FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

South Carolina Clarifies the Accrual Date for Its Statute of Repose

March 18, 2019 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
In Lawrence v. General Panel Corp., 2019 S.C. LEXIS 1, No. 27856 (S.C. Jan. 1, 2019), the Supreme Court of South Carolina answered a certified question related to South Carolina’s statute of repose, S.C. Code § 15-3-640,[1] to wit, whether the date of “substantial completion of the improvement” is always measured from the date on which the certificate of occupancy is issued. The court held that a 2005 amendment to § 15-3-640 did not change South Carolina law with respect to the date of substantial completion. Thus, under the revised version of § 15-3-640, “the statute of repose begins to run at the latest on the date of the certificate of occupancy, even if there is ongoing work on any particular part of the project.” A brief review of prior case law may assist with understanding the court’s ruling in Lawrence. In Ocean Winds Corp. of Johns Island v. Lane, 556 S.E.2d 377 (S.C. 2001), the Supreme Court of South Carolina addressed the question of whether § 15-3-640 ran from substantial completion of the installation of the windows at issue or on substantial completion of the building as a whole. Citing § 15-3-630(b),[2] the court found that the windows “were ‘a specified area or portion’ of the larger condominium project” and, upon their incorporation into the larger project they could be used for the purpose for which they were intended. Thus, the court held that “the statute of repose began running when installation of the windows was complete.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Classify Workers Properly to Avoid Expensive Penalties

April 25, 2022 — Martin C. McCarthy - Construction Executive
Business owners must carefully consider how the people working for them are classified. There is a fine line between being identified as a contractor or employee on the job. Owners must know the difference to avoid being penalized. Worker classification determines if an employer must withhold income taxes and pay Social Security, Medicare taxes and unemployment tax on wages paid to an employee. Businesses do not have to withhold or pay any taxes on payments to independent contractors. The earnings of a person working as an independent contractor are subject to self-employment tax. There are federal and state rules for determining if a person is an employee or contractor. Employers must follow both sets of guidelines when classifying workers. Reprinted courtesy of Martin C. McCarthy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. McCarthy may be contacted at marty.mccarthy@mcc-cpas.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insured's Failure to Prove Entire Collapse of Building Leads to Dismissal

July 19, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the insured's claim for damage to her home caused by collapse. Stewart v. Metropolitan Lloyds Ins. Co. of Texas, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 14221 (5th Girl May 13, 2021). One evening, the insured was awakened by a loud bang that shook her house. The next morning, she noticed the damage to her home, cracked sheetrock and sunken floors. She cut a hole through her floor and discovered that a couple of joists below her subfloor had broken and fallen away. The insured filed a claim with Metropolitan. Metropolitan hired an expert who found broken and deteriorated floor joists, deteriorated floor decking, walls not plumb and gaps in the wall-to-ceiling interface. It was determined that the rot in the floor joists and subfloor decking were caused by a combination of termite damage and exposure to moisture over the lifespan of the structure, resulting in the broken floor joists and unlevel floors. The insured's own expert agreed that termite damage and wood rot were the cause of the foundation collapse failure. 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

---

Understand and Define Key Substantive Contract Provisions

March 23, 2020 — Phillip L. Sampson Jr. & Richard F. Whiteley, Construction Executive
The following contract provisions should be clearly understood before undertaking any construction project commences. Force Majeure Often referred to as an “Act of God,” a force majeure is an event, typically beyond the parties’ control, that prevents performance under a contract. To determine if a contractor need a force majeure clause in its contract, it should ask whether there may be instances where events beyond the contractor’s control could impact its contractual performance? If so, it will want this clause. Courts currently treat force majeure as an issue of contractual interpretation, focusing on the express language in the contract. Consequently, the scope and applicability of a force majeure clause depends on the contract’s terms. Using broad language in a force majeure clause may help protect against unforeseen events. But to the extent possible, parties should describe with particularity the circumstances intended to constitute a force majeure. The law relating to force majeure also fairly consistently provides that parties cannot avoid contractual obligations because performance has become economically burdensome. Courts have refused to apply force majeure clauses where an event only affects profitability. Recent attempts to categorize tariffs on construction materials as a force majeure have failed. Unless a tariff or tax is specifically listed as a force majeure event, it is unlikely to constitute a force majeure because it only affects profitability. Reprinted courtesy of Phillip L. Sampson Jr. & Richard F. Whiteley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Celebrating Excellence: Lisa Bondy Dunn named by Law Week Colorado as the 2024 Barrister’s Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants

October 28, 2024 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
We are thrilled to announce that our very own Lisa Bondy Dunn has been recognized by Law Week Colorado as the 2024 Barrister’s Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants. This prestigious accolade is a testament to Lisa’s dedication, expertise, and unwavering commitment to achieving the best outcomes for our clients. Lisa, a Partner at Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell (“HHMR”), has long been a leader in construction defect litigation, defending builders, contractors, developers, and design professionals in Colorado’s complex legal landscape. Her deep understanding of the industry and her relentless pursuit of practical, cost-effective solutions have earned her the respect of peers, clients, insurers, mediators, arbitrators, and courts alike. As noted by Law Week Colorado: “For over two decades, Lisa Dunn has represented developers, contractors and subcontractors in construction-related disputes. Dunn has spoken across the country on construction and insurance matters, and she’s worked on several appellate cases during her career. She’s admitted in four states, and has consulted and represented some of the nation’s largest builders.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

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

---

Certified Question Asks Washington Supreme Court Whether Insurer is Bound by Contradictory Certificate of Insurance

January 21, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ninth Circuit certified a question to the Washington Supreme Court as follows:

Under Washington law, is an insurer bound by representations made by its authorized agent in a certificate of insurance with respect to a party's status as an additional insured under a policy issued by the insurer, when the certificate includes language disclaiming its authority and ability to expand coverage?

T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co lf Am., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31863 (9th Cir. Nov. 9, 2018). In 2010, T-Mobile entered into a Field Services Agreement (FSA) with Innovative Engineering, Inc. under which Innovative would provide services in connection with the construction of rooftop cellular antennae towers in New York City. The FSA required Innovative to maintain general liability insurance naming T-Mobile as an additional insured, and required that Innovative provide T-Mobile with certificates of insurance documenting the coverage. Innovative obtained coverage from Selective Insurance Company of America. 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

---

Kiewit and Two Ex-Managers Face Canada Jobsite Fatality Criminal Trial

October 12, 2020 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
Canada appears set to try a rare criminal case against a major company—U.S. contractor Kiewit Corp.—for a workplace fatality stemming from a more than decade-old accident on a remote British Columbia hydroelectric project that killed a 24-year-old field employee. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---