Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Contractor Haunted by “Demonized” Flooring

December 14, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The most un-Halloween of Halloweens has come and gone. If you ask me though, between COVID, protests, fires, hurricanes, the passing of a Supreme Court Justice, and one of the most hotly contested elections in U.S. history, we’ve had enough scares this year to make up for it and then some. In the next case, Sieg v. Registrar of Contractors, Case No. A156089 (September 28, 2020), 1st District Court of Appeal, one contractor, haunted by “demonized” flooring, and who couldn’t catch a break even with the talisman of a release of liability signed by the homeowner, can add one more to his list of reasons why 2020 needs to be relegated to the history books. The Sieg Case In January 2012, homeowners Dennis and Ana Torchia purchased wood flooring for their home in Windsor, California. Specifically, they selected Brazilian Ebony, an exotic species of unusually hard wood, for its appearance and durability. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

An Additional Insured’s Reasonable Expectations may be Different from the Named Insured’s and Must be Considered to Determine whether the Additional Insured is Entitled to Defense from the Insurer of a Commercial Excess & Umbrella Liability Policy

June 12, 2014 — Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq. and Kacey R. Riccomini, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
The Second District Court of Appeal’s recent decision, Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216, immediately affects builders and contractors (collectively “builders”) who are often named as additional insureds (AIs) to contractors’ general liability policies. The decision is an important tool for builders’ counsel because the builder’s reasonable expectations can alter the interpretation of ambiguous terms in policies issued to subcontractors. Essentially, the builder’s intent is relevant to the interpretation of policy terms because the subcontractor’s intent in requesting additional coverage depends on the agreement it made with the builder. The salient aspects of the facts, the Appellate Court’s reasoning, and practical considerations are discussed below. Transport Insurance Company (Transport) issued a commercial excess and umbrella liability policy (Policy) to Vulcan Materials Company (Vulcan), naming R.R. Street & Co., Inc. (Street) as an AI for its distribution of a solvent. The Policy provided that Transport would indemnify and defend the insured for loss caused by property damage if (1) it was not covered by “underlying insurance” but was within the terms of coverage of the Policy, or (2) if the limits of liability of the “underlying insurance” were exhausted during the Policy period due to property damage. The Policy included a Schedule of Underlying Insurance (Schedule) that listed policies issued to Vulcan. Thereafter, Vulcan and Street were named as defendants in several environmental contamination actions (Underlying Actions). Transport brought a declaratory relief action against Vulcan regarding Transport’s duty to defend. (Legacy Vulcan Corp. v. Superior Court (Legacy Vulcan) (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 677). The trial court found the term “underlying insurance” ambiguous as it was not expressly defined to include only the policies on the Schedule and could be interpreted to include all primary policies in effect. Vulcan challenged the trial court’s decision by petition for writ of mandate, contending “underlying insurance” only included policies listed on the Schedule. The Court of Appeal found “underlying insurance” ambiguous because it was an expressly qualified term under other Policy provisions but not in the umbrella coverage provision and, thus, it was a generic term that was not limited to policies listed in the Schedule or inclusive of all primary insurance. Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto and Kacey R. Riccomini Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com; Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com, and Ms. Riccomini may be contacted at kriccomini@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Build Back Better Includes Historic Expansion of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program

December 20, 2021 — James M. Grosser & David W. Wright - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On November 19, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376), a bill that represents a large portion of the Biden-Harris Administration’s agenda. Among other spending and tax measures, the bill includes an unprecedented expansion of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. Four proposals are headlining this expansion:

Increasing the 9% LIHTC allocation cap by 10% plus inflation annually from 2022 to 2024. With this increase, the 2024 LIHTC allocation cap will rise to $3.97 per capita and a small state minimum of around $4.58 million, constituting a 41 percent increase in allocable LIHTC over current levels. The allocation cap would then decrease to $2.65 per capita and a small state minimum of $3.12 million in 2025 and would thereafter be indexed to inflation from the 2025 baseline.
Reducing the 50% threshold for 4% tax-exempt bond-financed projects to 25% for five years, beginning in 2022.

Reprinted courtesy of James M. Grosser, Pillsbury and David W. Wright, Pillsbury Mr. Grosser may be contacted at james.grosser@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer Obligated to Cover Preventative Remediation of Construction Defects

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A recent Texas construction defect case gets covered on a blog post on the web site of Manatt, Phelphs & Phillps, LLC. In the case, the home builder built homes using EIFS which later had problems with mold, mildew, and structural damage. The home builder remediated all of the homes in the project, not just those that had experienced problems with the EIFS.The home builder’s insurers refused to cooperate. Various insurers settled with the home builder, leaving only Markel America Insurance Company. Markel refused coverage on the grounds that proactively replacing the EIFS to preclude damage meant that there was no damage for their policy to cover. The policy also read that “no insured, except at their own cost, [may] voluntary make any payment, assume any obligation, or incur any expense,” unless Markel agreed to it. But the Texas Supreme Court ruled that “Markel failed to prove that it was prejudiced in any way by the home builder’s settlements,” which was a necessary condition for the cited clause. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that Markel was obligated to indemnify the home builder. The court also concluded that the damage occurred during the coverage period and that “all 465 houses at issue suffered property damage during the policy period.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Coverage for Counterclaim Arising from Insured's Faulty Workmanship

August 03, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eighth Circuit found there was no coverage for the insured's faulty workmanship. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., S.I. v. Mid-American Grain Distributors, LLC, 958 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2020). Mid-American contracted with Lehenbauer to design and construct a grain storage and distribution facility for Lehenbauer. Before the work was competed, Lehenbauer terminated Mid-American's services. Mid-American then sued Lehenbauer for breach of contract. Lehenbauer counterclaimed against Mid-American, alleged breach of "implied duties of workmanlike performance and fitness for a particular purpose" and negligence. Mid-American tendered the counterclaim to American Family. American Family accepted the tender under a reservation of rights, but sued Mid-American for a declaratory judgment. The district court granted American Family's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the counterclaims did not allege an occurrence. 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

Multisensory Marvel: Exploring the Innovative MSG Sphere

August 14, 2023 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
The U.S. entertainment industry keeps amazing me. The first Disneyland opened in 1955, and ever since the industry has created experiences that amazingly combine architecture and technology. The latest example is the MSG Sphere which will open its doors in Las Vegas, Nevada, on September 29, 2023. It is a large-scale immersive entertainment space hosting various events, concerts, competitions, and residencies from the world’s biggest artists. The world’s largest spherical structure The MSG Sphere was initially a partnership between the Madison Square Garden Company (MSG) and Las Vegas Sands Corporation, which Apollo Global Management later replaced. The project’s final construction costs were $2.3 billion. 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

New York: The "Loss Transfer" Opportunity to Recover Otherwise Non-Recoverable First-Party Benefits

May 13, 2014 — Robert M. Caplan – White and Williams LLP
New York’s “no-fault” legislation reflects a public policy designed to make the insurer of first-party benefits absorb the economic impact of loss without resort to reimbursement from its insured or, by subrogation, from the tortfeasor. Country Wide Ins. Co. v. Osathanugrah, 94 A.D.2d 513, 515 (N.Y. 1st Dept. 1983). The no-fault concept embodied in New York’s Insurance Law modifies the common law system of reparation for personal injuries under tort law. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Jamaica Water Supply Co., 83 A.D.2d 427, 431 (N.Y. 2nd Dept. 1981). “[F]irst party benefits are a form of compensation unknown at common law, resting on predicates independent of the fault or negligence of the injured party.” Id. at 431. The purpose of New York’s no-fault scheme is “to promote prompt resolution of injury claims, limit cost to consumers and alleviate unnecessary burdens on the courts.” Byrne v. Oester Trucking, Inc., 386 F. Supp. 2d 386, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). New York’s no-fault scheme—contained in Article 51 of its Consolidated Laws (“Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Insurance Reparations”)—requires owners of vehicles to carry insurance with $50,000 minimum limits which covers basic economic loss, i.e., first-party benefits, on account of personal injury arising from the use or operation of a motor vehicle. Basic economic loss includes, among other things: (1) medical expenses; (2) lost earnings up to $2,000 per month for three years; and (3) out-of-pocket expenses up to $25 per day for one year. N.Y. INS. LAW § 5102(a). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert M. Caplan, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com

2019’s Biggest Labor and Employment Moves Affecting Construction

January 27, 2020 — Micah Dawson - Construction Executive
The construction industry is fueled by change, which is the only constant in life and construction. Still, continuous change makes compliance with state and federal laws and regulations more difficult. While contractors may thrive on the frantic pace, sometimes it is good to look back and ensure they have an understanding of, and are complying with, the newest regulations and laws. Top 10 Stories Dominating Employment Law in Construction 1. Trio of Federal Joint Employment Rules Expected in December 2019 Joint employment took center stage during the November 20, 2019 release of the Fall Regulatory Agenda, as three separate federal agencies announced plans to move forward with revised joint employment rules in December. While the Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board had already released versions of their draft rules, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also announced that it would weigh in on the topic before the end of 2019. As of January 10, 2020, the EEOC had not done so. 2. NLRB Tightens Union Access to Employer Property In a ruling that levels the labor relations playing field, the NLRB ruled that employers could rightfully eject outside union representatives soliciting petition signatures from a shared shopping center parking area. When read in conjunction with an earlier 2019 decision conferring greater rights to limit on-premises union activity by abolishing the “public space” exception, the NLRB has significantly restricted union access to private employer property. Reprinted courtesy of Micah Dawson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Dawson may be contacted at mdawson@fisherphillips.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES