the fourth installment of posts on Vision One v. Philadelphia Indemnity, a Washington Supreme Court case touching on Washington construction and insurance law. After Williams v. Athletic Field got so much coverage, I wished that I had provided a forum for argument on Builders Counsel. While we await that opinion from the Supreme Court, I decided to let a few good writers have at Vision One here on the blog.  Last week, attorney Chris Carr weighed in. Today, insurance expert David Thayer returns to give his final impression. David provided an initial peak at the case earlier this year. Thanks to both Chris and David for contributing to the debate.

In August 2011 the Washington Supreme Court will rule on a pair of joined cases that involve critical insurance coverage issues. The outcome of the ruling will impact a large swath of policyholders in Washington State including builders, developers, and homeowners to name a few.

The cases are Vision One vs. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance and Sprague vs. Safeco. The Vision one case comes from Division Two of the Appellate Court which overturned a lower court decision in favor the plaintiff, Vision One. Division Two decided that the collapse of a concrete pour during the course of construction did not constitute a resulting loss due to faulty workmanship. They further went on to redefine efficient proximate cause in a way that is harmful to policyholders by broadening rather than narrowing the meaning of exclusionary language in Philadelphia’s Builders Risk Policy.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

---

Bankrupt Canada Contractor Execs Ordered to Repay $26 Million

April 25, 2022 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
John Aquino, the former president of a major and now bankrupt Ontario construction contractor, plans to appeal a provincial court ruling that puts him and his associates on the hook for $26.2 million drained from the company, according to his attorney. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

A Deep Dive Into an Undervalued Urban Marvel

December 26, 2022 — Linda Poon - Bloomberg
Deep beneath the city, an intricate network of pipes and pumps carries our waste to treatment facilities. Ideally, the entire process is hidden from the eyes — and nose — of the urban dweller who, from the moment the toilet flushes, remains blissfully unaware of what it takes to direct billions of gallons of wastewater out of a city. The development of sewer infrastructure is one of the perks of modern urban living, rendering the consequences of our daily habits out of sight, out of mind — until it doesn’t. In the US and beyond, many sanitation systems date back to the early 20th century or earlier, and they’re showing their age: Increasingly heavy downpours as a result of climate change often overwhelm antiquated combined sewers that collect stormwater as well as wastewater, while leaky pipes and trash-laden clogs bring stinky backups that can poison local waterways. But as cities scramble to repair and update their networks, another challenge lurks: Getting people to stop taking for granted a public good that’s essential but invisible. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Linda Poon, Bloomberg

---

Facebook Posts “Not Relevant” Rules Florida Appeals Court

February 07, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A Cape Coral, Florida resident is suing the city and construction companies over alleged negligence “for failing to use reasonable care in keeping the construction site safe for pedestrians,” according to News-Press. The lawsuit was filed after a three-year old boy “jumped out of a wagon pulled by his aunt and darted across the construction zone before being” hit and dragged by a vehicle. The boy “suffers neurological problems from the crash.” The defendants wanted to use Facebook posts made by the Plaintiff about the city, contractors, and subcontractors, as evidence. However, the 2nd District Court of Appeals ruled that the Facebook posts were irrelevant to the case. Todd Robert Falzone, the Plaintiff attorney, said that “it’s becoming more common for defense lawyers to try and introduce social media into any case, but the law is new and there isn’t a lot of guidance for lawyers or judges,” according to News-Press. The defendants’ attorneys did not return News-Press’s calls asking for comments. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Green Energy Can Complicate Real Estate Foreclosures

November 30, 2016 — Bob L. Olson – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
A quick drive through almost any newer residential community in the Southwest will show that a lot of residents are embracing “Green Energy” or renewable energy by placing solar panels on their properties. While most people would agree that increasing the use of alternative energy is socially responsible, there are a number of real estate investors that may view it as an opportunity to make additional profits by purchasing distressed properties with solar panels and then reselling those properties for more than they would be worth without solar panels. The theory is relatively straight forward as many believe that foreclosure of a deed of trust that was recorded before the solar panels were installed would extinguish any liens in favor of the vendor that sold or financed the sale of the solar panels. After all, it is generally held that “a valid foreclosure of a mortgage terminates all interest in the foreclosed real estate that are junior to the mortgage being foreclosed.” See SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 75, 334 P.3d 408, 412 (2014) (quoting Restatement (Third) of Property, Mortgages §7.1 (1997)). NOT SO FAST! While the general rule is that foreclosure of a senior lien terminates junior liens, most purveyors of solar panels do not encumber the property with mortgages or deeds of trust to secure payment of amounts they are owed. Rather, they typically either lease the solar panels to the property owner or secure repayment of the purchase price of the solar panels with a fixture filing under the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bob L. Olson, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Olson may be contacted at bolson@swlaw.com

---

Michigan Court of Appeals Remands Construction Defect Case

February 14, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
After its prior decision holding there was no coverage for faulty workmanship was remanded by the Michigan Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court. Skanska United States Bldg. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contrs., 2021 Mich. App. LEXIS 7336 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2021). The post summarizing the Supreme Court decision is here. Skanska USA Building was the construction manager on a renovation project at a medical center. Skanska subcontracted the heating and cooling portion of the project to defendant M.A.P. MAP held a CGL policy from Amerisure. Skanska and the medical center were named as additional insureds. MAP installed a steam boiler and related piping for the heating system. When completed, the heating system did not function properly. MAP installed some of the expansion joints backwards, causing damage to concrete, steel, and the heating system. 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

---

When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors

August 13, 2019 — Ira M. Schulman & Emily D. Anderson - ConsensusDocs
Payment bonds have been a staple of public construction projects since 1874, when the U.S. Congress first passed the Heard Act, which required that contractors obtain payment bonds for public projects to ensure that subcontractors and material suppliers have a way to recover their damages if an upstream contractor fails to pay for work performed and materials furnished on the project. The 1874 Heard Act has since been replaced by the 1935 Miller Act, and the concept has been expanded to construction projects funded by the states through state statutes known as “Little Miller Acts.” But the structure remains the same: On most public projects where the project’s cost exceeds $100,000, the prime contractor (the bond principal) is required to obtain a payment bond from a surety equal to the contract price to guarantee to subcontractors and material suppliers (the bond obligees) that the surety will pay for labor and materials under certain statutory or contractual conditions should the contractor fail to make payment. A surety is jointly and severally liable with the contractor to the subcontractor, which means that the subcontractor may seek recovery against either the contractor or the surety or both, and the contractor and surety will be liable for the damages together. Put another way, in most states and in federal court, an unpaid subcontractor has the right to sue only the surety on the payment bond without joining the contractor because a contract of suretyship is a direct liability of the surety to the subcontractor.1 When the contractor fails to perform, the surety becomes directly responsible at once — it is unnecessary for the subcontractor to establish that the contractor failed to carry out its contract before the obligation of the surety becomes absolute. Reprinted courtesy of Ira M. Schulman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Emily D. Anderson, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Schulman may be contacted at schulmani@pepperlaw.com Ms. Anderson may be contacted at andersone@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Doctrine of Merger Not a Good Blend for Seller of Sonoma Winery Property

April 15, 2015 — Kristen Lee Price and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Ram’s Gate Winery, LLC v. Joseph G. Roche, et al. (No. A139189 & A141090, filed 4/9/15) (Ram’s Gate), the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held the doctrine of merger did not extinguish a seller’s contractual duty to disclose potentially hazardous seismic conditions on a Sonoma winery property. In Ram’s Gate, the buyer of the property filed a lawsuit alleging the seller failed to disclose information relating to earthquake issues prior to the close of escrow. In the parties’ “Purchase and Sales Agreement” (Purchase Agreement) the seller agreed to disclose any information known to it regarding “known geological hazards . . . soil reports . . . geotechnical reports” and other facts “having effect on the value of the ownership or use of the property.” The seller, however, argued this disclosure warranty did not survive the escrow period because it did not expressly provide for survival while other provisions in the Purchase Agreement did. Reprinted courtesy of Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---