Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Are Defense Costs In Addition to Policy Limits?

December 02, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
I recently had a discussion with an insurer about whether defense costs were included within the policy limits of a client’s coverage or in addition to policy limits. This was an important discussion because if costs of defense were included in the policy limits, my client was going to exceed those policy limits in a hurry. How would this situation play out with your insurance? Fortunately, the majority of insurance policies, such as Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies, provide that defense costs are “in addition” to the policy limits. But some policies, often times referred to as “burning limits” policies, provide that cost of defense is included in the policy limits. This means that if you have $1,000,000.00 policy limits, your costs of defense will reduce that limit throughout the course of litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

This New Indicator Shows There's No Bubble Forming in U.S. Housing

April 01, 2015 — Michelle Jamrisko and Nina Glinski – Bloomberg
When a parking space in Manhattan costs $136,000 and only 15 percent of San Francisco's homes are affordable for the middle class, it's easy to worry that another housing bubble is around the corner. The vast majority of American homeowners have little to fear: A new gauge from Nationwide Insurance in Columbus, Ohio, suggests the national market is in its best shape since 2001 and there's no reason to fear a national downturn, no less a bursting bubble. In its first data release, the national Leading Index of Healthy Housing Markets rose to 109.8 in the fourth quarter. Values greater than 100 indicate a robust industry. The index uses local data in 373 metropolitan statistical areas that are underlying drivers of the housing market, including measures on employment changes, demographics and the mortgage market. Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Jamrisko, Bloomberg and Nina Glinski, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Attorney Writing Series on Misconceptions over Construction Defects

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Mark Wiechnik, a litigation partner at Herrick, Feinstein LLP, has started a seven-part series in which he looks at the misconceptions homeowner board members have when they’re facing construction defect lawsuits. He opens by setting the scene of unit owners “complaining of leaks, roof problems, mold and myriad of other issues”, but conflicting views on what to do about them. In his series, he looks at some of the most common mistaken assumptions and discusses how board members should respond. Wiechnik’s first misconception examined is the claim that “we should file a homeowners warranty claim right away!” He notes that this is “rarely a good idea,” since if the building is more than two years old, the warranty will only be worthwhile if the building is near collapse. He also notes that once you file a warranty claim, “the association is precluded from ever filing a lawsuit on that issue.” Additionally, Wiechnik points out that filing a warranty claim puts everything into the hands of an arbitrator, who gets control of the whole process and whose decision is final, whether the association is happy with the results. Further, he notes, “the program favors builders and contractors over the homeowners.” In his second section, he looks at the fears that if the developer is bankrupt, there is no point is suing. Here he notes that the money for repairs does not come from the developer, but “from the developer’s and subcontractor’s insurance carriers.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court of Appeals Discusses the Difference Between “Claims-Made” and “Occurrence-Based” Insurance Policies

May 31, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
As most contractors know, scope, price and time are the “big” three in any construction contract. Nearly as important, however, are the insurance provisions. Patricularly, when things go bad on a construction project. As the next case, Guastello v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company 61 Cal.App.5th 97 (2021) discusses, the difference between “claims-made” versus “occurrence-based” coverage can be extremely important. The Guastello Case In 2003 and 2004, subcontractor C.W. Poss Inc. built retaining walls in the Pointe Monarch housing development in Dana Point, California. Poss performed all related excavation, ground and grading work. In 2006, Thomas Guastello purchased a home in the development, and in January 2010, a retaining wall close to his lot suffered a massive failure that causing over $700,000 in damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

House Passes $25B Water Resources Development Bill

June 27, 2022 — Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-Record
A key federal infrastructure bill advanced with approval in the House of a measure providing $25.3 billion to help finance 22 Army Corps of Engineers storm and flood protection, ecological restoration, harbor dredging and other projects around the country. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurance Companies Score Win at Supreme Court

December 26, 2022 — Mason Fletcher & Ryan Sternoff - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In 2011, the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) contracted with Seattle Tunnel Partners, a joint venture of Dragados USA and Tutor Perini (“STP”) to construct a tunnel (“SR 99 Tunnel”) to replace the dilapidated Alaska Way Viaduct. STP obtained a builder’s “all-risk” insurance policy (“Policy”) from Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC and several other insurers (collectively, the “Insurers”) which insured against damage to both the project and the tunnel boring machine popularly known as Big Bertha (“Bertha”). Bertha began excavating in July 2013 but broke down a few months later when the machine stopped working. Work did not resume on the project until December 2015. WSDOT and STP tendered insurance claims for the losses associated with the delays and breakdown of Bertha but the Insurers denied coverage. Thereafter, WSDOT and STP sued. The Insurers moved the trial court for partial summary judgment to resolve some, but not all, of the coverage disputes. In a unanimous decision, the Washington State Supreme Court affirmed the trial court and Court of Appeals, and held that insurance companies do not have to reimburse WSDOT and STP for costs accrued during a two-year Project delay, under certain provisions of the insurance policies. Reprinted courtesy of Mason Fletcher, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC and Ryan Sternoff, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Mr. Sternoff may be contacted at ryan.sternoff@acslawyers.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Settlement Reached on Troubled Harbor Bridge in Corpus Christi, Texas

November 16, 2023 — Daniel Tyson - Engineering News-Record
A $400-million settlement was reached between the Texas Dept. of Transportation and general contractor Flatiron/Dragados over Corpus Christi’s Harbor Bridge in mid-October. The accord ends all disagreements and damage claims concerning the cable-stayed bridge, a project halted multiple times. Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Tyson, Engineering News-Record Mr. Tyson may be contacted at tysond@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Temporary Obstructions Are a Permanent Problem Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

March 12, 2015 — Max W. Gavron and Keith M. Rozanski – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Boxes, ladders, furniture or other objects commonly placed in aisles, walkways or paths may not be temporary obstructions and may be actionable under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) according to a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc. DBA Pier 1 Imports #1132, No. 12-16857 (filed March 5, 2015). Many property and business owners have long operated under the assumption that they are not violating ADA regulations requiring minimum clear widths for accessible routes (“[t]he minimum clear width of an accessible route shall be 36 in[ches]” (28 C.F.R. pg. 36, app. A, § 4.3.3)) when they place objects that can easily be removed in aisles or pathways such as trash cans, ladders, plants, signs and the like because temporary obstructions are not considered violations of the ADA (28 C.F.R. § 36.211(b)). Reprinted courtesy of Max W. Gavron, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Keith M. Rozanski, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Gavron may be contacted at mgavron@hbblaw.com Mr. Rozanski may be contacted at krozanski@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES