FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Insurance Policies and Indemnity Provisions Are Not the Same

October 19, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Just because you own a pair of Air Jordans doesn’t make you Michael Jordan. In the next case, Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation, Case No. A154757 (July 23, 2020), the 1st District Court of Appeal denied an insurance carrier’s equitable subrogation claim explaining that an insurer’s obligations under its insurance policy are not the same as an idemnitee’s obligations under an indemnity provision. Or, as aptly put by the Court of Appeal, while a “subrogated insurer is said to ‘stand in the shoes’ of its insured, because it has no greater rights than the insured. Here . . . [the insurer] is seeking to stand in a different, more advantageous set of shoes.” Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation Pulte Home Corporation was sued for construction defects by 38 homeowners in two housing developments. Various subcontractors had worked on the projects, but under their subcontracts, each subcontractor agreed to indemnify Pulte from and against “all liability, claims, judgments, suits, or demands for damages to persons or property arising out of, resulting from, or relating to Contractor’s performance of work under the Agreement (‘Claims’) unless such Claims have been specifically determined by the trier of fact to be the sole negligence of Pulte . . . ” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Can You Really Be Liable For a Product You Didn’t Make? In New Jersey, the Answer is Yes

December 14, 2020 — James Burger & Robert Devine - White and Williams LLP
New Jersey has recently expanded liability for product distributors and manufacturers to products that the distributor/manufacturer did not make or sell. This alert discusses this new law and steps that distributors and manufacturers may consider to reduce their potential liability. In Whelan v. Armstrong International, Inc., the New Jersey Supreme Court held that distributors and manufacturers can be strictly liable for injuries caused by replacement parts added after the point of sale which had not been manufactured or sold by any of the defendants in the case. In Whelan, the defendants’ products had originally been sold with asbestos-containing parts. Mr. Whelan, the plaintiff, argued that asbestos-containing replacement parts were required to repair and maintain the products. The court found that because the products were designed with asbestos-containing parts, “[d]efendants had a duty to provide warnings given the foreseeability that third parties would be the source of asbestos-containing replacement components.” (Emphasis added). This reasoning, based on “foreseeability,” should give pause to all product distributors and manufacturers—even those who do not make or sell products that contain asbestos. Certainly distributors and manufacturers of products with asbestos-containing parts must take heed that they may now be liable for replacement parts that they neither manufactured nor sold. This alone is a significant holding that expands potential liability. Reprinted courtesy of James Burger, White and Williams LLP and Robert Devine, White and Williams LLP Mr. Burger may be contacted at burgerj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

William Lyon Homes Unites with Polygon Northwest Company

June 26, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Big Builder’s Les Shaver reported that William Lyon Homes has acquired Polygon Northwest Company, “the largest private home builder in the [Pacific Northwest] region,” for “approximately $520 million.” "Polygon Northwest Company brings an attractive level consistency to William Lyon Homes with a steady average of 57 homes per month and a portfolio of communities that includes a nice product mix of single family detached [80 percent] and attached product [20 percent]," Catherine LaFemina, director of business development in the Seattle market for Metrostudy, told Big Builder. "Based on the trailing 12 months of home closings, [June 2013 to May 2014], Lyon’s acquisition of Polygon will increase the volume of homes being delivered by 50 percent to an average monthly volume of about 115 homes per month." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Does the New Jersey Right-To-Repair Law Omit Too Many Construction Defects?

January 06, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

A post on the blog of Liberty Building Forensics Group find fault with the New Jersey Home Warranty and Builders’ Registration Act for not being stringent enough. The poster notes the coverage given under the bill. In the first year, builders are responsible to remedy faulty workmanship and materials and major structural defects. While other protections expire in the first or second year, there is a ten year coverage of major construction defects.

The blogger finds fault with the exclusion New Jersey law places on these claims, arguing that “due to the stringent definition of ‘major construction defects,” the warranty affords no coverage unless the house is practically collapsing.” The bill excludes leaks, cracks, and mold, and further limits claims if the homeowner has failed to inform the builder or insurer of defects, failure to maintain the home, and alterations made by the homeowner.

The intent of the New Jersey law is given as “requiring that newly constructed homes conform to certain construction and quality standards as well as to provide buyers of new homes with insurance-backed warranty protection in the event such standards are not met.” It’s argued in the piece that it instead serves to “strip homeowners of any meaningful means of recovery for discovered construction defects.”

Read the full story…

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

---

Virginia Allows Condominium Association’s Insurer to Subrogate Against a Condominium Tenant

August 10, 2020 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Erie Insurance Exchange v. Alba, Rec. No. 190389, 2020 Va. LEXIS 53, the Supreme Court of Virginia considered whether the trial court erred in finding that a condominium association’s property insurance provider waived its right of subrogation against a tenant of an individual unit owner. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that the insurance policy only named unit owners as additional insureds, not tenants, and thus the subrogation waiver in the insurance policy did not apply to tenants. The court also found that the condominium association’s governing documents provided no protections to the unit owner’s tenant because the tenant was not a party to those documents. This case establishes that, in Virginia, a condominium association’s insurance carrier can subrogate against a unit owner’s tenant where the tenant is not identified as an additional insured on the policy. The Alba case involved a fire at a condominium building originating in a unit occupied by Naomi Alba (Alba), who leased the condominium under a rental agreement with the unit owner, John Sailsman (Sailsman). The agreement explicitly held Alba responsible for her conduct and the conduct of her guests. An addendum to the lease stated that Sailsman’s property insurance only applied to the “dwelling itself” and that Alba was required to purchase renters insurance to protect her personal property. Along with the rental agreement, Alba received the condominium association’s Rules & Regulations, Declarations and Bylaws. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

One Insurer's Settlement with Insured Does Not Bar Contribution Claim by Other Insurers

October 30, 2013 — Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law Hawaii
The New Jersey Supreme Court held that one insurer could seek contribution from another insurer who settled with and secured a release from the insured. Potomac Ins. Co. v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Ass'n Ins. Co., 2013 N.J. LEXIS 847 (N.J. Sept. 16, 2013) The township of Evesham retained Roland Aristone, Inc. to be its general contractor for construction of a new middle school. After completion of the school, the roof leaked. Evesham sued Aristone for the construction defects. Aristone tendered to its various CGL carriers. Two insurers, Selective Way Insurance Company and OneBeacon Insurance Company, defended. Two others, Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Insurance Company (PMA) and Royal Insurance Company, denied coverage. Aristone sued PMA and Royal, and ultimately settled with PMA for $150,000 in exchange for Aristone's release from all claims, including claims for defense fees and costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Statutory Bad Faith and an Insured’s 60 Day Notice to Cure

April 11, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent case came out in favor of an insured and against a first-party property insurer in the triggering of a statutory bad faith action. Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal in Demase v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D679a (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) held that if an insurer pays a claim after the 60-day notice to cure period provided by Florida Statute s. 624.155(3), this “constitutes a determination of an insurer’s liability for coverage and extent of damages under section 624.155(1)(b) even when there is no underlying action.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

---

Wisconsin Court of Appeals Holds Economic Loss Doctrine Applies to Damage to Other Property If It Was a Foreseeable Result of Disappointed Contractual Expectations

January 15, 2019 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Kmart Corp. v. Herzog Roofing, Inc., 2018 Wisc. App. Lexis 842, the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin considered whether the economic loss doctrine barred the plaintiff’s negligence claims against the defendant roofer for damages resulting from the collapse of a roof. The Court of Appeals held that, while some of the plaintiff’s property damages were unrelated to the scope of the contract, the economic loss doctrine still applied to those damages because they were a foreseeable result of the defendant’s breach of the contract. This case establishes that in Wisconsin, the economic loss doctrine bars tort claims for damage to property unrelated to the contract if those damages were a reasonably foreseeable risk of disappointed expectations of the contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---