FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Montana Court Finds Duty to Defend over Construction Defect Allegation

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The U.S. District Court for Montana recently ruled on a case with underlying construction defect issues. Brian Margolies discussed Lukes v. Mid-Continent on the blog run by his firm, Traub Lieverman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP. In the construction defect case, the homeowner “alleged that the siding warped and pulled away from the house, which allowed for water intrusion and resulting exterior and interior damage.” Further, there were claims that “the insured or its subcontractor failed to install proper flashing, which also allowed for water intrusion.” The insured was Bernie Rubio, who had a general liability policy from Mid-Continent. Mid-Continent disclaimed coverage, citing sections of the business risk exclusions. The court did not find the clauses ambiguous, but concluded that they didn’t apply to the facts of the case. While the court concluded that Mid-Continent had a duty to defend, they did not determine if there was a duty to indemnify. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Defects and Warranties in Maryland

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Nicholas D. Cowie, a partner with Cowie & Mott, P.A., has started a blog focusing on construction defect claims in Maryland condominium complexes. In his first post, he writes about the statutory remedies in Maryland law for condominium owners. He notes that “four separate statutory warranties apply to the sale of condominiums.” He further discusses the varying duration of these warranties and when they come into effect, saying that “associations and unit owners are often incorrectly informed that their construction defect-related problems (such as leaks around windows) are ‘out of warranty’ because the problems did not occur during the warranty period.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Delaware Strengthens Jurisdictional Defenses for Foreign Corporations Registered to Do Business in Delaware

April 28, 2016 — Randall MacTough, Timothy Martin & Christian Singewald – White & Williams LLP
The days of companies being sued in Delaware based solely upon their compliance with Delaware’s registration statutes appear over. Recently, the Delaware Supreme Court, in Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec[1], held that Delaware Courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over a foreign corporation registered to do business in Delaware for claims unrelated to its conduct in Delaware. In Delaware, foreign corporations must register to do business and designate a registered agent in Delaware to accept service of process to sell its products or services.[2] Since 1988, Delaware has construed these registration laws as foreign corporations’ express consent to general jurisdiction.[3] Reprinted courtesy of White & Williams LLP attorneys Randall MacTough, Timothy Martin and Christian Singewald Mr. MacTough may be contacted at mactoughr@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at martint@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

A General Contractor’s Guide to Additional Insured Coverage

August 10, 2017 — Gregory D. Podolak - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
LAW360.com recently surveyed attorneys to offer tips for what general contractors should – and shouldn’t – do when pursuing additional insured coverage. According to the article, “With the broad array of risks present on a typical construction site, one of a general contractor’s top options to shield itself from liability for property damage and bodily injury claims is to secure expansive “additional insured” coverage through its subcontractors.” In the piece, Greg Podolak discussed techniques for avoiding potential gaps in coverage: “Carriers will try to say in the additional insured endorsement that they will only be responsible to provide limits for what is required in the trade contract,” said Greg Podolak, managing partner of Saxe Doernberger & Vita PC’s southeast office. “If it turns out the trade contract requires lower limits than the policy, the insurer will likely say it only wants to be responsible for those lower limits.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Podolak may be contacted at gdp@sdvlaw.com

---

Insurers in New Jersey Secure a Victory on Water Damage Claims, But How Big a Victory Likely Remains to be Seen

April 03, 2019 — Kevin Sullivan - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
Property insurance policies commonly cover water damage caused by an accidental discharge or leakage of water from an on-site plumbing system and commonly exclude water damage caused by a sewer backup. So it’s not surprising that the cause of water damage is a common battleground between policyholders and insurers. In Salil v. Ohio Security Insurance Co., 2018 WL 6272930 (N.J. App. Div. Dec. 3, 2018), insurers scored a victory when the court held that the release of water and sewage into a restaurant was subject to a $25,000 sublimit for water damage caused by a sewer backup. But claims adjusters and policyholders confronted with water damage claims in New Jersey will no doubt continue to do battle over whether the Salil decision was a decisive victory for insurers or a limited one. In Salil, the insured landlord leased its building to a restaurant operator. After the insured’s tenant reported water and odor at the restaurant, the insured contacted a plumber, who informed the insured that a clog in the restaurant’s toilet caused Category 3 water to flow into the restaurant. The insured allegedly sustained approximately $160,000 in restoration costs and loss of business income. The plumber used a snake to clear the sewer line to remedy the issue. The restoration company confirmed the cause of the loss was a sewer back up. On this basis, the insurer determined that the cause of loss was a sewer backup. The policy excluded coverage for water damage caused by a sewer back-up, but an endorsement restored that coverage, subject to a $25,000 sub-limit for “direct physical loss or damaged caused by water… which backs up into a building or structure through sewers or drains which are directly connected to a sanitary sewer or septic system.” Pursuant to this endorsement, the insurer paid its $25,000 sublimit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at ksullivan@tlsslaw.com

---

After $15 Million Settlement, Association Gets $7.7 Million From Additional Subcontractor

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
The stucco subcontractor for a condominium complex did not join in with the other defendants in a settlement of more than $15 million, preferring to take the case to a jury trial. That jury has found the stucco installer liable for $7.7 million to make repairs. Mark Wiechnik of Herrick Feinstein LLP wrote about the case on the Lexology web site. Mr. Wiechnik notes that the jury was shown “samples of rotted wood taken from the property as well as numerous pictures of damage resulting from the various defects.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Naughty or Nice. Contractor Receives Two Lumps of Coal in Administrative Dispute

January 21, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
So, how were your holidays? Hopefully you were good and didn’t receive a lump of coal from Santa. For one contractor, 2018, wasn’t such a good year. And as its name, Black Diamond, suggests, it did indeed receive a black diamond from the courts. Actually, two of them. Contractors’ State License Board v. Superior Court (Black Diamond No. 1) In Contractors’ State License Board v. Superior Court, Court of Appeals for the First District, Case No. 1154476 (October 11, 2018), the Contractors State License Board (“CSLB”) brought disciplinary proceedings against Black Diamond Electric, Inc. (“Black Diamond”), a C-10 Electrical Contractor, for violating: (1) Labor Code section 108.2, which requires individuals performing work as electricians to be certified; and (2) Labor Code section 108.4, which permits uncertified persons seeking on-the-job experience to perform electrical work so long as they are under the direct supervision of a certified electrician. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Workers Compensation Insurance: Dangers of the Audit Process

April 12, 2021 — Jason M. Gropper - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
If your business obtains workers compensation insurance, it is important you take steps to protect the business and yourself from excessive premiums to the insurance company as a result of misclassification of workers. After applying for and being accepted by an insurance company for workers compensation insurance, your business will receive a Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance Policy. It is important that you or an advisor reviews this document. Generally, this document will explain what the insurance company can do, steps it can take to determine the premium, and the responsibilities of your business. The document will also provide the estimated premium. A premium is the amount you will pay for the coverage provided by the insurance company. The premium is determined by many factors, including the classification of each employee. It is important that when your company applies for insurance, the correct classifications are provided. If those are not provided, or provided in error, the insurance company will assign classifications and the associated rates, based on its assumptions and conclusions. The insurance company will assess the payroll and multiply it by an established rate based on the revised classification. The rates are different for the distinct work being done by each employee, with higher-risk jobs receiving a higher rate. For instance, a roofer or framer will have a higher rate than clerical staff. The rate is generally higher for those with riskier jobs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason M. Gropper, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Gropper may be contacted at Gropper@ahclaw.com

---