FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Energy Company Covered for Business Interruption Losses Caused by Fire and Resulting in Town-Ordered Shutdown

February 15, 2021 — David G. Jordan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In the case of NextSun Energy Littleton, LLC v. Acadia Ins. Co., the United States District Court of Massachusetts held that once direct physical damage from a covered peril causes a covered business interruption loss, any increase in the duration of such business interruption, due to the enforcement of an ordinance or law, extends the coverage period provided for lost income. The Court further held that a policy exclusion for business interruption due to the enforcement of any ordinance or law not in force at the time of the loss only applies when the ordinance or law itself, not the enforcement action that it authorizes, was not in force at the time of the loss. The case involved a solar panel company, NextSun Energy Littleton (NextSun), that operated solar panel arrays providing electricity to the town of Littleton, Massachusetts. Due to a fire, 88 of the solar panels were damaged, and the Town immediately issued a “red-tag” order halting all energy-generating activity pending a safety inspection. The plaintiff purchased insurance for its panels along with “Energy Generating Income” (EGI) coverage, from the defendant, Acadia Ins. Co. (Acadia). The EGI policy covered “direct physical loss or damage” to “renewable energy generating equipment” and also covered the actual loss of surplus power income incurred during the interruption period. However, it excluded interruption of energy-generating income “caused by the enforcement of any ordinance, law, or decree … not in force at the time of loss.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com

---

Eleventh Circuit’s Noteworthy Discussion on Bad Faith Insurance Claims

November 01, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s opinion in Pelaez v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 2021 WL 4258821 (11th Cir. 2021) is a non-construction case that discusses the standard for pursuing a bad faith claim against an insurer. This case dealt with an automobile accident. While the facts of the case are interesting and will be discussed, the takeaway is the Eleventh Circuit’s noteworthy discussion on the standard for bad faith claims and how they should be evaluated. This discussion is included below–with citations–because while the term “bad faith” is oftentimes thrown around when it comes to insurance carriers, there is indeed an evaluative standard that is applied to determine whether an insurance carrier acted in bad faith. In Pelaez, a high school student driving a car crashed with a motorcycle. The motorcycle driver was seriously injured and airlifted to the hospital. The accident was reported to the automobile liability insurer of the driver of the car. The insurer through its investigation initially believed the motorcycle driver was contributory negligent. Eleven days after the crash, after learning additional information, the insurer tendered its bodily injury policy limits of $50,00 to the motorcycle driver even though it never received a settlement demand. The insurer sent a tender package to the motorcycle driver’s lawyer that included a $50,000 check for the bodily injury claim and a proposed release. The accompanying letter told the attorney to contact the insurer with any questions about the release and to edit the proposed release with suggested changes. The insurer also wanted to inspect the motorcycle in furtherance of adjusting the property damage claim which also had a policy limit of $50,000. A location of where the motorcycle could be inspected was never provided. 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

---

UK Court Rules Against Bechtel in High-Speed Rail Contract Dispute

March 29, 2021 — Peter Reina - Engineering News-Record
The U.K. subsidiary of Bechtel Inc. has lost its legal challenge against the owner of the U.K. London-Birmingham high-speed railroad project, HS2, over its failed bid for a roughly $140-million Construction Partner (CP) contract in early 2019. Reprinted courtesy of Peter Reina, Engineering News-Record Mr. Reina may be contacted at reina@btinternet.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions

September 10, 2014 — William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers Blog
Great news for California subcontractors and suppliers! “Type I” Indemnity provisions in California construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013 are not enforceable. This change in the law prevents owners and general contractors from shifting enormous exposure and costs of litigation downstream to the little guy, namely subcontractors and suppliers. In October 2011, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 474 into law, which represented a major legislative victory for subcontractors and suppliers. The new law also imposed exacting limitations on contractors that attempt to require their subcontractors and suppliers to cover their defense fees and costs in litigation. New Law Prevents Indemnity or Cost of Defense for Active Negligence Under a "Type I" indemnity provision, the downstream subcontractor agrees to indemnify the owner or contractor, even against liability caused by the upstream owner/contractor's own "active negligence." A “Type I” indemnity provision in general contractors’ subcontracts often require their subcontractors to defend and indemnify them from liability regardless of whether the general contractor is partially at fault. Subcontractors and suppliers historically have complained that they have little bargaining power when entering into these contracts and these types of provisions can result in ruinous liability for those in the construction industry that are most vulnerable-subcontractors and suppliers. Before this change, the law allowed a general contractor who is 99 percent at fault for an injury or damage to shift the entire risk to a subcontractor who is only one percent at-fault or a subcontractor who is not at fault at all, but tangentially involved in the claim. Subcontractors and suppliers joined forces and lobbied the legislature. The legislature and Governor Brown agreed. Under the new law, such "Type I" indemnity provisions will no longer be enforceable. SB 474 adds Civil Code section 2782.05 that precludes indemnity where the party to be indemnified is "actively negligent" and makes void and unenforceable these types of clauses. Reprinted courtesy of William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

South Carolina Legislature Defines "Occurrence" To Include Property Damage Arising From Faulty Workmanship

May 26, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

On May 17, 2011, South Carolina passed legislation to combat the restrictive interpretation of what constitutes an "occurrence" under CGL policies. S.C. Code Ann. sec. 38-61-70.



The legislation reversed a decision by the state's Supreme Court issued earlier this year. See Crossman Communities of North Carolina, Inc. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 W.L. 93716 (S.C. Jan. 7, 2011). Crossman had overruled an earlier decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court that holding that defective construction was an “occurrence.” Crossman, however, reversed course, holding that damages resulting from faulty workmanship were the “natural and probable cause” of the faulty work and, as such, did not qualify as an “occurrence.”



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Managing Narrative, Capturing Context, and Building Together: Talking VR and AEC with David Weir-McCall

October 19, 2020 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
We sat down with David Weir-McCall of Epic Games to discuss the role VR plays in the modern AEC ecosystem. Our conversation covered the power of merging digital innovation with human insight, the importance of accessible data visualization, and the role that the Unreal platform plays across a range of sectors every day. Can you tell us a little bit about your career to date and what drove you to merge architectural design with tech dev? Sure – I initially studied architecture and. after graduation, was looking at what I wanted to work on. What really interested me was big, complex, and large-scale projects because of the degree of challenge. So, I ended up heading out to the Middle East for seven and a half years and worked in a variety of multidisciplinary firms. 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

---

Pennsylvania Court Extends Construction Defect Protections to Subsequent Buyers

December 20, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
The Pennsylvania courts have long held that there is an implied warranty of habitability for the initial purchaser of a home. Now, as some defects may not immediately show up, the court has extended that implied warranty to second and subsequent purchasers. As Marc D. Brookman, David I. Haas, and Christopher Bender of Duane Morris note, “this judicially created doctrine shifts the risk of a latent defect in the construction of a new home from the purchaser to the builder-vendor.” The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that a contractual relationship is not needed for an implied warranty of habitability. The court’s concern was inequalities would result when a home was sold while other homes were protected by being within the statute of repose. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Appellate Court of Maryland Construes Notice Conditions of A312 Performance Bond in Favor of Surety

January 02, 2024 — Joel P. Williams - White and Williams LLP
The Appellate Court of Maryland issued a reported opinion in a case construing an American Institute of Architects (“AIA”) A312 performance bond. In Wildewood Operating Company, LLC v. WRV Holdings, LLC, et al. 2023 Md. App. LEXIS 720 (Oct. 30, 2023), the Appellate Court of Maryland held that a performance bond surety was discharged from liability where the owner/obligee failed to give the surety notice of the contractor’s default termination until after a third party had completed the work. The project concerned the construction of an assisted living facility in St. Mary’s County, Maryland. The owner, Wildewood Operating Company, LLC, entered into an A312-2010 performance bond with Clark Turner Construction, LLC, as contractor, and First Indemnity of America Insurance Company, as surety. When Clark Turner failed to complete certain stormwater management work adjacent to the site, Wildewood, Clark Turner, and other parties entered into a Work Agreement to address completion of the work. The surety was not a party to the Work Agreement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joel P. Williams, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Williams may be contacted at williamsj@whiteandwilliams.com

---