Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Towards Paperless Construction: PaperLight

June 02, 2016 — Aarni Heiskanen – AEC Business
I just toured the newly built headquarters of a financial corporation. Our guide, a M&A specialist, boasted that they have completely removed paper from their offices. Could paperless construction become feasible any time soon? PaperLight is a portable smart board that could replace paper drawings on many occasions. Rollout, Inc., the developer of PaperLight, says that 90% of contractors still use paper plans. AEC firms spend, on average, $1600 per employee on printing annually. Over 37 million construction drawings are printed every year. Finding a usable solution that reduces these numbers makes economic sense. Even more so if you consider all the costs of errors that result from using outdated paper drawings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aarni@aepartners.fi

Confidence Among U.S. Homebuilders Declines to Eight-Month Low

March 19, 2015 — Bloomberg News
(Bloomberg) -- Confidence among U.S. homebuilders unexpectedly fell in March to an eight-month low as prospective buyers were in little rush to shop for properties ahead of the busier spring selling season. The National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo sentiment gauge dropped to 53 from 55 in February, figures from the Washington-based group showed Monday. The median forecast in a Bloomberg survey called for a gain to 56. Sales of single-family homes declined to a five-month low and builder optimism about the outlook failed to improve, the report also showed. Low mortgage rates and job creation may help spur homebuyer interest in coming months. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg News
Michelle Jamrisko may be contacted at mjamrisko@bloomberg.net

How is Negotiating a Construction Contract Like Buying a Car?

January 04, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Originally Published by CDJ on March 1, 2017 I know, you’re probably looking for a punchline, and likely thinking something along the lines of “only a construction attorney would be sitting in his office and come up with such an analogy,” but I really do think it’s a good one. When you are buying a car, you look for priorities. Is the color what you want? Is the motor a hybrid or a v-6? Does it have Android Auto? What is the fuel mileage? All of these things may be more or less important to you. If you can get your priorities for a price that is attractive, you will likely let some other less important items, e. g. trunk space or rear seat leg room, slide and purchase the car anyway. Furthermore, you may use these minor items as negotiating points to either get one of the priorities or a lower price. Of course the dealership will want to get its priorities, likely a sale and a profit, when negotiating and will have certain items that it won’t move on just as you have terms that you won’t move on. Much like when you walk onto the car lot, and particularly as a subcontractor looking at a contract from a general contractor, or a GC looking at the contract from the owner of a project, a construction contract presented to you is the starting point. When looking at the contract, be sure to have some non-negotiable items in mind when taking a critical eye to the terms of that contract. Some of these terms may be more or less negotiable depending on your experience with the other party to the construction contract. For instance, striking a pay if paid clause may be less important with a paying party with whom you have a 10 year history without payment problems. On the other hand, if it is your first contract with the other party, a stricter list may be required. So, much like a dealer that you know will stand behind its cars, you may be more willing to take more “risk” in entering a construction contract with a trusted/known owner or GC. 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

Connecticutt Class Action on Collapse Claims Faces Motion to Dismiss

January 02, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court dismissed some insurers from a class action suit alleging failure to provide coverage for collapse claims. Halloran v. Harleysville Preferred Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179807 (D. Conn. Oct. 19, 2018). A class of homeowners brought suit in 2016 against their homeowners insurance companies ("defendants") for failure to cover collapse claims. Plaintiffs alleged they bought their homes between 1984 and 2015. Each of the homes had basement walls that were "crumbling and cracking due to the oxidation of certain minerals contained in the concrete." As a result of the deteriorating concrete, plaintiffs claimed that their basement walls were in a state of collapse. 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

Up in Smoke - 5th Circuit Finds No Coverage for Hydrochloric Acid Spill Based on Pollution Exclusion

October 19, 2020 — Kerianne E. Kane & David G. Jordan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an insurer was not obligated to pay damages associated with a hydrochloric acid spill based on a pollution exclusion in the policy. In Burroughs Diesel, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America,1 a trucking company sued its property insurer, Travelers Indemnity Company of America (“Travelers”) when it refused to pay a claim for a storage tank leak which resulted in over 5,000 gallons of hydrochloric acid entering the property and causing significant damage to buildings, vehicles, tools, and equipment. The acid was initially dispensed in liquid form, but quickly became a cloud that engulfed the property. Travelers denied coverage for the claim based on the pollution exclusion because “acids” fell within the policy’s definition of “pollutants.” The trucking company sued Travelers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, alleging breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing for refusing to pay the claim. The trucking company argued that coverage was warranted because there is an exception to the pollution exclusion if “the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape is itself caused by any of the ‘specified causes of loss,’” and the hydrochloric acid cloud was a form of “smoke,” which is a specified cause of loss covered by the policy. The District Court entered summary judgment in favor of Travelers, finding that the trucking company failed to demonstrate that an exception to the pollution exclusion applied. The trucking company appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Reprinted courtesy of Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Ms. Kane may be contacted at kek@sdvlaw.com Mr. Jordan may be contacted at dgj@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Companies Can Be Liable for “Secondary Exposure” of Asbestos to Household Members

October 26, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The history of asbestos regulation in the United States is complicated. Prior to the 1970s, asbestos-containing materials used in construction was widespread. In 1971, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued an emissions standard for asbestos as part of the Clean Air Act. In 1972, the EPA extended this regulation to an occupational standard and, over the next decade, the EPA together with the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a wide array of regulations aimed at asbestos. 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

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

March 01, 2021 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In Bibeau v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co., 2021 WL 243867, 2021 ME 4, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine addressed an earth movement exclusion contained in a residential homeowners policy. In 2017, the insured submitted a claim to Concord for damage to the insured’s home which included foundation cracks and settlement resulting in interior damage to the home. The insured contended that the damage was the result of a 2006 water line leak. Concord denied the claim based on the Earth Movement exclusion contained in it’s policy which precluded coverage for losses caused by earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, mudflow, subsidence, sinkholes or “[a]ny other earth movement including earth sinking, rising or shifting; caused by or resulting from human or animal forces or any act of nature”. The insured filed suit asserting a breach of the policy and unfair claims settlement practices. According to the insured’s expert, the damage was caused by a 2006 water line leak -- which in turn caused the foundation to settle. Concord's expert, however, concluded that the settling was caused by the house being built on “unprepared or uncontrolled fill” which allowed the house to settle at different rates. Despite the disagreement regarding the cause of the settling, the parties ultimately agreed that the damage was the result of earth moving under the house's foundation. Concord moved for summary judgment and the trial court entered summary judgment for Concord, reasoning that because there was no genuine dispute that the losses were caused by “subsurface soils being undermined and earth movement,” the Earth Movement exclusion precluded coverage. The trial court further concluded that the disagreement over the cause of the settlement was not material because regardless of the cause of the earth movement, the losses were clearly excluded by the policy's Earth Movement exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

Dear Engineer: Has your insurer issued a “Reservation of Rights” letter? (law note)

April 20, 2017 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
In my previous post, I made reference to getting a “Reservation of Rights” letter. I noted that the carrier may decide to defend you under a Reservation of Rights (i.e., hire your lawyer) but may not, necessarily, accept the responsibility for paying the claim. Does this mean that the insurance company has denied your claim, or will never pay? No. Reservation of Rights (ROR) letters are sent for a variety of reasons- most notably, when some portion of the construction lawsuit against you is not covered under your E&O policy. The letter must state the reason(s) that the ROR is being issued. With the ROR, the insurance company is telling you that it reserves the right to withdraw from your defense and/or deny payment of damages at a later date, depending upon how facts in the case develop. The notice is intended to let you know that there *may* be issues later, and to put you notice that you have the right to hire your own lawyer (at your own expense) to protect yourself from that future potential risk. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES