FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Hawaii Construction Defect Law Increased Confusion

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Hawaii’s Act 83 put into the law that in determining if a construction defect was due to an occurrence, the courts needed to ignore any case law that arose after the insurance policy was taken out. The hope, according to Bibeka Shrestha, writing at Law360, was to provide certainty to builders. The effect, however, “further muddled the litigation landscape.” Carl Shapiro said of the Hawaii legislature that “instead of solving the problem, they’ve created an even bigger miss.” Tred Eyerly, an insurance attorney says that the state “needs a decision from the Hawaii Supreme Court.” One result is that now the state court and the federal courts have different views on how to look at prior cases. The state courts are holding that “the uncertainly should be resolved in favor of the policyholder,” while the federal courts “pointed to earlier case law that nixed coverage for these types of claims. The legislature seems unlikely to resolve this confusion on its own. One legislative liaison said that “nobody knew how to pass a law saying ‘you will grant coverage.’” Brian Yamane also told Law360 that “there has been no attempt by anybody to introducte legislation to amend the law.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Condominium Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect

August 17, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

Coverage was denied under the policy’s condominium exclusion in California Traditions, Inc. v. Claremont Liability Ins. Co.,2011 Cal. App.LEXIS912 (Cal. Ct. App., ordered published July 11, 2011).



California Traditions was the developer and general contractor for a housing development. California Traditions subcontracted with Ja-Con to perform the rough framing work for 30 residential units. The project had 146 separate residences that were freestanding with no shared walls, roof, halls, or plumbing or electrical lines. To allow a higher density development, the project was developed, marketed and sold as condominiums.



The purchaser of one of the units filed a complaint against California Traditions alleging property damage from the defective construction. California Traditions cross-complained against Ja-Con.

Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Owners Should Serve Request for Sworn Statement of Account on Lienor

August 10, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When an owner receives a construction lien, an owner should serve the lienor with a Request for Sworn Statement of Account. The Request for Sworn Statement is authorized by Florida Statute s. 713.16(2) and should be in the following form: REQUEST FOR SWORN STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT WARNING: YOUR FAILURE TO FURNISH THE REQUESTED STATEMENT, SIGNED UNDER OATH, WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE FURNISHING OF A FALSE STATEMENT WILL RESULT IN THE LOSS OF YOUR LIEN. To: (Lienor’s name and address) The undersigned hereby demands a written statement under oath of his or her account showing the nature of the labor or services performed and to be performed, if any, the materials furnished, the materials to be furnished, if known, the amount paid on account to date, the amount due, and the amount to become due, if known, as of the date of the statement for the improvement of real property identified as (property description) . (name of contractor) (name of the lienor’s customer, as set forth in the lienor’s Notice to Owner, if such notice has been served) (signature and address of owner) (date of request for sworn statement of account) From both an owner and lienor’s perspective, the bolded, capitalized language is key. It states that if the lienor fails to respond under oath within 30 days, it will LOSE its lien. That is a very punitive measure for a lienor’s failure to respond, meaning a lienor should absolutely respond, no questions asked. Plus, a lienor’s response to a Request for Sworn Statement of Account is not a burdensome ordeal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

---

Subcontractors Must be Careful Providing Bonds when General Contractor Does Not

April 05, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
After I wrote the title to this post, I thought, “Well, that says it all, doesn’t it?” I also considered the fact that for those that read this construction law blog on a regular basis, I am likely stating the obvious. I then thought about the fact that there can be confusion regarding the purpose of bonds versus insurance. Couple this with the fact that Murphy was an optimist, and I thought this would be a good reminder. Bonds and insurance have one fundamental difference between them. When your construction company buys insurance, that insurance is meant to protect your company. When your company provides a payment and/or performance bond, that bond is there not to protect your company but to protect everyone else on the job and the project itself. Where insurance will pay for your company’s qualifying errors so that that money does not come out of the bottom line, a bond contract will have an indemnification agreement whereby anything paid by the surety will then be reimbursed by you and your company dollar for dollar (as opposed to just the premium). 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

---

Insurers Refuse Indemnification of Subcontractors in Construction Defect Suit

November 13, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
SMG Stone Co. Inc. and J. Colavin & Son Inc. were hired by Webcor Construction LP to install stone floor tiles at the Ritz-Carlton residences at the L.A. Live complex in Los Angeles. But the tiles began to crack even before installation was finished. The building management had all the tiles ripped out and replaced, although only 10% of the tiles were defective. The building management then claimed Webcor owed them $40 million, but settled for $8 million. $7 million of that claim was paid by Steadfast Insurance Co., with the remaining $1 million paid by Webcor. The two other insurers involved, American Home and The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, are attempting to deflect Webcor or Steadfast from making claims against them. Both insurers claim no obligation to indemnify the contractor or subcontractors as the claims do not involved “property damage,” as defined in the policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New Jersey/New York “Occurrence”

July 30, 2014 — Scott Patterson – CD Coverage
In National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Turner Construction Co., 986 N.Y.S.2d 74 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014), Turner was the general contractor for a high rise office building constructed in New Jersey for owner GSJC. Turner subcontracted with Permasteelisa for the building’s exterior curtain wall which consisted of granite and glass with an attached network of decorative pipe rails. A segment of the pipe rails fell from the building onto the street. GSJC determined that a significant percentage of the pipe rail connections to the curtain wall did not conform to specifications or were defective. GSJC sued Turner and Permasteelisa in New Jersey state court for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligence, seeking damages for the damage to the curtain wall and the danger of additional pipe rail falling in the future. National Union, which had issued an OCIP policy for the project, defended Turner and Permasteelisa under a reservation of rights and then filed a declaratory judgment action in New York state court. The New York trial court entered judgment for National Union. On appeal, the intermediate court of appeals affirmed. As to choice of law, the court stated that “it is undisputed that the law of New Jersey governs this action, which turns on insurance policy interpretation, and that New Jersey and New York law are consistent as to the issues in dispute here.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Patterson, CD Coverage

---

NY Is Set To Sue US EPA Over ‘Completion’ of PCB Removal

June 25, 2019 — Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record
New York state intends to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for issuing a certificate to General Electric Co. affirming the company completed its $1.7-billion cleanup of about 40 miles of the upper Hudson River, contaminated with PCBs from two former factories. State Attorney General Letitia James said April 11 that a December state study showed elevated PCB levels in river sediment and concentrations in fish, which were not recovering at the rate EPA anticipated. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

---

Contractor Walks Off Job. What are the Owner’s Damages?

September 25, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
What are your damages as the result of a breach of the construction contract? This is an important question, right? It is probably the most important part of your case. If you didn’t have damages, you wouldn’t be in a dispute. So, I repeat, what are your damages as the result of a breach of the construction contract? The below case explains dealing with a contractor that elected to walk off the job mid-construction. In Forbes v. Prime General Contractors, Inc., 43 Fla.L.Weekly D20194a (Fla. 2d DCA 2018), owners hired a contractor to perform a residential renovation job for $276,000. The owners were to pay the contractor in five draw payments (common for residential jobs) where the third draw payment was due upon the contractor’s completion of the dry-in (as defined in the contract). After the contractor received the first two draw payments totaling $138,000 plus an additional $6,000 for updated architectural plans, the contractor claimed the job doubled in price and demanded that the owners pay the contractor the third draw payment immediately (before it was due) plus an additional $31,450. The contractor refused to continue unless the owners agreed to its terms, and then walked off the job when the owners would not agree to these terms (nor should the owners agree to those terms). At the time the contractor walked off the job, the owners’ home was not habitable due to the construction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---