FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

D.C. Decision Finding No “Direct Physical Loss” for COVID-19 Closures Is Not Without Severe Limitations

August 24, 2020 — Michael S. Levine & Michael L. Huggins - Hunton Andrews Kurth
On August 6, 2020, in Rose’s 1 LLC, et al. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Civ. Case No. 2020 CA 002424 B, a District of Columbia trial court found in favor of an insurer on cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether COVID-19 closure orders constitute a “direct physical loss” under a commercial property policy. At its core, the decision ignores key arguments raised in the summary judgment briefing and is narrowly premised on certain dictionary definitions of the terms, “direct,” “physical,” and “loss.” Relying almost entirely on those definitions – each supplied by the insureds in their opening brief – the court set the stage for its ultimate conclusion by finding “direct” to mean “without intervening persons, conditions, or agencies; immediate”; and “physical” to mean “of or pertaining to matter ….” The court then apparently accepted the policy’s circular definition of “loss” as meaning “direct and accidental loss of or damage to covered property.” Importantly, however, despite recognizing the fundamental rule of insurance policy construction that the court “must interpret the contract ‘as a whole, giving reasonable, lawful, and effective meaning to all its terms, and ascertaining the meaning in light of all the circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made,’” the court apparently ignored the insureds’ argument that the term “property damage” is specifically defined in the policy to include “loss of use” without any specific reference to physical or tangible damage. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Policy's One Year Suit Limitation Does Not Apply to Challenging the Insurer's Claims Handling

October 07, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Supreme Court held that the policy's suit limitation of one year, consistent with the statute requiring suit be file within twelve months after a loss, did not apply to claims alleging violation of the state's unfair competition law (UCL). Rosenberg-Wohl v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2024 Cal. LEXIS 3806 (Cal. July 18, 2024). Plaintiff held a homeowners policy issued by State Farm that provided coverage for all risks except those specifically excluded under the policy. The suit limitation provision provided, "Suit Against Us. No action shall be brought unless there has been compliance with the policy provision.The action must be started within one year after the date of loss or damage." On two occasions in late 2018 or early 2019, plaintiff's neighbor stumble and fell as she descended a staircase at plaintiff's residence. Plaintiff discovered that the pitch of the stairs had changed, and replacement of the stairs was required to fix the issue. She contacted State Farm on or around April 23, 2019. On August 9, 2019, plaintiff submitted a claim to State Farm, seeking reimbursement for what she paid to repair the staircase. State Farm denied the claim, advising there was no coverage and identifying several exclusions as potentially applicable. 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

---

Insurer Beware: Failure to Defend Ends with Hefty Verdict

June 01, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

Served with a lawsuit that you turned over to your insurer? Insurer refusing to defend you? Well, find some hope in this news. Washington’s IFCA has the claws to ensure that insurers perform their duties.



Contractors heavily rely on the defense provisions of their Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies. In construction, a legal dispute can easily rear its head when you least expect it. Luckily, Washington registered contractors are required to maintain CGL insurance. That insurance often provides contractors with adequate legal defense in the event that they are sued.



But, what if your insurer turns down the defense request? They might be staring at massive damages. A current Reiser Legal client, Australia Unlimited, Inc., recently won a large verdict against Hartford Insurance, after the insurer unreasonably denied their claim. The firm who represented Australia Unlimited Inc. in that case, Hackett Beecher and Hart, were successful in procuring a $5.43 Million verdict



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

---

Court Affirms Duty to Defend Additional Insured Contractor

December 05, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the insurer must defend. Main St. Am. Assurance Co. v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5507 (N.Y. App. Div., Oct. 7, 2022).  XL Construction Services, LLC was the contractor on a construction project. Timothy J. O'Connor was insured when performing drywall finishing as a self-employee subcontractor on the project. As part of a written indemnification and insurance agreement between the parties, O'Connor was obligated to obtain insurance for the benefit of XL Construction. O'Connor was insured by Merchants Mutual Insurance Company under a policy containing an additional insureds endorsement that provided coverage to a party where required by a written agreement, but "only with respect to liability for 'bodily injury' . . . caused in whole or in part, by . . . [O'Connor's] acts or omissions." The trial court found there was a duty to defend and entered judgment that Merchants Mutual was obligated to provided a defense to XL Construction. 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

---

Workers on Big California Bridge Tackle Oil Wells, Seismic Issues

February 02, 2017 — Aileen Cho - Bloomberg
Surrounded by workers, Nik Pecci, project safety manager with PMCM Consulting Engineers for the $1.5-billion Gerald Desmond Bridge replacement project—which is revitalizing a 50-year-old link in Long Beach—gestured in several directions: “I’ve got all these [port] tenants here, I’ve got a massive bridge over here. I have to build this thing intertwined with one of the busiest ports in the world. I constantly have commuters, cargo trucks and trailers and trains.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aileen Cho, ENR
Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com

---

Presenting a “Total Time” Delay Claim Is Not Sufficient

September 12, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When presenting a delay-type of claim on a construction project, a claimant MUST be in a position to properly PROVE the claim. Trying to present a delay claim loosey-goosey is not a recipe for success. In fact, it can be a recipe for an easy loss. This is not what you want. To combat this, make sure you engage a delay expert that understands delay methodologies and how to calculate delay and do NOT present a total time claim. Presenting a delay claim using a total time approach, discussed below, makes it too easy to attack the flaws and credibility of the approach. Per the discussion of the case below, a total time claim with a contractor that used its project manager, versus a delay expert, to support its claim turned the contractor’s claim into a loss. In French Construction, LLC v. Department of Veteran Affairs, 2022 WL 3134507, CBCA 6490 (CBCA 2022), a contractor submitted a delay claim to the government for almost $400,000. The contractor was hired to construct a two-story corridor to connect hospital buildings. The contractor was required to be complete within 365 days. It was not. The contractor was seeking 419 days of delay from the government. The contractor’s “delay expert” was its project manager who compared the contractor’s as-planned schedule to an as-built schedule he prepared for the claim. 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

---

The Impact of Sopris Lodging v. Schofield Excavation on Timeliness of Colorado Construction Defect Claims

January 26, 2017 — Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction Litigation
On October 20, 2016, the Colorado Court of Appeals announced the Sopris Lodging, LLC v. Schofield Excavation, Inc.[1] decision. The Sopris decision significantly altered the potential pitfalls awaiting a general contractor in pursuit of third-party claims as well as potential defenses available for a subcontractor defending against third-party claims. By way of background, the Sopris construction defect case arose out of the following facts: TDC was the general contractor for the construction of a hotel owned by Sopris Lodging. On March 11, 2011, Sopris Lodging sent TDC a notice of claim regarding alleged construction defects. On May 24, 2013, Sopris Lodging filed a complaint in district court asserting construction defect claims against one of the subcontractors of the hotel, and against the general contractor’s principals, but not the general contractor. Contemporaneous with the filing of the suit, Sopris Lodging and TDC entered into an agreement to toll the statute of limitations on Sopris Lodging’s potential claims against TDC. In August 2013, Sopris Lodging joined the general contractor to the suit. A year later, in 2014, the general contractor joined a variety of subcontractors as third-party defendants. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Jean may be contacted at meyer@hhmrlaw.com

---

Condominium Association Responsibility to Resolve Construction Defect Claims

July 23, 2014 — Nicholas D. Cowie – Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law Blog
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently issued an opinion in Greenstein v. Council of Unit Owners of Avalon Court Six Condominium Inc. finding that an association can be sued by its unit owner members if it fails to take timely legal action against a developer. In that case, the association was aware of construction defects, but failed to take action to preserve its claim and then filed a lawsuit against the developer too late, after the statute of limitations expired. As a result, the suit against the developer was dismissed and the association was forced to assess its unit owner members for the $1 million in repair costs. Some of the unit owners then sued their association, seeking to recover the cost of their assessments on the ground that the association was negligent in failing to pursue a timely legal action against the developer. On appeal, the court was asked to decide whether state law permits owners to sue their condominium association for negligently failing to sue a developer for common element construction defects. The court, in an unpublished opinion, found that an association could be held liable to its members. The court said: “The duty to maintain, repair and replace the common elements together with the exclusive right to initiate litigation regarding the common elements [which was stated in a provision of the association’s bylaws] creates a concomitant obligation on the part of the [association] to pursue recovery from [the developer] on behalf of [the unit owners] for damage to the common elements caused by [the developer’s] negligence, breach of contract or violation of any applicable law.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law Blog
Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

---