Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

No Coverage for Defects in Subcontrator's Own Work

February 11, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Damage to the concrete floor installed by the insured subcontractor was not property damage and thus not covered under the insured's CGL policy. Kalman Floor Co. v. Old Republic Gen. Ins. Corp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3319 (D. Colo Jan. 8, 2019). In 2007, Kalman Floor Co. was subcontracted to construct over 158,000 square feet of concrete flooring for a cold storage facility. The concrete floor was completed in late 2008. In late 2009, the contractor notified Kalman that pockmarks, or "pop-outs," were visible on the concrete flooring. The only damage to tangible property in the facility caused by the pop-outs was the concrete flooring itself. On January 31, 2009, Old Republic issued a general liability policy to Kalman for one year. The policy excluded for damage to "your work," defined as "work or operations performed by you or on your behalf." Old Republic denied coverage for damage to the concrete floor. Kalman sued, seeking a declaration that the exclusions did not bar coverage. 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

Quick Note: Expert Testimony – Back to the Frye Test in Florida

December 19, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Expert testimony (opinions) – very important testimony in construction disputes. Whether it is a delay claim, an inefficiency claim, a defect claim, etc., expert testimony plays an invaluable role in construction disputes. Construction attorneys work closely with expert witnesses to ensure that an expert helps render an opinion to support their client’s burden of proof (including damages) or an affirmative defense. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

New Jersey Federal Court Examines And Applies The “j.(5)” Ongoing Operations Exclusion

October 07, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
In PJR Construction of N.J. v. Valley Forge Insurance Company, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127973 (D.N.J. July 31, 2019) (PJR Construction), a New Jersey federal court held that the “j.(5)” “Ongoing Operations Exclusion” applied to bar coverage for property damage to property on which a construction company allegedly performed faulty work. The court’s opinion follows prior New Jersey state court precedent, including Ohio Casualty Insurance Company v. Island Pool & Spa, Inc., 12 A.3d 719 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2011) (Island Pool), but also provides additional guidance on the elements which can make the Ongoing Operations Exclusion applicable to exclude coverage. In PJR Construction, a commercial property owner engaged a construction company to build a 26,000 square foot swim club and related 3,000 square foot pavilion building in New Jersey. After about 75% of the work was completed, the property owner fired the construction company and denied it access to the property. The owner later sued the construction company in New Jersey state court alleging “shoddy workmanship” in, among other things, sealants, flashing, water resistant barriers, masonry and the handicap ramps. The construction company sought coverage from its CGL insurer, which denied coverage based on, among other things, the j.(5) Ongoing Operations Exclusion. After the denial of coverage, the company sued the insurer in New Jersey federal court seeking a declaration of coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

How Construction Contracts are Made. Hint: It’s a Bit Like Making Sausage

October 07, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Construction can be a messy affair. In a sense, that’s to be expected when you’re building a complex structure, involving the coordination of several parties and numerous persons, in the natural environment and in the elements, subject to an increasing array of laws, regulations, ordinances and codes, and often at the cost of hundreds if not billions of dollars. So too can construction contracts. There’s the plans, the specifications, the general conditions, the special conditions, the addenda, the prime contract, the subcontracts, the purchase orders, and the change orders, to name just a few of the documents which bind parties, which should ideally be consistent and complimentary with one another, when the reality is that the parties bound to those contracts often have very different interests. Perhaps the analogy goes a little too far afield, but it makes the point, that it can sometimes be a bit like making sausage. The next case, Watson Bowman Acme Corporation v. RGW Construction, Inc., California Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, Case No. F070067 (August 9, 2016), highlights the problems which can arise from the numerous documents which make up the typical construction contract today and the lengths that juries and judges must go to interpret what those agreements mean. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA

July 31, 2013 — Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
On the heels of a recent order regarding coverage under a Comprehensive General Insurance policy issued by Mt. Hawley Insurance Company (“Mt. Hawley”), builders should be very wary of CGL policies providing no coverage for property damage. On January 8, 2013, District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson granted a motion for declaratory judgment filed by Mt. Hawley. The order states that the subject insurance policies issued by Mt. Hawley to Mountain View Homes II, LLC (“MV Homes”), the builder developer of the Creek Side at Parker development (the “Project”), did not provide coverage for any of the work performed by MV Homes or its subcontractors on the Project. MV Homes originally began construction on the Project in 2002 and completed construction in 2005. MV Homes was insured by National Fire and Marine Insurance Company (“National Fire”) and Mt. Hawley. In December 2008, Creek Side at Parker Homeowners Association, Inc. (“the HOA”) served notice on MV Homes. The HOA then instituted a construction defect lawsuit on June 1, 2009 against MV Homes and others. MV Homes initially demanded a defense and indemnity from National Fire, which provided a defense. Then, after two years, MV Homes demanded a defense and indemnity from Mt. Hawley in July 2011. Mt. Hawley denied coverage and did not provide a defense. The case was settled soon after, and National Fire reserved or assigned claims against Mt. Hawley. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
Brady Iandiorio can be contacted at Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

Hybrid Contracts for The Sale of Goods and Services and the Predominant Factor Test

February 15, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Florida’s Uniform Commercial Code (also known as the UCC) applies to transactions for goods. “Goods” is defined by Article II of the UCC as “all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities (chapter 678) and things in action.” Fla. Stat. s. 672.105(1). The UCC does NOT apply to transactions for services. Transactions for services are governed by common law. Oftentimes, transactions or contracts include BOTH goods and services. In this scenario, referred to as a hybrid contract, does the UCC or common law apply? In this scenario, courts apply the predominant factor test to determine whether the UCC or common law governs the transaction:

Whether the UCC or the common law applies to a particular hybrid contract depends on “whether the[ ] predominant factor, the [ ] thrust, the[ ] purpose [of the contract], reasonably stated, is the rendition of service, with goods incidentally involved (e.g., contract with artist for painting) or is a transaction of sale, with labor incidentally involved (e.g., installation of a water heater in a bathroom).” In such instances, the determination whether the “predominant factor” in the contract is for goods or for services is a factual inquiry unless the court can determine that the contract is exclusively for goods or services as a matter of law. Allied Shelving & Equipment, Inc. v. National Deli, LLC, 154 So.3d 482, 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (citations omitted).

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

Building Permits Hit Five-Year High

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The New York Times reports that building permits in August were at their highest since May 2008, even despite a recent rise in mortgage rates. Construction starts on single-family homes were at their highest in six months as well. On the other hand, construction starts for condominiums and apartments fell slightly more than 11 percent. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Napa Quake Seen Costing Up to $4 Billion as Wineries Shut

August 27, 2014 — Michael B. Marois, Zachary Tracer and Dan Hart – Bloomberg
The earthquake that struck northern California yesterday will lead to economic losses of as much as $4 billion, fueled by damaged wineries and shuttered businesses that rely on tourists. Insurers will probably cover about $2.1 billion, according to an estimate from Kinetic Analysis Corp., which projected total losses of about twice that sum. Costs borne by the industry may be limited because many homeowners don’t have earthquake coverage, according to the Insurance Information Institute. “The main source of claims could well be commercial claims, those coming from wineries and vineyards and other commercial interests,” Robert Hartwig, the institute’s president, said in an interview today. “It will take a while for the business owners to sort this out.” Mr. Marois may be contacted at mmarois@bloomberg.net; Mr. Tracer may be contacted at ztracer1@bloomberg.net; Mr. Hart may be contacted at dahart@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael B. Marois, Zachary Tracer and Dan Hart, Bloomberg

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES