Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

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

Housing Bill Threatened by Rift on Help for Disadvantaged

April 09, 2014 — Cheyenne Hopkins and Clea Benson - Bloomberg
Efforts to overhaul the U.S. housing-finance system could hinge on how far Congress is willing to go to ensure that young, low-income and minority homebuyers can get mortgages. A bipartisan bill drafted by Senate Banking Committee leaders Tim Johnson and Mike Crapo relies on incentives to persuade financiers to lend to groups with higher risk profiles. Consumer and civil-rights organizations are pushing instead for a mandate that those groups must be served, a concept that has become a political flash point since the housing bubble burst. Key Democrats on the banking panel whose support is needed to pass the measure may vote against a bill that doesn’t include a mandate, especially as mortgage borrowing has dropped among blacks, Latinos and first-time buyers. Ms. Hopkins may be contacted at chopkins19@bloomberg.net; Ms. Benson may be contacted at cbenson20@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Cheyenne Hopkins and Clea Benson, Bloomberg

Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .

December 31, 2014 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Did you think that a subcontractor had to name a general contractor in a mechanic’s lien suit? I did. Did you think that nothing about this changed in the case where a Virginia mechanic’s lien was “bonded off” pursuant to Va. Code Section 43-71? I did. Well, a recent Virginia Supreme Court case, Synchronized Construction Services Inc. v. Prav Lodging LLC, seems to at least create some doubt as to whether the a general contractor is a “necessary” party to a lawsuit by a subcontractor in the case where a bond is posted for release of a mechanic’s lien. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Texas Central Wins Authority to Take Land for High-Speed Rail System

October 03, 2022 — Barclay Nicholson & Erica Gibbons - Sheppard Mullin Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
Move over luxury bus lines and quick flights. Central Texans should be on the lookout for bulldozers and train stops. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of Texas held that Texas Central Railroad & Infrastructure, Inc. and related entities (collectively “Texas Central”) have eminent domain authority to acquire property for a proposed high-speed rail system between Dallas and Houston.[1] Specifically, the Court held that the corporation qualifies as an “interurban electric railway company” under the Texas Transportation Code. This ruling grants Texas Central the broad condemnation authority to procure land for the project. Texas Central has Statutory Authority to Take Land The plaintiff in the matter, a farm owner with property south of Dallas along the proposed path of the bullet train, challenged the companies power to condemn land. The landowner’s declaratory judgment action challenged Texas Central’s eminent-domain authority. Under Texas law, condemnation power must be conferred by the legislature, either expressly or by necessary implication.[2] Here, Texas Central was created for the purpose of constructing, acquiring, maintaining, or operating lines of electric railway between Texas municipalities. The Court found that Texas Central is engaged in activities to further that purpose. Therefore, the Court concluded, that although legislators did not contemplate high-speed railways at the time of drafting the Transportation Code, Texas Central nonetheless qualified as “interurban electric railway companies” under the statute. Reprinted courtesy of Barclay Nicholson, Sheppard Mullin and Erica Gibbons, Sheppard Mullin Mr. Nicholson may be contacted at bnicholson@sheppardmullin.com Ms. Gibbons may be contacted at egibbons@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Philadelphia Enacts Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) Program

October 21, 2019 — Timothy Davis & Willliam Johnston - White and Williams LLP
On August 14, 2019, Mayor Jim Kenney signed a bill authorizing, through C-PACE loans, the financing of clean energy, alternative energy and water conservation projects for eligible commercial properties in Philadelphia. Philadelphia City Council unanimously voted to approve the C-PACE program on June 20, 2019. The program will be administered by the Philadelphia Energy Authority. Third-party capital providers (not the Philadelphia Energy Authority) will originate C-PACE financings for qualified projects. C-PACE “assessments” will encumber the applicable property in a first lien position akin to a real estate tax. Documentation among the property owner, the City of Philadelphia, and the third party capital provider (identified in the ordinance as the “financial institution”) will provide, among other things, that the assessments will be payable and fully amortize over the term of the financing (i.e., 30 years) and will not be accelerated during its term. Importantly, before a C-PACE financing can be originated and the underlying property assessed, notice of the property owner’s desire to secure C-PACE financing under the program must be provided to the holder of a mortgage on the subject property and the holder of the mortgage must provide the property owner and the City of Philadelphia with its written consent. Without the mortgage lender’s consent, the C-PACE financing cannot be consummated. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Davis, White and Williams LLP and William Johnston, White and Williams LLP Mr. Davis may be contacted at davist@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Johnston may be contacted at johnstonw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Not so Fast! How Does Revoking Acceleration of a Note Impact the Statute of Limitations?

July 30, 2018 — Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Introduction Lenders routinely accelerate notes after a default occurs, calling the entire loan due immediately. Less regularly, a lender may change its mind and unilaterally revoke the acceleration. Rarely, however, does a lender fail to foreclose on its real property collateral before the statute of limitations expires. In Andra R. Miller Designs, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 244 Ariz. 265, 418 P.3d 1038 (Ct. App. 2018), a unique set of facts involving these issues led the Arizona Court of Appeals to hold that proper revocation of acceleration resets the statute of limitations. The Facts In Miller, a lender made a $1,940,000 loan evidenced by a promissory note and secured by a deed of trust against a home in Paradise Valley, Arizona. The borrower defaulted in September 2008. The default prompted the lender to notice a default, accelerate the note, and initiate a trustee’s sale of the home in 2009. After the lender accelerated the note, the six year statute of limitations began to run. See A.R.S. § 12-548(A)(1) and A.R.S. § 33-816. Pretty standard facts so far, right? Don’t worry, it gets a bit more convoluted. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement

June 18, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Hartford Casualty Ins. v. Swift Distribution (No. S207172, filed 6/12/14), the California Supreme Court affirmed a 2012 appeals court holding that there is no advertising injury coverage on a theory of trade disparagement if the competitor's advertisements do not expressly refer to the plaintiff's product and do not disparage the plaintiff's product or business. In doing so, the Supreme Court expressly disapproved Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 969 ("Charlotte Russe"), which held that coverage could be triggered for "implied disparagement" by allegations that a retailer's heavy discounts on a manufacturer's premium apparel suggest to consumers that the manufacturer's products are of inferior quality. In Hartford v. Swift the plaintiff, Dahl, held a patent for the "Multi-Cart," a collapsible cart that could be manipulated into different configurations. When Dahl's competitor Ultimate began marketing the "Ulti-Cart," Dahl sued alleging that Ultimate impermissibly manufactured, marketed, and sold the Ulti-Cart, which infringed patents and trademarks for Multi-Cart and diluted Dahl's trademark. Dahl alleged patent and trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution of a famous mark, and misleading advertising arising from Ultimate's sale of Ulti-Carts. However, the advertisements for Ulti-Cart did not name the Multi-Cart, Dahl, or any other products beside the Ulti-Cart. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CDJ’s Year-End Review: The Top 12 CD Topics of 2015

December 30, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
As a new year begins, Construction Defect Journal has put together the most important issues and topics relating to the construction defect industry in 2015. New cases have arisen to challenge Right to Repair laws and other construction-related claim procedures, some states have made legislative or code changes, as well as other intriguing topics have been discussed in board rooms and over conference calls. We hope you enjoy the look-back at 2015, and we wish you and yours a prosperous 2016. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES