Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation

May 16, 2018 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In All Green Electric v. Security National Ins. Co. (No. B279456, filed 3/19/18, ord. pub. 4/17/18), a California appeals court ruled that the impaired property exclusion barred coverage for a claim based on the insured’s failure to tighten a loose bolt that resulted in stray magnetic fields interfering with operation of an MRI machine and allegedly threatening the health of personnel. All Green was an electrical contractor hired to perform wiring for an MRI unit installation. Stray magnetic fields interfered with the unit’s operation. Efforts to remediate the problem included installing shielding and ultimately relocating the unit to another room. An expert finally determined that a bolt left loose by All Green was causing the magnetic field, which disappeared when the bolt was properly tightened. The facility sought damages for negligence, including costs for unnecessary modifications and repairs, payments to outside sources for substitute mammography testing, operational costs and expenses, damage to reputation, lost profits, and the loss of an HMO contract. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

America’s Bridges and the Need for Bridge Infrastructure Investment

January 07, 2025 — Lisa D. Love - The Dispute Resolver
During the October 2024 meeting of the American Bar Association’s Forum on Construction held in Pittsburgh, a city of many bridges, the importance of bridges to our nation’s transportation infrastructure was apparent. Just two years ago, the Forbes Avenue bridge in Pittsburgh collapsed—resulting in several vehicles and a bus falling into a ravine. Ten people were injured in the event. It was later reported that the bridge had received a “poor” rating but was still permitted to remain open to traffic. The event resulted in several lawsuits which, just this past September, the City of Pittsburgh requested $500,000 from the city council to settle. The Forbes Avenue bridge is hardly a unique case and is just one example of the litigation that can ensue if we fail to maintain our aging infrastructure. The State of Our Nation’s Bridges As of June 2024, the United States has more than 616,000 bridges located on public roads, including interstate highways, U.S. highways, state and county roads, as well as publicly accessible bridges on federal and tribal lands. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lisa D. Love, JAMS

Contract Change #8: Direct Communications between Owners and Contractors (law note)

March 28, 2018 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
As the Engineer or Architect of Record, you probably have frequently experienced Owners and Contractors communicating directly, in direct contravention of the language of the contract that requires them to endeavor to route all communications through the design team. With the latest version of the 201, direct communication is now authorized, to recognize both the reality of what was happening on the ground and to recognize that sometimes Owners and Contractors may need to communicate without waiting for the design team. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina

Hurricane Damage Not Covered for Home Owner Not Named in Policy

March 20, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss because, although there was coverage for the property under the mortgagee's policy, the home owner was not a named or additional insured under the policy. Cart v. Great Am. Assur. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6207 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2023). Plaintiffs' property was damage by Hurricanes Laura and Delta. Because Plaintiff failed to maintain homeowner's hazard insurance subject to the mortgage, Rushmore Management Services procured a force-placed lender policy on the property through Great American. Plaintiffs filed suit asserting breach contract claims. Great American moved to dismiss. 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

Builders Can’t Rely on SB800

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In coming to their ruling on SB800, the California Court of Appeals looked to the legislative intent behind the law. Valentine Hoy, Timothy Hutter, and Erin Sedloff of Allen Matkins, in an article on the ruling, note that SB800 was written in response to Aas v. Superior Court, in which the court found that there was no remedy for construction defects that had not resulted in property damage. In the latest ruling, Liberty Mutual v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC, the court concluded that SB800 was passed to give homeowners a way to address defects that had not lead to damage. However, the court also concluded that the legislature did not intend for SB800 to be the only remedy. In Liberty Mutual, the insurance company sought reimbursement for claims it had paid on a homeowner’s claim after a fire sprinkler pipe burst. Liberty Mutual had insured the homeowner and sought repayment from the builder. Escrow had closed on the home in 2004, the pipe burst in 2008, and Liberty Mutual filed their claim in 2011, seven years after the close of escrow. But for plumbing issues, SB800 has a four-year statute of limitations. The writers describe California as “a hotbed for construction defect litigation.” Due to the Liberty Mutual ruling, developers now “cannot rely on the statutes of limitation set forth in SB800.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Nevada Legislature Burns Insurers' Rights to Offer Eroding Limits

August 28, 2023 — William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Nevada’s legislature recently passed a groundbreaking law imposing two prohibitions on insurers. First, the law prohibits insurers from issuing or renewing any liability insurance policy with an “eroding limits” provision. While the first section of the law will have the most immediate effects, the statute goes further, generally prohibiting insurers from limiting the availability of coverage for the costs of defense, legal costs and fees, and other claim expenses. This second section leaves a great deal to interpretation, with the potential to massively expand policyholder rights, and may throw the traditional structure of liability insurance policies into question. Nevada Statute §679a provides as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an insurer, including, without limitation, an insurer listed in NRS 679A.160, shall not issue or renew a policy of liability insurance that contains a provision that:

Reduces the limit of liability stated in the policy by the costs of defense, legal costs and fees and other expenses for claims; or
Otherwise limits the availability of coverage for the costs of defense, legal costs and fees and other expenses for claims.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at WBennett@sdvlaw.com

Gene Witkin Joins Ross Hart’s Mediation Team at AMCC

March 01, 2021 — Arbitration Mediation Conciliation Center (AMCC)
AMCC is pleased to announce Gene Witkin joining Ross Hart’s mediation team effective March 1 this year. Prior to joining our esteemed roster of neutrals, Mr. Witkin was active in complex litigation, insurance disputes, and conflict resolution in numerous different states and venues throughout the United States for more than thirty years. In 2000, he co-founded the law firm Menter & Witkin LLP that focused in large part on risk sharing and funding of large lawsuits, which gave him the diverse experience of representing both plaintiffs and defendants, as well as third-party defendants and insurance companies. Mr. Witkin completed mediator training at National Conflict Resolution Center in 2017, and is an AV Rated “Preeminent Attorney” by Martindale-Hubbell (highest rating) and “Super Lawyer” every year since 2015. He may be contacted at g.witkin@amccenter.com or through AMCC at (800) 645-4874. Reprinted courtesy of Arbitration Mediation Conciliation Center (AMCC) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Reporting Requirements for Architects under California Business and Professions Code Section 5588

December 22, 2019 — Jordan Golden - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
Below is an overview of the changes to California Business and Professions Code Section 5588 and its effect on the reporting requirements, for architects, in the construction industry. Section 5588 Prior to 2005 Legislative Changes Section 5588 of the California Business and Professions Code sets forth the reporting requirements for many business professionals including architects. Since 1979, Section 5588 has required architects and their insurers to report to the California Architect Board (the Board) “any settlement or arbitration award in excess of five thousand dollars ($ 5,000) of a claim or action for damages caused by the license holder’s fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice.”1 The language of the code section left open for interpretation the question of what types of settlement claims must be reported to the Board. Thus, in 2004, the Attorney General of the State of California published an opinion stating that a reportable settlement includes “any agreement resolving all or part of a demand for money which is based upon an insured architect’s alleged wrongful conduct.”2 He then went on to conclude that the only qualifications placed on the term “claim” for purposes of Section 5588 is that “(1) the demand be premised on the license holder’s alleged ‘fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice,’ and (2) the value of the claim, as measured by the settlement amount or arbitration award, exceeds $5,000.”3 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jordan Golden, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES