Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Blindly Relying on Public Adjuster or Loss Consultant’s False Estimate Can Play Out Badly

May 03, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Insurance policies, particularly property insurance policies, have a concealment or fraud provision that, in essence, gives the insurer an out if the insured submits a fraudulent claim, a false claim, or conceals material facts. Unlike a traditional fraud claim where a party needs to prove intent, the provision is broad enough that it does not require any intent behind making a false statement. See Mezadieu v. Safepoint Ins. Co., 46 Fla.L.Weekly D691c (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). For this reason, and as exemplified below, do NOT blindly rely on a public adjuster or loss consultant’s estimate that contains false statements because those false statements, particularly if you know they are false, can play out badly for you! Review the estimate and ask questions about it to make sure you understand what is being included in the loss or damages estimate. In Mezadieu, a homeowner submitted a claim to her property insurance carrier due to a second-floor water leak emanating from her bathroom. She submitted an estimate from her public adjuster that included damages for her kitchen cabinets directly below the second-floor bathroom, as well as other items on her first-floor. Her carrier denied coverage based on the exclusion that the policy excludes damage caused by “[c]onstant or repeated seepage of water or steam…which occurs over a period of time.” 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

New Orleans Reviews System After Storm Swamps Pumps

August 17, 2017 — Pam Radtke Russell - Engineering News-Record
The city of New Orleans will hire an independent team of engineers to evaluate the problems that led to severe flooding following an Aug. 5 rainfall of up to 10 in. The decision followed the revelation that 16 of the city’s pumps were not working, despite claims the system was at capacity. Further, the power system that operates those pumps was severely crippled. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pam Radtke Russell, ENR
Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com

The Miller Act Explained

May 21, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Garret Murai, on his California Construction Law Blog, goes over the nuances of the Federal Miller Act. Murai explained, “Named after John E. Miller, former Arkansas Congressman, later U.S. Senator and still later federal judge, the Miller Act was enacted in 1935 in the middle of the Great Depression, to help ensure that subcontractors and material suppliers working on federal projects get paid, by requiring contractors who contract directly with the federal government on federal construction projects furnish payment and performance bonds.” Murai answered questions such as what is required under the act, who is protected, how a general contractor could protect itself from a Miller Act claim, as well as others. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Subcontractor Exception to "Your Work" Exclusion Does Not Apply to Coverage Under Subcontractor's Policy

January 26, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Arizona Court of Appeals overturned the trial court's determination that the general contractor was entitled to coverage under the subcontractor's exception to the "Your Work" exclusion. Double AA Builders v. Preferred Contrs. Ins. Co., 2016 Ariz. App. LEXIS 294 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2016). Harkins Theatres hired Double AA Builders, Ltd. to serve as general contractor to build a theater complex. Double AA subcontracted with Anchor Roofing, Inc. to install the roof. Anchor was the "Named Insured" under a policy issued by Preferred Contractors Insurance Company, LLC. Double AA was an "Additional Insured" under the Preferred policy. 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

I-35W Bridge Collapse may be Due to “Inadequate Load Capacity”

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Crookston Times reports that the I-35W Bridge collapse that occurred five years ago in Minneapolis, Minnesota, killing 13 people and injuring another 145, may have been caused by “inadequate load capacity.” The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report stated that it is “a simple design flaw in metal plates that help connect one steel beam to another.” Due to the findings, “the NTSB set new safety recommendations for bridge design plans, bridge inspection and training of bridge inspectors.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Washington Court of Appeals Divisions Clash Over Interpretations of the Statute of Repose

August 07, 2023 — Masaki Yamada & Ryanne Mathisen - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The construction statute of repose under RCW 4.16.310 bars any claims arising from construction, design, or engineering of any improvement upon real property that has not accrued within six years after substantial completion or termination of services, whichever is later, even if the injury has not yet occurred. On June 20, 2023, Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals (Div. I) published its decision in Welch v. Air & Liquid Systems severely criticizing and rejecting the statute of repose reasoning contained in Maxwell v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 15 Wn. App. 2d 569, 476 P.3d 645 (2020), a Division Two (Div. II) opinion. More than a mere difference of opinion, the courts in Welch and Maxwell reached different results as to whether claims asserted against Brand Insulations, Inc. were barred by the statute of repose despite involving (i) the same procedural posture, both appeals from summary judgment decisions; (ii) the same facility, Atlantic Richfield Corporation’s (ARCO) petroleum refinery at Cherry Point in Ferndale; (iii) the same activity of installation of asbestos laden insulation on pipes; (iv) the same type of injury, mesothelioma; and (v) application of the same test set forth in Condit v. Lewis Refrigeration Co., 101 Wn.2d 106, 676 P.2d 466 (1984). Reprinted courtesy of Masaki Yamada, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC and Ryanne Mathisen, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Mr. Yamada may be contacted at masaki.yamada@acslawyers.com Ms. Mathisen may be contacted at ryanne.mathisen@acslawyers.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Keep it Simple with Nunn-Agreements in Colorado

June 28, 2021 — Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction Litigation
On May 24, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court published its decision in Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Ass'n.[1] There, the Colorado Supreme Court was tasked with answering whether an insurer, who is defending its insured under a reservation of rights, is entitled to intervene as of right under C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) where the insured enters into a Nunn agreement with a third-party claimant, but rather than entering into a stipulated judgment, agrees with the third party to proceed via an uncontested trial to determine liability and damages. Interestingly, however, while the Court ultimately answered the above question in the negative, the real lesson from the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is that Colorado litigants should not seek a trial court’s blessing as to liability and damages through non-adversarial proceedings when using Nunn-Agreements. Or, as articulated in Justice Carlos Samour’s vociferous dissenting opinion, Colorado litigants desiring to enter into a Nunn-Agreement should not proceed with a non-adversarial hearing, as doing so is “offensive to the dignity of the courts,” constitutes a “bogus,” “faux,” “sham” and “counterfeit” proceeding, and the hearing provides “zero benefit.” By way of background, the case arrived in front of the Colorado Supreme Court based on the following fact pattern. A homeowner association (Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc.) (“Association”) brought construction defect claims against a variety of prime contractors and those contractors subsequently brought third-party construction defect claims against subcontractors. One of the prime contractors assigned their claims against a subcontractor by the name Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra”) to the Association. The other claims between the additional parties settled. On the eve of trial involving only the Association’s assigned claims against Sierra, the Association made a settlement demand to Sierra for $1.9 million. Sierra asked its insurance carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance, Co. (“AOIC”), which had been defending Sierra under a reservation of rights letter, to settle the case for that amount, but AOIC refused. This prompted Sierra to enter into a “Nunn-Agreement” with the Association whereby the case would proceed to trial, Sierra would refrain from offering a defense at trial, the Association would not pursue any recovery against Sierra for the judgment, and Sierra would assign any insurance bad faith claims it may have had against AOIC to the Association. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Meyer may be contacted at meyer@hhmrlaw.com

ADA Lawsuits Spur Renovation Work in Fresno Area

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The El Gallo restaurant in Clovis, California has completed more than $45,000 worth of accessibility upgrades, ranging from installing signs for handicap parking to an $8,000 wheelchair-accessible ramp. The restaurant closed in 2010 when they were sued over alleged Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) violations. But the El Gallo was only the first Fresno-area business hit with an accessibility lawsuit. And others wanted to avoid getting sued at all. Donald Bremseth, an architect working in Clovis, said that designing modifications to older buildings to bring them into compliance with the ADA has kept him busy, designing dozens of projects in the area. Daniel Zoldak, vice president of Lars Anderson & Associates, noted at on one inspection, he saw about 50 ADA violations, and with the fines at least $2,000 per violation, $10,000 or $20,000 of renovations doesn’t look so bad. That’s under the new law, which also allows a business 30 days to get into compliance. Under the old law, the minimum fine was $4,000. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES