Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Washington’s Court of Appeals Protects Contracting Parties’ Rights to Define the Terms of their Indemnity Agreements

March 19, 2024 — Margarita Kutsin - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
It has long been the law in Washington that contracting parties are free to draft contractual indemnity agreements to allocate risk arising from performance of the work, and Courts will generally enforce those agreements as written. This well-settled principle was recently reaffirmed in King County v. CPM Development Corp., dba ICON Materials[1] a decision from Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals, wherein one party to an indemnity agreement attempted to evade its contractual obligations by arguing that certain common law indemnity principles supersede the written terms. This appeal followed a multi-week jury trial from which the client and Ahlers Cressman and Sleight legal team, including Lindsay Watkins, Klien Hilliard, and Christina Granquist, obtained a seven-figure judgment in the client’s favor, including an award of all attorneys’ fees and costs. ICON was the general contractor on a Vashon Island Highway Pavement project for King County. Part of the work on the project involved hauling away and disposing of ground milled asphalt (the “millings”) at King County-approved sites. ICON and D&R Excavating Inc., (“D&R”) executed a subcontract for D&R to perform that work. The subcontract incorporated the contract between ICON and King County, including the obligation to stockpile millings only at approved sites. D&R, however, did not obtain the requisite approvals from King County, and placed the millings at various sites on the Island, including locations that King County explicitly rejected. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Kutsin may be contacted at margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com

Builders Seek to Modify Scaffold Law

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
New York’s scaffold law dates back to 1885 and requires contractors and building owners to take measures to protect worker from falls through “proper protection.” And although the law is more than 125 years old, Lou Colettie of the Building Trades Employers Association clams that the law “is going to destroy the construction industry.” On the other side, a former director of the NYC Central Labor Council says that builders want to get rid of the law because of “greed.” The New York Daily News notes that when workers using scaffolds or ladders are injured, the contractor must prove the site was safe. According to the claims of the building industry, this would let workers get settlements if their injuries were their own fault, such as working while intoxicated or failing to observe their employer’s safety procedures. A bill is currently working its way through the New York legislature that would make the employee’s actions relevant in an injury lawsuit. There have been past unsuccessful attempts to repeal the law, this year opponents are pushing to just amend it. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Will Not Address Trigger for DEP Environmental Cleanup Action at This Time

August 14, 2018 — Gregory Capps - White and Williams LLP
On July 18, 2018, in Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company v. Johnson Matthey, Inc., et al., No. 24 MAP 2017 (Pa. July 18, 2018), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court quashed the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association’s (PMA) appeal seeking review of a ruling denying its motion for summary judgment for an order that coverage for the cleanup of a toxic waste site is limited to the policy in effect when property damage was first discovered. In short, the court found the lower court’s ruling only narrowed the dispute between the parties and is, therefore, interlocutory and not appealable at this time. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gregory Capps, White & Williams LLP
Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com

Tighter Requirements and a New Penalty for Owners of Vacant or Abandoned Storefronts in San Francisco

June 18, 2019 — Matt Olhausen - Gravel2Gavel
Ordinance 52-19 became effective in April 2019 and expands upon existing San Francisco Building Code registration requirements for “Vacant or Abandoned” “Commercial Storefronts.” A storefront becomes “Vacant or Abandoned” once it has been unoccupied for 30 days (among other earlier triggers for blighted or unsecured storefronts). A “Commercial Storefront” is broadly defined as “any area within a building that may be individually leased or rented for any purpose other than Residential Use as defined in Planning Code.” (See § 103.A.5.1 of the San Francisco Building Code.) So, a building that is 97% leased could still contain a Vacant or Abandoned Commercial Storefront, which would technically require registration under the Building Code. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matt Olhausen, Pillsbury
Mr. Olhausen may be contacted at matt.olhausen@pillsburylaw.com

Florida Insurance Legislation Alert - Part I

April 18, 2023 — Gregory D. Podolak & Holly A. Rice - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
On March 24, 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law House Bill 837 which significantly impacts several critical aspects of modern Florida civil litigation, particularly insurance disputes. SDV has actively monitored the evolution of this legislation, including substantial commentary from the legal and insurance communities that followed its enactment. In this multi-part series, we will explore the critical developments impacting policyholders and what to expect moving forward. The insurance-related headlines overwhelmingly concentrate on one key area: the elimination of one-way attorney fee recovery for property insurance policyholders. This development represents a key change in longstanding Florida insurance law and is worthy of attention - but it doesn’t tell the whole story. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Holly A. Rice, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Podolak may be contacted at GPodolak@sdvlaw.com Ms. Rice may be contacted at HRice@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Washington Supreme Court Finds Agent’s Representations in Certificate of Insurance Bind Insurance Company to Additional Insured Coverage

February 03, 2020 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman
In T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 450 P.3d 150 (Wash. 2019) the Washington Supreme Court addressed whether an insurance company is bound by its agent’s written representation—made in a certificate of insurance—that a particular corporation is an additional insured under a given policy. The question arose in a case where: (1) the Ninth Circuit had already ruled that the agent acted with apparent authority, but (2) the agent’s representation turned out to be inconsistent with the policy and (3) the certificate of insurance included additional text broadly disclaiming the certificate’s ability to “amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by” the policy. According to the Court, under Washington law the answer is yes: an insurance company is bound by the representation of its agent in those circumstances. Otherwise, the Court reasoned, an insurance company’s representations would be meaningless and it could mislead without consequence. At the heart of this case were two T-Mobiles entities: T-Mobile USA and T-Mobile Northeast (“T-Mobile NE”), which were distinct legal entities. T-Mobile NE engaged a contractor to construct a cell phone tower on a rooftop in New York City. The contract between T-Mobile NE and the contractor required the contractor to obtain a general liability insurance policy, to annually provide T-Mobile NE “with certificates of insurance evidencing [that policy’s] coverage,” and to name T-Mobile NE as an additional insured under the policy. T-Mobile USA was not a party to the contract, but was nonetheless aware of it and approved the contract as to form. The contractor obtained the required insurance policy from Selective. The policy provided that a third party would automatically become an “additional insured” under the policy if the contractor and the third party entered into their own contract that required the contractor to add the third party to its insurance policy as an additional insured. Because T-Mobile USA did not have a contract with the contractor, it did not automatically become an additional insured under the policy. Nevertheless, over the course of several years, Selective’s agent issued a series of certificates of insurance to “T-Mobile USA Inc., its Subsidiaries and Affiliates” that stated that those entities were “included as an additional insured [under the policy] with respect to” certain areas of coverage. The agent signed those certificates as Selective’s “Authorized Representative.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

Hunton Insurance Group Advises Policyholders on Issues That Arise With Wildfire Claims and Coverage – A Seven-Part Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series

June 27, 2022 — Scott P. DeVries & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Wildfires destroy millions of acres a year in the United States, spewing smoke across much of the nation. The cost of damage alone over the past several years soars into the hundreds of billions. As wildfires continue to spread, particularly as we enter wildfire season, policyholders’ claims will rise and with that, so too will wildfire insurance coverage issues. Many believe that when a fire damages their property and/or interrupts their business operations, a claim gets submitted and is automatically paid; sadly, this is often not the case. In a seven-part series delving into issues relating to wildfire insurance coverage, the Hunton insurance group provides a comprehensive understanding of the types of policies that may be available, legal and factual issues that may arise, and steps policyholders can take – both in advance and during the claims process – to maximize recovery. The following issues will be addressed:

Part One: Types of Wildfire-Related Losses and the Policies That May Provide Coverage
Part Two: Coverage for Smoke-Related Damages
Part Three: Standard Form Policy Exclusions
Part Four: Coverage for Supply Chain Related Losses
Part Five: Valuation of Loss, Sublimits, and Amount of Potential Recovery
Part Six: Ensuring Availability of Insurance and State Regulations
Part Seven: How to Successfully Prepare, Submit and Negotiate the Claim

Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Advice to Georgia Homeowners with Construction Defects

October 02, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
NOLO Press has some advice for Georgia homeowners who have found construction defects. Their first advice is to make certain matters don’t get any worse. They note that the “the builder is not responsible for any damage that occurs to the home after you’ve discovered the problem.” You should keep records of those repairs, since you can’t get reimbursed unless you can prove what you spent. Some problems are covered under builder warranties, but usually only in the first year. But if it’s not covered, or the warranty has expired, NOLO notes that “you might not be out of luck.” The three options under Georgia law are to claim breach of contract, negligent construction, or fraud. NOLO gives the example that if the house was not built according to the plans, the builder might be found guilty of breach of contract. If the builder worked in “a shoddy manner that no other builder would use,” then it might be negligent construction. “If the builder outright lied about the quality or type of materials used,” you might have a claim for fraud. However, NOLO notes that first you must notify the builder. Under Georgia law, you have to inform the builder of the problems 90 days before you can file a lawsuit, and the builder has 30 days in which to respond to your claims. The hope of Georgia’s Right to Repair Act is to avoid a lawsuit and get the house fixed. And that’s always the best result. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES