Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

The 2019 ISO Forms: Additions, Revisions, and Pitfalls

February 24, 2020 — Richard W. Brown, Michael V. Pepe & Janie Reilly Eddy - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) issued several new and revised endorsements for use with Commercial General Liability (CGL) coverage forms, which became effective December 1, 2019, in most jurisdictions. The new ISO endorsements include several notable changes that Policyholders should be aware of, including revisions to existing Additional Insured (AI), Primary and Noncontributory, and Waiver of Subrogation endorsements, as well as a number of new AI and other endorsement forms. A summary of the more significant elements of new ISO endorsements is provided below. NEW ISO FORMS

New AI Endorsements - Automatic Status for Completed Operations

For Contractors, Owners and other construction industry stakeholders, there are two new AI endorsements of note, CG 20 39 12 19 – Additional Insured – Owners, Lessee or Contractors – Automatic Status when Required in Written Construction Agreement with You (Completed Operations) and CG 20 40 12 19 – Additional Insured – Owners Lessees or Contractors – Automatic Status for Other Parties when Required in Written Construction Agreement (Completed Operations). AI coverage for Completed Operations is generally provided under form CG 20 37, which requires each additional insured to be listed in the endorsement schedule. The new ISO endorsements automatically extend AI status for Completed Operations without having to specifically identify each additional insured, thereby mirroring current AI endorsements that confer automatic AI status for Ongoing Operations (e.g. CG 20 33 and CG 20 38). Thus, the CG 20 39 and CG 20 40, correspond with CG 20 33 (ongoing operations), and CG 20 38 (ongoing operations), respectively, to extend AI coverage for Completed Operations. Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. attorneys Richard Brown, Michael V. Pepe and Janie Reilly Eddy Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com Mr. Pepe may be contacted at mvp@sdvlaw.com Ms. Eddy may be contacted at jre@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Repair Cost Exceeding Actual Cash Value Does Not Establish “Total Loss” Under Fire Insurance Policy

June 05, 2017 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In California FAIR Plan Assn. v. Garnes (No. A143190, filed 5/26/17), a California appeals court ruled that “total loss” under Insurance Code section 2051 refers to physical damage or loss, not the economic fact that the cost of repair exceeds the actual cash value of a home. Thus, where the home is not physically destroyed, the insured is entitled to the actual cost of repair, minus depreciation, even if that amount exceeds the fair market value of the home. In Garnes, the insured had a fire policy issued by the California FAIR Plan with limits of $425,000. It was agreed that the assessed value of the insured home was only $75,000. The insured suffered a kitchen fire with estimated repair costs of $320,000. The FAIR Plan declared the home a total loss because the cost of repair exceeded the home’s value, and offered to pay the actual cash value as provided by Insurance Code section 2051(b)(1). Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. 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

Coverage for Construction Defects Barred By Exclusion j (5)

April 15, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Texas Court Appeal reversed a trial court judgment which found coverage in favor of the contractor based upon exclusion j(5). Dallas Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Calitex Corp., 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2002 (Tex. Ct. App. March 3, 2015). Turnkey Residential Group, Inc., was the contractor to construct a twelve-unit townhome complex in Dallas. The owner of the project was Calitex Corporation. Construction began on November 2006. The project was to be completed by Turnkey by October 27, 2007. Calitex filed suit against Turnkey and some of its subcontractors in February 2008. Calitex alleged problems with Turnkey's work included: (1) the stone exterior was not properly treated and leaked, and some areas were left uncovered with stone; and (2) windows leaked. It was further alleged that the quality of materials, labor and craftsmanship did not meet the standards of the contract and resulted in damages. Turnkey submitted a notice of claim to its insurer, Dallas National Insurance Company (DNIC). Coverage was denied. 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

Insurance Coverage Litigation Section to Present at Hawaii State Bar Convention

October 15, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Hawaii State Bar convention will be on October 24, 2014, at the Hawaiian Hilton. The Insurance Coverage Litigation Section will make a presentation from 8:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. Three presentations will be made. First, Richard C. Mosher (Anderson Kill), Kathy Dang (Marsh), and Beau Monday (Hawaiian Telcom) will discuss cyber-liability claims and insurance options. Next, David R. Harada-Stone (Tom Petrus & Miller) and I (Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert) will address "occurrences," i.e., deciding on and the impact of determining the number of occurrences in particular factual settings. 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

DHS Awards Contracts for Border Wall Prototypes

September 20, 2017 — Engineering News-Record
The Dept. of Homeland Security has awarded eight contracts to companies to develop prototypes for the Trump administration’s proposed wall along sections of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border. The contracts are divided evenly between concrete and nonconcrete options. DHS’s Customs and Border Protection agency didn’t specify what sort of materials would be used in the nonconcrete barriers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
ENR staff may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Update Regarding New York’s New Registration Requirement for Contractors and Subcontractors Performing Public Works and Covered Private Projects

February 06, 2023 — Christopher B. Kinzel, K. Greer Kuras, Aaron C. Schlesinger - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Some significant changes are being made by chapter amendments (S.838 and A.984) to Section 220-i of New York’s Labor Law. Contractors and subcontractors bidding on public contracts and performing work on covered private projects will have two years (by December 30, 2024) to register with the Department of Labor, Bureau of Public Works, rather than one year. The amendments also remove the requirement that a contractor submit registration certificates for all its subcontractors at the time its bid is submitted; amend language with respect to notice and hearing requirements; require re-registration to occur not less than 90 days before expiration; and add language to require a monitor to oversee ongoing work if a contractor or subcontractor is found unfit. The stated purpose of the law is to help enforce New York’s prevailing wage and other worker protection laws. The DOL will create an online system through which contractors and subcontractors will have to answer questions and submit documents about:

the business entity and its owners and officers
unemployment and workers’ compensation insurance
any outstanding wage assessments
debarment under New York or federal law, or any other state’s laws
final determinations of a violation of any labor laws, employment tax laws, or workplace safety standards (including OSHA)
association or signatory to an apprenticeship program

Reprinted courtesy of Christopher B. Kinzel, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., K. Greer Kuras, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Kinzel may be contacted at ckinzel@pecklaw.com Ms. Kuras may be contacted at gkuras@pecklaw.com Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

COVID-19 Response: Essential Business Operations: a High-Stakes Question Under Proliferating “Stay at Home” Orders

April 27, 2020 — Karen C. Bennett, Katherine I. Funk & Jane C. Luxton - Lewis Brisbois
An ever-expanding number of states and local government authorities are issuing “shelter in place” or “stay at home” orders that restrict the movement of employees of non-essential businesses. These orders have prompted many businesses to question whether they qualify as “essential,” requiring employees to continue working. With substantial differences among the stay at home orders – and even potential conflicts between state and local directives – it is a matter of extreme urgency for businesses to determine whether they fall within the definition of “essential,” particularly as many of these orders include civil and criminal penalties. Developments are unfolding very quickly, and clients we are advising are encountering law enforcement visits and threats of criminal prosecution as a consequence of decisions to stay open. As these designations are heavily fact-specific, and being revised, advance preparation and advice of counsel are essential. Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois attorneys Karen C. Bennett, Katherine I. Funk and Jane C. Luxton Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Funk may be contacted at Katherine.Funk@LewisBrisbois.com Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Some Construction Contract Basics- Necessities and Pitfalls

January 03, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Recently, I’ve been on an “advising” kick here at Construction Law Musings. My last two posts have been about communication and trusting your gut when it comes to a smooth construction project. This post will be the third in the trilogy (and who knows maybe I’ll have a 4th and 5th like the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy “trilogy”). While all construction contractors should use their communication skills and instincts to assure a smooth and hopefully profitable project, all of the gut following and great communication will not help you if your contract is not up to snuff. In the spirit of giving you a few basics things to look at, here’s my list of three basics that you need in your contract and a three things to be on the lookout for in others’ contracts. First, the good stuff that needs to be there:

Attorney Fees Clause– without it, a Virginia court (and most other courts) will not award you a judgment for any attorney fees spent to protect your rights.
Dispute Resolution– whether the specified resolution is through the litigation process, ADR or some combination, such a clause or paragraph will only help define the parameters of what happens with a claim.
Detailed scope of work– Without the proper detail in the scope of work, the parties cannot properly set expectations and know what happens when things change.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES