FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Fifth Circuit Finds Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case

March 14, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Reversing the judgment of the district court, the Fifth Circuit found the insurer owed a defense in a construction defect case. Siplast, Inc. v. Emplrs Mut. Cas. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 795 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022). The Archdiocese of New York sued various parties for a roofing project at a high school in the Bronx. Siplast, the roofing manufacturer, was included as a defendant. The underlying lawsuit arose from the Archdiocese purchase of a roof membrane system from Siplast. Siplast guaranteed that the roof membrane system would remain "in a watertight condition for a period of 20 years . . . or Siplast will repair the Roof Membrane System at its own expense." After installation of the roof, school officials noticed water damage in the ceiling tiles throughout the school after a rain storm. Siplast attempted to repair the damage, but was unsuccessful. Siplast later informed the Archdiocese that the guarantee would not be honored regarding any permanent improvements of the roof. The Archdiocese filed suit against Siplast and the installing contractor. The cause of action against Siplast was for breach of the guarantee. 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

---

Federal Public Works Construction Collection Remedies: The Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

July 30, 2015 — William L. Porter – The Porter Law Group Bulletin
Federal public work construction projects are unique in that there are no Stop Payment Notice or Mechanics Lien remedies available. Furthermore, although a remedy is available by proceeding against the original contractor’s payment bond under a federal law known as the “Miller Act” and its corresponding Federal Regulations (40 USCS 3131 et seq. and 48 CFR 28.101-1 et seq.), this remedy is not available to all subcontractors or suppliers. In addition, there are circumstances where a different form of security can be substituted for the payment bond (40 USCS 3131(b)(2)). Among those who generally cannot sue on the Miller Act Payment Bond are third-tier subcontractors and suppliers to suppliers. (See J.W. Bateson Company v. Board of Trustees, 434 U.S. 586 (1978)). As a general rule, every subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who deals directly with the prime contractor may bring a lawsuit against the bond company providing the Miller Act Payment Bond. Further, every subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who has a direct contractual relationship with a first tier subcontractor may bring such an action. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, The Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---

Indemnification Against Release/“Disposal” of Hazardous Materials

May 18, 2020 — Brian S. Wood & Miranda R. Millerick - ConsensusDocs
It is very common, if not nearly an industry standard, for construction contracts and subcontracts to contain provisions addressing the discovery of unanticipated hazardous materials. Many of these provisions require a contractor or subcontractor to discontinue work where hazardous materials are discovered. An example of such a clause can be found in the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Document A201 (2017), Section 10.3.1, which states in part:

If the Contractor encounters a hazardous material or substance not addressed in the Contract Documents and if reasonable precautions will be inadequate to prevent foreseeable bodily injury or death to persons resulting from a material or substance, including but not limited to asbestos or polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), encountered on the site by the Contractor, the Contractor shall, upon recognizing the condition, immediately stop Work in the affected area and notify the Owner and Architect of the condition.

A similar clause in ConsensusDocs does not require the contractor to stop work, but provides that the “Contractor shall not be obligated to commence or continue work until any Hazardous Material discovered at the Work site has been removed, rendered or determined to be harmless by the Owner as certified by an independent testing laboratory and approved by the appropriate government agency.” Reprinted courtesy of Brian S. Wood, Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP and Miranda R. Millerick, Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP Mr. Wood may be contacted at bswood@smithcurrie.com Ms. Millerick may be contacted at mrmillerick@smithcurrie.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Equipment Costs? It’s a Steal!

July 08, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

KCBD reports on the problems of a Lubbock, Texas contractor. It’s hard to do the job when your tools keep getting stolen. Corey Meadows, owner of Top Cut Interiors, told KCBD that he had chained an air compressor to a table saw. Since the thieves couldn’t cut the chain, they cut the table saw “and just took the air compressor and the chain.” Meadows estimates the thieves cost him $2,000 in damaged or stolen equipment and time lost.

Read the full story…

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

---

Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

September 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Supreme Court of North Dakota has ruled in Leno v. K & L Homes, affirming the verdict of the lower court. K & L Homes argued that district court had erred in several ways, including by refusing to instruct the jury on comparative fault, denying a request for inspection, and not allowing a defendant to testify on his observations during jury viewing.

The Lenos purchased a home constructed by K & L Homes, after which they alleged they found cracks, unevenness, and shifting, which they attributed to improper construction. They claimed negligence on the part of K & L Homes. K & L Homes responded that the Lenos were responsible for damage to the home. The Lenos dropped their negligence claim, arguing breach of contract and implied warranties.

Before the trial, after the discovery period had passed, K & L Homes requested to inspect the home. This was rejected by the court. Kelly Moldenhauer, the owner of K & L Homes sought to testify about his observations during the jury’s viewing of the house. The court denied this too. The jury found that K & L was in breach of contract and awarded damages to the Lenos.

The North Dakota Supreme Court noted that K & L Homes gave “warranties that the home had been built according to local building codes and laws, and that the house was fit for its particular purpose as a residence.” The court found that a defective home breached this warranty. Further, the home violated an implied warranty of fitness.

The district court had denied K & L’s request to inspect the home, as the discovery period had ended and it would not give the Lenos time to do further discovery of their own. At the time of the request, there was only twenty-two days before the trial. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not an abuse of discretion of the part of the district court.

The Lenos had requested that Moldenhauer’s testimony not be permitted, as it would “have the same effect as if the court had granted K & L Homes’ pretrial request for inspection.” K & L Homes agreed to this in court, replying, “okay.”

The decision affirms the judgment of the district court and the damages awarded to the Lenos by the jury.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Supreme Court of Oregon Affirms Decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al.

April 20, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFF

After reviewing the decision in Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, et al., the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed that a tort claim for property damage arising from construction defects may exist even when the homeowner and the builder are in a contractual relationship.



When the case was initially filed, the plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and negligence. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that one, the claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations and two, no special relationship (such as one between a doctor and patient) existed. The court agreed with the defendants. However, the Court of Appeals while affirming the trial court’s decision on breach of contract reversed the decision on negligence. The Court of Appeals stated that an administrative or statute rule could establish a standard of care independent from the contract.



The Oregon Supreme Court gave an example of cases where a tort claim could exist when a contract is present: “If an individual and a contractor enter into a contract to build a house, which provides that the contractor will install only copper pipe, but the contractor installs PVC pipe instead (assuming both kinds of pipe comply with the building code and the use of either would be consistent with the standard of care expected of contractors), that failure would be a breach of contract only. […] If the failure to install the copper pipe caused a reduction in the value of the house, the plaintiff would be able to recover that amount in an action for breach of contract. […] On the other hand, if the contractor installed the PVC pipe in a defective manner and those pipes therefore leaked, causing property damage to the house, the homeowner would have claims in both contract and tort. […] In those circumstances, the obligation to install copper instead of PVC pipe is purely contractual; the manner of installing the pipe, however, implicates both contract and tort because of the foreseeable risk of property damage that can result from improperly installed pipes.”



Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Construction Defect Settlement in Seattle

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that a settlement has been reached in the Mosler Lofts construction defect claim. The settlement received by the homeowners was for about $8.5 million, which will used for repairs of the construction defects and for paying their legal costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Sanctions Issued for Frivolous Hurricane Sandy Complaint Filed Against Insurer

February 26, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court for the district of New Jersey cracked down on a Texas law firm that filed 250 Hurricane Sandy related cases against insurers without adequate investigation. Lighthouse Point Marina & Yacht Club, LLC v. Int'l Marine Underwriters, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6430 (D. N.J. Jan. 20, 2015). The Texas firm filed more that 250 actions in New Jersey courts against insurers to recover for alleged property damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. The original complaints were nearly identical with the same typos. The complaint in this case alleged that the insurer did not pay benefits under the policy for "extreme external and internal damages, as well as other wind-related loss," but did not specify the value or nature of the damage. The insurer answered that it sent an adjuster to the property soon after the storm and found wind damages to two fences, but no damage to any building on the property. The adjuster valued the claim at $1,612.00 and recommended a payment of $612.00, after applying the $1000 deductible. 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

---