FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Economic Loss Rule Bars Claims Against Manufacturer

November 02, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The economic loss rule lives to bar a claim against a product manufacturer in a real estate transaction. In a products liability action, there needs to be personal injury or property damage, other than to the property itself, in order to recover economic damages. Otherwise, the economic loss rule will bar the recovery of such economic losses when the economic losses deal to the product itself. This is important to keep in mind in any product liability action against a manufacturer. In a recent case, 2711 Hollywood Beach Condominium Assoc’n, Inc., v. TRG Holiday, Ltd., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2179a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), a condominium association purchased the condominium from the developer. Subsequently, it noticed leaks with the fire suppression system in the condominium and sued multiple parties for damages for repairs due to the leaks and the replacement of the fire suppression system. One of the parties sued in negligence and strict liability was a manufacturer of pipe fittings used in the fire suppression system. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment based on the economic loss rule and relying on the 1993 Florida Supreme Court opinion in Casa Clara Condominium Assoc’n v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 620 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 1993), holding “the economic loss rule limited a defendant’s tort liability for allegedly defective products to injuries caused to persons or damage caused to property other than the defective product itself.” 2711 Hollywood Beach Conominium Assoc’n, supra. The trial court agreed with the manufacturer and granted summary judgment. On appeal, the Third District affirmed based on the economic loss rule:

The Association bargained for, purchased and received a building; [the manufactuer’s] fittings were only a component of the FSS [fire suppression system], incorporated into the building. Applying the rule set forth in Casa Clara, the Association purchased a completed building from the developer. [The manufactuer’s] fittings were “an integral part of the finished product and, thus, did not injure ‘other’ property.” Injury to the building itself is not injury to “other” property because the product purchased by the Association was the building. See Casa Clara, 620 So. 2d at 1247. The economic loss rule therefore bars the Association’s recovery as to [the manufacturer] to the extent that it sought damages to replace the FSS [fire suppression system] and repair damage to the building.

2711 Hollywood Beach Conominium Assoc’n, supra (internal citations omitted).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Unwrapped Pipes Lead to Flooding and Construction Defect Lawsuit

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Homeowners in New Jersey have filed a lawsuit over unwrapped pipes in exterior walls. During the cold winter weather, the pipes froze, leading one homeowner to experience a “massive leak.” A plumber was able to end the flooding by shutting off water to the house. He then told the homeowner, Robert Long, that he had been doing the same at other homes in the community. The Longs are now party to a class-action lawsuit which seeks that the homebuilder, Ryan Homes, tell those who have purchased homes about the defect. Further, the suit seeks compensation for those whose home have been damaged, and repairs to assure that additional homes do not have their pipes burst. Stephen P. DeNittis, who is representing the Longs, said that “the code violation alleged in this case is particularly troublesome because it involves unprotected pipes hidden inside an exterior wall.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case

November 26, 2014 — Roger Hughes – California Construction Law Blog
On November 11, 2014, the California Supreme Court rejected the recent California Court of Appeals decision Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. v Eastern Municipal Water District, 228 Cal.App.4th 273 (2014) which we wrote about earlier by “decertifying” it (meaning that lawyers cannot cite to the case as legal precedent) The decertification removed a decision that added substantially to the confusion as to when an action on a payment bond is timely filed. Even though the decision was determined in accordance with pre-2014 statutes, the case was relevant precedent for construction attorneys when determining time deadlines for filing a claim on a bond. Background In July of this year, the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a trial court’s granting of summary judgment against a project subcontractor Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. (GSB) who sued Safeco Insurance Company (Safeco) for unpaid contract amounts on a project payment bond issued by Safeco. Both at the trial level and on appeal Safeco successfully argued that GSB’s action on its payment bond claim was time barred by former California Civil Code Sections 3249 (now Section 9558), because it was filed more than six month after the period in which stop notices may be filed as provided by California’s Civil Code Section 3184 (now Section 9558). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

---

APROPLAN and GenieBelt Merge, Creating “LetsBuild” – the Build Phase End-to-End Digital Platform

March 18, 2019 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Responding to a rising need to deliver an all-in-one solution, supporting on-site planning, progress communication, snagging, drawings and checklists, GenieBelt and APROPLAN have decided to merge to form LetsBuild – the European leader in delivering an end-to-end solution to the global construction industry. For the past five years, GenieBelt CEO Klaus Nyengaard and APROPLAN CEO Thomas Goubau have met on a regular basis to discuss developments in the construction technology sector and how to increase efficiency and minimise rework, miscommunication, and errors. “We share the vision that ‘simple to use’-products will bring immense value to the construction sector. When we met in October 2018, we concluded that the way to realize this vision was to unite our companies to create a broader product and cover more needs in the market,” says LetsBuild CEO Klaus Nyengaard. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

How Artificial Intelligence Can Transform Construction

February 22, 2021 — Jeff Rubenstone - Engineering News-Record
Artificial intelligence and machine-learning algorithms have struggled to make sense of chaotic construction jobsites, but recent years have seen industry firms build the vast data lakes and analytics systems necessary for these machines to provide useful advice on how to plan, schedule and execute projects. In some cases, these AI advisors have become a standard part of some firms’ project delivery methods. But it’s still a challenge to convince construction professionals to listen to these AI advisors, and there are emerging questions of how risk will be allocated once algorithm-driven decisions start to steer projects. Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, Engineering News-Record Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Lake Texoma, Texas Condo Case may go to Trial

February 05, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A lawsuit that’s created a “four-year legal battle” over alleged construction defects at the Diamond Pointe Condominium Tower in Lake Texoma, Texas may soon be going to trial, according to KTEN News. A lawyer representing the Diamond Pointe condominiums stated that “he has 15 witnesses lined up for a two-week trial.” KTEN News reported that according to court papers, “the Association alleges issues with the elevator, doors not opening properly, cracks, water leaks, and septic containment system leaks over the past decade.” Furthermore, the Association president Dan Baucum said to KTEN, “There were some foundation repairs that we needed to do and there are some problems with the building. It was not built to the specifications, at least that's what we're alleging, and that has allowed some water seepage in certain areas.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion

October 26, 2020 — Philip B. Wilusz & Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Those of us who suffered through law school are familiar with the argument that there are fundamental rules applicable to contract interpretation and that a certain contract language interpretation would “swallow the rule.” However, insurance companies have long advocated for an interpretation of the CGL policy’s pollution exclusion that would “swallow the coverage” that the insureds thought they were purchasing. Insurers have successfully argued in several states that the pollution exclusion’s definition of “pollutant” should be read literally, and be applied to any “solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste.” As anyone with children can attest to, the range of items and substances that can be considered an “irritant” is limitless. The logical extent of the insurer’s interpretation brings to mind the high school student who, for his science fair project, convinced his fellow students to ban “dihydrogen monoxide.”1 Citing evidence such as the fact that everyone who has ever died was found to have consumed “dihydrogen monoxide,” he convinced them of the dangers of . . . water. Similarly, an overly expansive reading of the definition of “pollutant” could lead to the absurd result of even applying it to ubiquitous harmless substances such as water. The pollution exclusion, therefore, has run amok in many states and has allowed insurers to avoid liability for otherwise covered claims. Fortunately, insureds in many states have successfully argued that the pollution exclusion is subject to a more limited interpretation based on several different theories. For example, some courts have agreed that the pollution exclusion, as initially introduced by the insurance industry, should be limited to instances of traditional environmental pollution. Others have held that the exclusion is ambiguous as to its interpretation. The reasonable expectations of the insureds do not support a broad reading of the defined term “pollutant.” Below, this article addresses a number of recent decisions that have adopted a pro policyholder interpretation of the pollution exclusion. As with most insurance coverage issues, choice of law clearly matters. Reprinted courtesy of Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Hawaii Supreme Court Tackles "Other Insurance" Issues

February 25, 2014 — Tred Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Responding to four certified questions from the Ninth Circuit, the Hawaii Supreme Court addressed various issues raised by competing "other insurance" provisions in two CGL policies. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2014 Haw. LEXIS 59 (Haw. Feb. 13, 2014). Coverage for a development on Maui was at issue. The developer, VP & PK (ML) LLC, was insured by Lexington. The other insurance provision in Lexington's policy provided it was excess over "any other primary insurance available to you covering liability for damages arising out of the premises . . . for which you have been added as an additional insured." Kila Kila Construction was one of VP & PK's subcontractors. Kika Kila was not an additional insured under Lexington's policy. Kila Kila had its own CGL policy with Nautilus. The Nautilus other insurance clause stated the insurance was excess over "any other primary insurance available to you covering liability arising out of the premises or operations for which you ahve been added as an additional insured." An endorsement added VP & PK as an additional insured, but only for liability arising out of Kila Kila's negligence. 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

---