Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

“Positive Limiting Barriers” Are An Open and Obvious Condition, Relieving Owner of Duty to Warn

June 13, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On June 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decided the case of Potvin v. Speedway, Inc., a personal injury case subject to the laws of Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, environmental rules require the installation of “positive limiting barriers” at gasoline service stations to contain gasoline spills of up to 5 gallons. At a self-service station now owned by Speedway, Inc., the plaintiff, a passenger in a car being serviced, exited the car but tripped on these barriers and was injured. She sued Speedway in state court, and the case was removed to federal court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

No Coverage for Homeowner Named as Borrower in Policy but Not as Insured

July 08, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The magistrate judge recommended that the homeowner's complaint seeking coverage for damage caused by Hurricanes Laura and Delta be denied because the homeowner was only named as the borrower under the policy. LeDay v. Integon Nat'l Ins. Co., 2024 U,S. Dist. LEXIS 87369 (W.D. La. April 15, 2024). When the homeowner sought coverage for hurricane damage, it was denied. The homeowner then sued and Integon moved to dismiss. Integon argued it did not issue a policy to the homeowner, but the policy was issued to Midland Mortgage. The pro se homeowner did not respond to the motion. 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

Defective Sprinklers Not Cause of Library Flooding

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Sprinklers are important in any public building, but libraries with their large collections of nicely flammable paper. Of course, you also want to keep those books dry. The Hilton Head Island library investigated its sprinklers after a malfunctioning sprinkler head flooded the Friends of the Library bookshop, ruining thousands of books. The investigation found that, apart from the malfunction, the sprinklers had a defect that could have lead to their failure to operate in the event of a fire. The sprinklers had been the subject of a voluntary recall in 2001, however the 220 sprinkler heads were not replaced at that time. The county claimed that they were unaware of the recall at the time, and so failed to take advantage of program under which the manufacturer would pay for the recall. That program ended in 2007. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

"Repair Work" Endorsements and Punch List Work

May 20, 2019 — Jeremiah M. Welch - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The recent white paper on Repair Work Endorsements by Jeremiah Welch, drew a storm of responses. Most were appreciative and included follow up questions, but there were those that lamented along the lines of: “How can that be? We’ve been doing it this way for years…”. For the skeptics, the best approach to test the premise of the paper (that most “repair work endorsements” are at best redundant with the PCO extension and at worst restrictive) is to try to formulate a scenario where coverage would be available under a “repair work endorsement” but not under a PCO extension. Several folks asked about the impact of PCO extensions and repair work endorsements on “punch list” work. “Punch list” work presents a related but different problem. The first issue is understanding what is meant by the term “punch list”. You won’t find that term in an ISO CGL policy. You may find it defined in a construction contract and a Google search will yield several similar definitions. In general, our industry uses the term “punch list” to describe items identified toward the end of a project (often after the contractually defined point of “substantial completion”) which must be completed in order to fully comply with the contract requirements/scope. In short, “punch list” items are items necessary to complete the work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremiah M. Welch, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Welch may be contacted at jmw@sdvlaw.com

Massachusetts High Court: Attorney's Fee Award Under Consumer Protection Act Not Covered by General Liability Insurance Policy

September 19, 2022 — Jeffrey J. Vita & David G. Jordan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In the case of Vermont Mutual Insurance Co. v. Poirier, 189 N.E.3d 306 (Mass. 2022), Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court concluded that an award of attorney's fees pursuant to Chapter 93A (Massachusetts’ Consumer Protection Act) is not covered under an insured’s general liability insurance policy. Applying Massachusetts law, the Court found that a statutory award of attorney’s fees stemming from a bodily injury claim is not reasonably considered “damages because of bodily injury” or “costs taxed against the insured” so as to trigger general liability coverage. Facts of the Case A Servpro company (owned by Mr. and Mrs. Poirier) was hired to clean up a basement after a sewage spill. The owners of the home were injured by fumes from chemicals used in the cleanup and accordingly brought suit against the Poiriers and their Servpro business. In the lawsuit, the homeowners alleged negligence, breach of contract, and also a Chapter 93A claim, asserting breach of warranty of merchantability and warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Prior to trial, the plaintiffs waived the negligence and breach of contract claims and sought a bench trial on the Chapter 93A claims alone. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SFAA Commends U.S. Senate for Historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

August 16, 2021 — The Surety & Fidelity Association of America
August 10, 2021 (WASHINGTON, DC) – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) commends the U.S. Senate for passing the historic, bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The $1.2 trillion deal will lay the foundation for extensive improvements in the nation’s roadways, bridges, railways, waterways and broadband access. “Investing in infrastructure will create millions of jobs across the country, growing our national and local economies in both the short and long term,” said SFAA president and CEO, Lee Covington. “The surety industry fully supports this investment and will continue to provide the essential protections necessary to support our country’s infrastructure needs through our suite of products and services.” SFAA also commends the inclusion of the Van Hollen 2354 amendment to the bill, accepted by a unanimous vote of 97-0. The amendment requires payment and performance bonds on all federally-financed infrastructure projects receiving loans and grants under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA), protecting taxpayers’ dollars, ensuring project completion, protecting local small business contractors and workers, and promoting economic growth. The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) is a trade association of more than 425 insurance companies that write 98 percent of surety and fidelity bonds in the U.S. SFAA is licensed as a rating or advisory organization in all states and it has been designated by state insurance departments as a statistical agent for the reporting of fidelity and surety experience. https://www.surety.org/ Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Top 10 Cases of 2019

February 10, 2020 — Jeffrey J. Vita, Grace V. Hebbel & Andrew G. Heckler - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In the 2019 edition of SDV’s Top Ten Insurance Cases, we probe wiretapping claims under an armed security services policy, delicately sniff out E&O coverage for a company using cow manure to create electricity, scour the earth for coverage for crumbling foundation claims, and inspect D&O policies for government investigation coverage. In addition, we preview some important and exciting decisions due in 2020. Without further ado, SDV raises the curtain on the most informative and influential insurance coverage decisions of 2019.1 1. ACE American Ins. Co. v. American Medical Plumbing, Inc., 206 A.3d 437 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019) April 4, 2019 Is waiver of subrogation language in a standard AIA201 contract sufficient to bar an insurer’s subrogation rights? The New Jersey Supreme Court held that it was. Equinox Development obtained a comprehensive blanket all-risk policy with limits of $32 million per occurrence from ACE American Ins. Co. (“ACE”). The policy covered Equinox’s new project in Summit, New Jersey. Equinox hired Grace Construction as GC, who in turn subcontracted the plumbing scope of work to American Medical Plumbing, Inc. (“American”). After completion of the work under the subcontract, a water main failed and flooded the entire project. ACE paid the limits of the policy and subrogated against American to recover its losses. American argued that there was a waiver of subrogation in the AIA201 contract that barred the suit. ACE challenged the validity of the AIA provision, arguing that it applied only to claims before completion of construction and that it only applied to damage to the work itself and not to adjacent property. The court rejected both arguments, finding that the AIA provision effectively barred ACE’s subrogation claim. This decision provides guidance on a frequently used contract form for contractors across the country. Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. attorneys Jeffrey J. Vita, Grace V. Hebbel and Andrew G. Heckler Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at gvh@sdvlaw.com Mr. Heckler may be contacted at agh@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

When Is Mandatory Arbitration Not Mandatory?

August 19, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
I have discussed my views on mandatory mediation in construction contracts at other places here at Musings and also discussed how the contract is king here in Virginia. A recent Charlottesville, Virginia Circuit Court case combined these two concepts to allow a subcontractor to proceed straight to litigation despite various ADR provisions in the contract between it and the general contractor. In ProBuild v. DPR & Continental Casualty, the Court looked at a series of ADR steps that were to be followed in the contract between the parties in order to allow DPR, the general contractor to require arbitration as opposed to litigation. The Court considered the surety’s motion to stay the litigation against it pending arbitration between ProBuild and DPR. In ProBuild, the Court looked at a contractual provision that provided certain steps to be followed in the event of a dispute, starting with a notice of dispute, followed by negotiation, followed by mediation should the disputing party request it, and in the event that mediation was tried and failed, the disputing party or general contractor could require arbitration. The Court determined that ProBuild, the subcontractor, was the disputing party under the contract, had pursued unsuccessful formal negotiations and that neither ProBuild nor DPR requested mediation. The Court then held that because unsuccessful mediation was a prerequisite to required arbitration and because mediation was never pursued, the mandatory arbitration clause did not apply. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES