FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Certificates of Insurance May Confer Coverage

December 30, 2019 — Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Certificates of insurance are a common tool used in the construction industry to provide proof of insurance coverage. The legal effect of certificates of insurance has been a source of debate in Washington. Insurance companies have argued that certificates of insurance are “informational only” and do not alter the terms of the applicable insurance policy. Insurance companies have taken the position that if a certificate of insurance provides for coverage that is different than what the policy provides, the insurance company is only bound to provide what the policy provides. The Washington State Supreme Court weighed in on this issue in an opinion issued on October 10, 2019, and held that an insurance company is bound by the terms of its certificate of insurance – even if it conflicts with the policy. In T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Insurance Company of America, Selective’s agent issued a certificate of insurance to “T-Mobile USA, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliates” and stated that those entities were “included as additional insured” under the policy. The certificate of insurance was issued by Selective’s agent when T-Mobile’s contractor purchased an insurance policy from Selective for a cell tower project. The contractor’s agreement for the project was with T-Mobile Northeast – not T-Mobile USA. The contract between T-Mobile Northeast and the contractor stated that T-Mobile Northeast would be an additional insured. The Selective insurance policy stated that any third party would automatically be an additional insured if the contractor was required to name the third party as an additional insured. The contract did not provide that T-Mobile USA would be an additional insured. A property owner damaged by the cell tower project sued T-Mobile USA. T-Mobile USA tendered the claim to Selective. Selective denied the claim because the contract between the contractor and T-Mobile Northeast did not require the contractor to name T-Mobile USA as an additional insured. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman Sleight PLLC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com

---

Motion to Dismiss Denied Regarding Insureds' Claim For Collapse

October 29, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court denied the insurer's motion to dismiss claims for loss due to the imminent collapse of the insureds' basement walls. Belz v. Peerless Ins. Co., 2014 WL 4364914 (D. Conn. Sept. 2, 2014). The insureds noticed cracks throughout their basement walls. It was discovered that the condition was the result of a chemical compound used in the concrete of certain basement walls in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The insureds contended that due to the cracking, the basement walls suffered a substantial impairment to their structural integrity making it only a matter of time until the walls collapsed. The insureds notified their insurer, Peerless. An engineer hired by Peerless determined the walls' condition was caused by poor workmanship and defective materials. On this basis, Peerless denied coverage. 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

---

Construction Litigation Roundup: “The New Empty Chair.”

June 04, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
In a unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court ruled that cases in litigation in federal court but which are determined to be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act should be stayed pending arbitration, not dismissed. Traditionally, some federal circuits treated the text of 9 U.S.C. §3 – which speaks in terms of a stay of a matter filed in court but referred to arbitration (“…shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement…”) – as discretionary, dismissing suits when all of the claims brought in the court were referred to arbitration. In the case, the plaintiffs sued in Arizona state court on labor law violations, and the case was removed to federal court. When the defendant moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss, the plaintiffs “conceded that all of their claims were arbitrable.” Nonetheless, the plaintiffs requested a stay of the case, which the district court refused, dismissing the case without prejudice. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

---

Back to Basics: What is a Changes Clause?

July 18, 2018 — J. Cole Phillips – Smith Currie
The Changes Clause is one of the most important, perhaps the most important, provision in any construction contract. Project designs are rarely perfect. A Changes Clause provides a mechanism for dealing with such imperfections as well as allowing project owners the flexibility to update a project’s design as the project progresses. A good Changes Clause specifies when an owner can change the original scope of the contract, how the parties should resolve the value of the changed scope and when payment should be made to the contractor or a credit given to the owner. A good Changes Clause will also provide a mechanism for the contractor to notify the owner when it believes a change order is due and specify the time within which such notice must be given. For the contractor, failure to pay attention to the requirements of the Changes Clause can lead to forfeiture of the right to seek an adjustment to the contract value or contract completion date. For an Owner, failure to pay attention to and enforce the requirements of the Changes Clause can result in unnecessary payments to the Contractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of J. Cole Phillips, Smith Currie
Mr. Phillips may be contacted at jcphillips@smithcurrie.com

---

New York Court Finds Insurers Cannot Recover Defense Costs Where No Duty to Indemnify

March 01, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
In a case of first impression, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, found the insurer had no right to reimbursement of defense costs paid to defend the insured. Am. W. Home Ins. Co. v. Gjoaj Realty & Mgt. Co., 2020 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8286 (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 30, 2020). Gjonaj Realty was sued by Viktor Gecaj when he fell from a ladder at the premises managed by Gjonaj Realty. The matter was not tendered to American Western Home Insurance Company until four years after the accident and after a judgment of $900,000 had been entered against Gjonaj Realty after its default. American denied coverage after late notice was given. Thereafter, the Supreme Court in the underling action vacated the default judgment. American then agreed to defend under a reservation of rights. The Appellate Division reversed the vacatur of the default judgment and reinstated the default against the insured. American then advised Gjonaj Realty that it was denying coverage and reserving its right to recover any fees and costs incurred in defending the underlying action. 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

---

Indirect Benefit Does Not Support Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Prime Contractor

July 05, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent case out of the Northern District of Florida dealing with a federal project provides an interesting discussion about a sub-subcontractor asserting a claim against the prime contractor for unjust enrichment. The prime contractor argued any benefit to it was indirect which does not support an unjust enrichment claim as the actual direct benefit flowed to the owner of the project – the government. The federal district court agreed and dismissed the sub-subcontractor’s unjust enrichment claim against the prime contractor because an indirect benefit does NOT support an equitable unjust enrichment claim. See U.S.A f/u/b/o Eco Universe Contracting, LLC v. Calvary Construction Group, Inc., 2023 WL 3884642 (N.D.Fla. 2023). 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

---

Lessee Deemed Statutory Employer, Immune from Tort Liability by Pennsylvania Court

November 03, 2016 — Jerry Anders & Alison Russell – White and Williams LLP
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania addressed whether a lessee can be shielded from tort liability as a statutory employer and thus, immune from civil liability under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The court in Doman v. Atlas America, Inc. held that a primary contractor who leased property for the purposes of removing and drilling natural gas is a statutory employer under Section 302(a) of the Act and thus, entitled to tort immunity under Section 203 of the Act. Reprinted courtesy of Jerrold Anders, White and Williams LLP and Alison Russell, White and Williams LLP Mr. Anders may be contacted at andersj@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Russell may be contacted at russella@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Missouri Construction Company Sues Carpenter Union for Threatening Behavior

February 10, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to KMOV News, Raineri Construction Company in Missouri filed suit against the Local Carpenters’ District Council claiming employees had been “stalked and threatened” by the union. However, the Carpenters Union “denies the allegations” and said “it has the right to protest against a company that doesn’t always meet the union standards for pay and benefits.” Tony Raineri, one of the construction company’s executives, said to KMOV News: “For me it wasn’t such a big deal until they started making threats of bodily harm, started following me and my wife to our home, started following my employees to their homes.” KMOV News reported that a “union representative told News 4’s Craig Cheatham that no one acting on behalf of the Carpenters Union ever threatened, harassed or stalked Raineri, his employees or their clients.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---