Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Court Holds That Property Insurance Does Not Cover Economic Loss From Purchasing Counterfeit Vintage Wine

March 22, 2018 — Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore – Publications & Insights
In Doyle v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. (No. G054197, filed 3/7/18), a California appeals court held that financial loss from purchasing counterfeit vintage wine was not direct and accidental loss or damage to covered property within the coverage of a valuable possessions property policy. In Doyle, the insured was a collector of rare, vintage wine that was housed in a wine storage facility. He had purchased nearly $18 million of purportedly rare, vintage wine from a dealer, and insured the collection under a valuable possessions policy. But a law enforcement investigation revealed that the dealer had been filling empty wine bottles with his own wine blend and affixing counterfeit labels. The dealer was convicted of fraud and was sent to prison for 10 years. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie 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

AI and the Optimization of Construction Projects

February 19, 2024 — Rahul Shah - Construction Executive
Seeking answers on how to construct smarter and greener buildings or improve water efficiency in homes and offices, those who create our buildings and construction projects are entering a new era of learning as they turn their attention to the benefits of artificial intelligence. While human involvement will continue to be paramount, AI has the potential to assist in creating informed decisions, for example by suggesting sustainable, durable materials or cost-effective, but still safe, practices. The possible applications of AI for the construction industry could be transformative across design, procurement, construction, operation and decommissioning. In fact, research suggests designers and contractors are already applying AI and machine learning to manage the volumes of data involved in the design of buildings, the planning of construction projects and the day-to-day operations of sites. Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Shah, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Where Standing, Mechanic’s Liens, and Bankruptcy Collide

September 17, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have spoken often about mechanic’s liens and the implications of such liens as they relate to bankruptcy here at Construction Law Musings. A recent case out of Loudoun County, Virginia added another wrinkle to this discussion, that of standing and what happens on conveyance of the property and what interest in the property is required to allow a party to seek removal of the mechanic’s lien. In Leesburg Bldg. P’rs LLC v. Mike Berger Inc. the Loudoun County Circuit Court faced the following scenario. Leesburg Building Partners developed certain condominiums and hired Lansdowne Construction to perform the work as general contractor and paid Landsdowne in full for the work. Lansdowne hired Mike Berger, Inc. (“MBI”) to perform concrete work for the project. Landsdowne didn’t pay MBI approximately $48,000.00 and subsequently filed for bankruptcy. MBI, seeking to protect it’s interest in the money it was owed, recorded a mechanic’s lien on the property. Leesburg Building Partners filed an action to declare the lien invalid and have it removed from the property based upon its “payment defense” and the fact that it had paid Landsdowne in full. A relatively simple scenario and one that has been discussed before here at Musings. Not so fast. . . Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Does a No-Damage-for-Delay Clause Also Preclude Acceleration Damages?

January 27, 2020 — Ted R. Gropman & Christine Z. Fan - ConsensusDocs
Construction contracts often include a “no damage for delay” clause that denies a contractor the right to recover delay-related costs and limits the contractor’s remedy to an extension of time for noncontractor-caused delays to a project’s completion date. Depending on the nature of the delay and the jurisdiction where the project is located, the contractual prohibition against delay damages may well be enforceable. This article will explore whether an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause is also a bar to recovery of “acceleration” damages, i.e., the costs incurred by the contractor in its attempt to overcome delays to the project’s completion date. Courts are split as to whether damages for a contractor’s “acceleration” efforts are distinguishable from “delay” damages such that they may be recovered under an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause. See, e.g., Siefford v. Hous. Auth. of Humboldt, 223 N.W.2d 816 (Neb. 1974) (disallowing the recovery of acceleration damages under a no-damage-for-delay clause); but see Watson Elec. Constr. Co. v. Winston-Salem, 109 N.C. App. 194 (1993) (allowing the recovery of acceleration damages despite a no-damage-for-delay clause). The scope and effect of a no-damage-for-delay clause depend on the specific laws of the jurisdiction and the factual circumstances involved. There are a few ways for a contractor to circumvent an enforceable no-damage-for-delay clause to recover acceleration damages. First, the contractor may invoke one of the state’s enumerated exceptions to the enforceability of the clause. It is helpful to keep in mind that most jurisdictions strictly construe a no-damage-for-delay clause to limit its application. This means that, regardless of delay or acceleration, courts will nonetheless permit the contractor to recover damages if the delay is, for example, of a kind not contemplated by the parties, due to an unreasonable delay, or a result of the owner’s fraud, bad faith, gross negligence, active interference or abandonment of the contract. See Tricon Kent Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 186 P.3d 155, 160 (Colo. App. 2008); United States Steel Corp. v. Mo. P. R. Co., 668 F.2d 435, 438 (8th Cir. 1982); Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co. v. Iowa S. Utils. Co., 355 F. Supp. 376, 396 (S.D. Iowa 1973). Reprinted courtesy of Ted R. Gropman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Christine Z. Fan, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Gropman may be contacted at gropmant@pepperlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

State Supreme Court Cases Highlight Importance of Wording in Earth Movement Exclusions

June 21, 2017 — Hannah E. Austin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company v. Chaber, the West Virginia Supreme Court recently held that an insurance policy’s earth movement exclusion was unambiguous and applied to both manmade and natural earth movement. The Court also found that a narrow “ensuing loss” exception to the exclusion that provided coverage for glass breakage resulting from earth movement could not be extended to cover the entire loss. The Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company (Erie) insured five commercial buildings owned by Dmitri and Mary Chaber. One of the properties was damaged by a landslide, and the Chabers filed a claim with Erie. Erie asserted that the loss was excluded from coverage because the policy excluded coverage for losses caused by earth movement, which was defined to include earthquakes, landslides, subsidence of manmade mines, and earth sinking (aside from sinkhole collapse), rising or shifting. The exclusion stated that it applied “regardless of whether any of the above . . . is caused by an act of nature or is otherwise caused,” and also contained an anti-concurrent causation clause. However, there was an exception for glass breakage caused by earth movement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hannah E. Austin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Austin may be contacted at hea@sdvlaw.com

Duty to Defend Broadly Applies to Entire Action; Insured Need Not Apportion Defense Costs, Says Maryland Appeals Court

January 27, 2020 — Michael S. Levine & Kevin V. Small - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In a recent decision, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reiterated that the duty to defend broadly requires a liability insurer to defend an entire lawsuit against its insured, even where only some of the allegations are potentially covered. The court further held that the insured has no obligation to apportion defense costs among multiple implicated policies. The decision, Selective Way Insurance Company v. Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company, et al., can be found here. The coverage litigation arose out of a construction defect case against a general contractor. The general contractor tendered the action to its insurer, Nationwide, which, in turn, filed a declaratory judgment action against the various insurers of construction project subcontractors that had named the general contractor as an additional insured. Ultimately, the court granted a summary judgment motion declaring that all of the subcontractors’ insurers had a duty to defend the general contractor “because the allegations in the underlying lawsuit raised claims that potentially arose from the [s]ubcontractors’ work at the [construction site].” All of the subcontractors’ insurers settled with Nationwide except for one, Selective Way; and the parties proceeded to a jury trial on various issues. The jury found for Nationwide on all issues. Selective Way appealed. Selective Way argued on appeal that even if some of the allegations were covered under its policy, it had no obligation to defend the general contractor because its insureds, the subcontractors, could not have been responsible for all of the losses given the nature of their work. Further, Selective Way contended that if it was responsible for defending the general contractor, it was not responsible for the entire defense, and the general contractor was responsible for apportioning the costs among the various subcontractors. The panel disagreed on both points. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Louisiana District Court Declines to Apply Total Pollution Exclusion

December 15, 2016 — William S. Bennett – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana recently decided that a broad total pollution exclusion in a marine general liability policy did not bar coverage. The insurer could not unambiguously establish, based on the facts of the underlying case, that waste from a shipyard’s sandblasting activities met the requirements of the exclusion. The court found that the insurer could not meet Louisiana’s three-part test to determine whether the policy’s total pollution exclusion applied. The Doerr test requires an insurer to refer to the allegations in the underlying complaint to prove 1) the insured is a “polluter”, 2) the injury-causing substance is a “pollutant,” and 3) there was a “discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape” of the pollutant. Total pollution exclusions are extremely prohibitive for policyholders because they eliminate coverage for virtually all pollution incidents, but this decision reinforces that policyholders may still have a path to coverage. 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 wsb@sdvlaw.com

Proving Contractor Licensure in California. The Tribe Has Spoken

October 21, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
As I mentioned in an earlier post, in California you must “prove” you’re a licensed contractor in a construction case. But in whose hands are you entitled to place your fate – the judge or the jury? Well, the tribe has spoken. Jeff Tracy, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera In Jeff Tracy, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera, Case Nos. B258563 and B258648, California Court of Appeals for the Second District (September 15, 2015), general contractor Jeff Tracy, Inc. doing business as Land Forms Construction (“Land Forms”) was walloped with a nearly $5.5 million judgment for being improperly licensed on a park project owned by the City of Pico Rivera (“City”). The judgment followed a bench trial over Land Form’s objection that it was entitled to a jury trial. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES