Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Arizona Court Affirms Homeowners’ Association’s Right to Sue Over Construction Defects

October 15, 2024 — Melissa Kenney - White and Williams LLP
In Gallery Community Association v. K. Hovnanian at Gallery LLC, No. 1 CA-CV 23-0375, 2024 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 696 (Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of Arizona (Court of Appeals) discussed whether a homeowners’ association can file an action for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability arising from construction defects. At issue was whether the implied warranty extended to the areas within the community that the association maintained, including the common areas. The Court of Appeals held that homeowners’ associations can sue builder-vendors for breach of the implied warranty arising from construction defects. In this case, a homeowners’ association, responsible for managing and maintaining a community of townhomes, sued the developer/builder for alleged construction defects in the common area and exteriors of homes that the association maintained for the homeowners in the community. The alleged defects included the pool cabana and staircase walls in the common areas and the exterior walls, roofs, and staircases on the separately owned townhomes in the community. The builder filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the implied warranty extended to dwelling actions initiated by homeowners – not homeowners’ associations – and that the alleged construction defects at issue were not related to a dwelling. The trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals determined that both common law and statutory law authorized the homeowners’ association’s breach of implied warranty claim. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Kenney, White and Williams
Ms. Kenney may be contacted at kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com

Subcontractor Exception to Your Work Exclusion Paves the Way for Coverage

April 03, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In a brief opinion, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's denial of coverage for construction defects. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. R.I. Pools Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5680 (2nd Cir. March 21, 2013). The insured, R.I. Pools, employed outside companies to supply concrete and to shoot the concrete into the ground. During the summer of 2006, it obtained its concrete from one subcontractor and used another to shoot the concrete. In 2009, nineteen customers of R.I. Pools from 2006 complained damage to their pools, including cracking, flaking, and deteriorating concrete. Scottsdale sought a declaratory judgment against R.I. Pools that it had no obligations under the policy to defend or indemnify for claims related to cracks in the pools. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Excess Carrier's Declaratory Judgment Action Stayed While Underlying Case Still Pending

June 11, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court determined the excess carrier's declaratory judgment action to establish it had no coverage obligations should be stayed while the underlying case was still pending. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Ortiz & Assocs., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64286 (D. Ore. May 9, 2014). The subcontractor's employee was killed on the job site when struck by a dump truck owned by the general contractor, Inland Asphalt Co. Island was sued for wrongful death. Island was an additional insured under the subcontractor's primary policy and excess policy with Scottsdale. Inland put Scottsdale on notice of the underlying wrongful death lawsuit, but did not tender its defense to Scottsdale. 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

No Duty to Defend Under Renter's Policy

May 03, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court agreed that the insurer had no potential liability under a policy where the insured allegedly concealed facts and made misrepresentations regarding the condition of the property it sold. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. TFG Enterprises, LLC, 2021 Neb. LEXIS 27 (Neb. Feb. 19, 2021). TFG sold a house to Jeffrey Barkhurst. Thereafter, Barkhurst filed suit alleging that TFG failed to disclose and actively concealed several defects, including water intrusion, the presence of mold, substandard repairs and structural issues. State Farm agreed to TFG defend under a reservation of rights. State Farm then filed a declaratory judgment action to determine its obligations under the policy. State Farm relied upon various exclusions in the rental policy issued to TFG. The exclusions provided there would be no liability coverage for "property damage to property owned by an insured"; "property damage to property rented to, occupied or used by or in the care of the insured"; or "property damage to premises the insured sells. . . if the property damage arises out of these premises." 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

Oregon Construction Firm Sued for Construction Defects

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Home Forward, the housing authority in Multnomah County, Oregon, is suing Tom Walsh & Company over allegations of construction defects in low-income housing projects the firm built for the county. Walsh’s firm was hired about ten years ago to construct apartments in Portland and adjacent Gresham. But the housing authority claims that the buildings are suffering water damage. The authority requested that Tom Walsh & Company repair the problems. Walsh claimed that the problems were not due to construction defects, but to the agency’s failure to maintain the properties. Home Forward has gone forward with lawsuits of a combined $3.8 million. If the case goes to trial, according to Walsh, it will be only the second time for him in 50 years of business. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Florida Supreme Court Adopts Federal Summary Judgment Standard, Substantially Conforming Florida’s Rule 1.510 to Federal Rule 56

June 07, 2021 — Lewis Brisbois
Effective May 1, 2021, the Florida courts will transition to a new summary judgment standard meant to “align Florida’s summary judgment standard with that of the federal courts and of the supermajority of states that have already adopted the federal summary judgment standard.” In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.510, 309 So. 3d 192, 192 (Fla. 2020). Consistent with this amendment, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 has been amended to adopt the federal summary judgment rule, with exceptions for timing-related issues. The Florida Supreme Court’s most recent opinion on rule 1.510 and the text of new rule 1.510 can be found here. As background, on December 31, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court adopted the federal summary judgment standard by amending Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c) to include the following sentence: “The summary judgment standard provided for in this rule shall be construed and applied in accordance with the federal summary judgment standard articulated in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1976); and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) [(the ‘Celotex trilogy’)].” In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.510, 309 So. 3d at 196. The court’s amendment was slated to take effect on May 1, 2021, subject to a public comment period. The court also sought guidance from the Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee. After careful consideration of numerous responses, the court ultimately chose to adopt the substance of the text from federal rule 56. Along with its amendments, the court provides substantial guidance as to how the Florida courts and practitioners should interpret the new rule. A summary of the court’s thorough discussion follows. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Helsinki Stream City: A Re-imagining Outside the System

August 13, 2019 — Jenni Ripatti - AEC Business
Modern man lives under the illusion of being the most intelligent being out there. This is the paradox of human nature; we all want to make the best decisions with the knowledge we have at any given time, but on the other hand, our thinking is largely based on how our ancestors organized the world in their time. Possibly the most tangible example of this in our everyday lives is infrastructure. While there seems to be plenty of candidates offering new solutions to the already existing urban environment, there are not that many looking to challenge the current urban order. Cities are full of talk—but who walks the walk? Re-imagining Urban Environments Olli Hakanen, a long-term specialist in re-imagining workspaces and urban environments, has an extensive background in both architecture and consultancy. His latest venture, Respace, aims to address how urban environments are being developed to better suit the needs of their residents as well as the environment. According to the ideology behind Respace, instead of always building something new, often all that is needed is a re-thinking. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jenni Ripatti, AEC Business
AEC Business may be contacted at info@aec-business.com

Demonstrating A Fraudulent Inducement Claim Or Defense

May 18, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a recent case, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s denial of a motion for a temporary injunction sought by an employer due to an independent contractor’s violation of a non-compete and non-solicitation provision in an employment / independent contractor agreement (“employment agreement”). You can find more on this case and the enforcement of the non-compete and non-solicitation clause here. A worthy discussion in this case centers on the independent contractor’s fraudulent inducement defense. Specifically, the independent contractor, as a defense to the injunction, claimed that he was fraudulently induced into entering into the employment agreement because the employer promised he would make a certain amount of money and he would work predominantly in one geographic location. The employment agreement contained NO such representations. Instead, the employment agreement contained a fee and services schedule and the independent contractor would be compensated based on that schedule. It stated nothing as to the independent contractor only having to work, or predominantly working, in one geographic location, or that the independent contractor would be guaranteed “X” amount of money working in that location. Why is this important? 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES