FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Eleventh Circuit Asks Georgia Supreme Court if Construction Defects Are Caused by an "Occurrence"

December 20, 2012 — TRED EYERLY, INSURANCE LAW HAWAII
The Eleventh Circuit certified a question to the Georgia Supreme Court, asking whether property damage can constitute an "occurrence" under a CGL policy where its effects are not felt on "other property." HDI-Gerling Am. Ins. Co. v. Morrison Homes, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. Ct. LEXIS 23813 (11th Cir. Nov. 19, 2012). The general contractor, Taylor Morrison Services, Inc., was covered by a CGL policy issued by Gerling. The policy excluded "expected or intended injury," contractual liability," and business risk exclusions. Morrison was sued by homeowners in a class action suit. Morrison had allegedly omitted four inches of gravel required beneath the base of the concrete foundations by the Uniform Building Code. Thereafter, the houses sustained water intrusion, cracks in the floors and driveways, and warped and buckling flooring. Gerling defended, but sued Morrison for a declaratory judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii.
Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Lessee Deemed Statutory Employer, Immune from Tort Liability by Pennsylvania Court

November 03, 2016 — Jerry Anders & Alison Russell – White and Williams LLP
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania addressed whether a lessee can be shielded from tort liability as a statutory employer and thus, immune from civil liability under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The court in Doman v. Atlas America, Inc. held that a primary contractor who leased property for the purposes of removing and drilling natural gas is a statutory employer under Section 302(a) of the Act and thus, entitled to tort immunity under Section 203 of the Act. Reprinted courtesy of Jerrold Anders, White and Williams LLP and Alison Russell, White and Williams LLP Mr. Anders may be contacted at andersj@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Russell may be contacted at russella@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Insuring the Indemnitor's Obligation

December 02, 2015 — William Kennedy – White and Williams LLP
Contracting parties can circumvent the limitations of common law tort doctrines by drafting contracts with language that details the allocation or shifting of the risk of tort loss. Properly composed, “broad form” contractual indemnity provisions can permit an Indemnitee to shift the full range of tort exposure – damages and defense fees and costs – if they have the kind of specificity set forth in Part Two of this series, "Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Components of an Effective Provision." In most business transactions, however, both the Indemnitee and the Indemnitor want the indemnity obligation to be insured. Part Three: Insuring the Indemnitor's Obligation “Insured Contract Coverage” Although CGL policies do not typically cover an Insured’s breaches of contract, per se, most insurance policies do cover a policyholder’s “incidental contracts” or “insured contracts” under which the policyholder has an obligation to indemnify an Indemnitee. The business contract (as opposed to the insurance policy) should require the Indemnitor to take all steps necessary to have the Indemnitee identified as either a Covered Person, Insured, or Additional Insured on the Indemnitor’s applicable insurance policies. There are subtle, but potentially significant legal rights and responsibilities that hinge on whether an entity is a Covered Person, Insured, Additional Insured, or some other classification. Purported Indemnitees may need to consult insurance coverage counsel to ensure that they are seeking the appropriate status from the Indemnitor’s CGL insurer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William Kennedy, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Kennedy may be contacted at kennedyw@whiteandwilliams.com

---

California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies

November 12, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
On August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public policy” of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in Pitzer had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law – which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York – that provision can be overridden by California’s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in Pitzer also held that the notice-prejudice rule “generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,” but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context. The Pitzer case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer “denied coverage based on Pitzer’s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer’s] consent before commencing the remediation process.” The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until “three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment “claiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy’s notice and consent provisions.” Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Court Holds Insurer Can Rely on Exclusions After Incorrectly Denying Defense

March 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Reversing its prior decision, the New York Court of Appeals held that the insurer could raise policy exclusions regarding its duty to indemnify after it incorrectly denied its duty to defend. K2 Invest. Group, LLC v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Co., 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 201 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2014). The insured was sued for legal malpractice. His insurer, American Guarantee, refused to defend and a default judgment was entered. The insured assigned his rights against American Guarantee to the plaintiffs. When the underlying plaintiffs sued, American Guarantee said coverage was barred by two exclusions. In a previous decision, K2 Inv. Group, LLC v. Am Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 21 NY 3d 284, the court held that American Guarantee's breach of its duty to defend prevented it from relying on policy exclusions. This, however, contradicted another case issued by the court, Servidone Const. Corp. v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 64 N.Y 2d 419 (1985). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Home Builder Doesn’t See Long Impact from Hurricane

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
No one needs to tell Toll Brothers about the impact of Hurricane Sandy. The Wall Street Journal reports that the home building company lost power as a result of the storm. Martin Connor, the company’s CFO, told the Journal that he did not expect the hurricane to have a big effect on sales. Luckily for the company, many of its large projects are either sufficiently completed to provide shelter or too early in the process to be affected by the storm. “This type of weather event has limited impact on the market. It may move settlements later, and may defer people a weekend or two until they go out shopping. But it doesn’t have a long impact.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Managers, Are You Exposing Yourselves to Labor Law Liability?

February 22, 2021 — Timothy P. Welch - Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.
When dealing with construction site accidents, who a party is matters. Under Labor Law sections 200, 240(1) and 241(6) owners, contractors, and their agents have a non-delegable duty to provide reasonable and adequate protection to workers from risks inherent at work sites, with a specific emphasis placed on elevation-related hazards. Given the near strict liability nature of Labor Law section 240(1), it is critical to identify whether a party is a proper Labor Law defendant from the get-go. While identifying the owner (and usually the contractor) may be relatively straightforward, identifying “their agents” has proven to be a more complex undertaking. It should be noted that the requirements set forth in the Labor Law are non-delegable from the standpoint of the owner or contractor, however, the duties themselves can be assigned to “agents” of an owner or “agents” of a contractor. When such an assignment occurs, the same non-delegable duty held by the owner or contractor is imposed on the agents as well. Moreover, “once an entity becomes an agent under the Labor Law it cannot escape liability to an injured plaintiff by delegating the work to another entity.[1]” An entity that often skirts the line between being an agent and not, is the Construction Manager. Traditionally, the Construction Manager has been found to be outside the purview of the Labor Law when its scope of work is narrowly focused on scheduling and general coordination of the construction process. However, when a Construction Manager’s scope expands, so does its risk that it may, in fact, become a proper Labor Law defendant. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Timothy P. Welch, Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.
Mr. Welch may be contacted at tpw@hurwitzfine.com

---

Solar Energy Isn’t Always Green

August 27, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
IEEE Spectrum reported that photovoltaics, used in Solar Energy, “varies substantially by technology and geography” and some emit chemical pollution. However, IEE Spectrum stated that “the industry could readily eliminate many of the damaging side effects that do exist.” One challenge is that “nearly half the world’s photovoltaics are manufactured in China” who, according to IEEE Spectrum, “typically [does] the worst job of protecting the environment and their workers.” It is also difficult for consumers to make choices based upon photovoltaic manufacturer practices, since solar energy doesn’t have a formal ecolabel like Energy Star, IEEE Spectrum reported. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---