Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

South Carolina Legislature Redefining Occurrences to Include Construction Defects in CGL Policies

April 01, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFF

The question of what circumstances must be in place for construction defects to be covered in a general commercial liability (CGL) policies is being raised by the courts and the legislature in South Carolina. The Insurance Journal reports that the American Insurance Association as well as the Property and Casualty Insurers Association of America are speaking out on the issue.

The problem seems to be centered on what defines an “occurrence.” CGL policies were not meant to cover faulty workmanship, according to the filing by the South Carolina Supreme Court. In January of this year, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the ruling in Crossmann Communities v Harleysville Mutual declaring that “Respondents cannot show the damage here was the result of an occurrence. Rather, the damage was a direct result and the natural and expected consequence of faulty workmanship; faulty workmanship did not cause an occurrence resulting in damage.” They focused their attention on the word “accident,” stating that there is a fortuity element that is not diminished.

The South Carolina legislature reacted by producing a bill that would add new language directly negating the ruling by the Supreme Court. The South Carolina bill S-431 would change the definition of an occurrence in regards to construction defects as follows: “For a liability insurance policy issued to a construction professional, an ‘occurrence’ means, at a minimum: (1) an accident; or (2) continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful condition or substance. No additional requirement of a fortuitous event is needed to constitute an ‘occurrence.’”

S-431 is currently residing in the House Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.

Read the full story...

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

Construction Defects through the Years

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Builder has an article on the some building changes over the years that have led to construction defect problems. Is insulation evil? Well, that what some thought in the 1930s. Early attempts at insulating walls trapped moisture causing paint to peel. Then in the 1960s, the rise of aluminum wire lead to an even more serious problem: house fires. And it continues. The plastic piping that was though to last forever when it was installed in the late 70s turned out to have about a decade of life. It’s a short forever. Eventually, polybutylene plumbing was forbidden by building codes. The article has a series of building innovations that seemed like great ideas at the time, but were later found to be problematic. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Obtains Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss in Favor of Defendant

August 16, 2021 — Lisa M. Rolle - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle obtained a motion to dismiss in favor of an international hotel chain. In the case brought before the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, the Plaintiff sustained a slip and fall injury in a Portuguese hotel (“Hotel”), which was allegedly caused by violations of building codes and New York and Portuguese negligence laws. The Plaintiff notes that the Hotel utilized the branding affiliated with the international hotel chain, and the named corporate entities are subsidiaries of the parent company of the international hotel chain. Further, Plaintiff alleged that the named corporate entities “owned, operated, maintained, and controlled” the Hotel where the accident occurred, as the international hotel had previously acquired the entity which owned the spa branding utilized. In moving for pre-answer dismissal, Traub Lieberman acknowledged purchase of the managing agent of the Hotel, which became a subsidiary of their operations. However, Traub Lieberman asserted that the international hotel chain had not owned, operated, maintained, or managed the Hotel. Under New York law, parent corporations cannot be held liable for the actions of their subsidiaries, except in cases that support piercing the corporate veil. Traub Lieberman argued that the motion should be granted as a parent company cannot be held liable for acts committed by its subsidiary and further claimed that the parent company has never owned or operated the Hotel. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com

Professional Liability and Attorney-Client Privilege Bulletin: Intra-Law Firm Communications

January 07, 2015 — David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Attorney-Client Privilege Protects Confidential Communications Between Law Firm Attorney Representing Current Client and Firm’s General Counsel Regarding Disputes with Client Who Later Files Malpractice Suit In a case of first impression in California, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP v. Superior Court (No. B255182 - filed November 25, 2014), Division Three of the Second District Court of Appeal addressed the question of whether the attorney-client privilege applies to intrafirm communications between law firm attorneys concerning disputes with a current client, when that client later sues the firm for malpractice and seeks to compel production of such communications. The court concluded that when an attorney representing a current client seeks legal advice from the law firm’s designated in-house “general counsel” concerning disputes with the client, the attorney-client privilege applies to their confidential communications. The court held that adoption of the so-called “fiduciary” or “current client” exceptions to the attorney-client privilege is contrary to California law because California courts are precluded from creating implied exceptions to the statutorily created attorney-client privilege. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com; Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Building Down in November, Even While Home Sales Rise

January 17, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Chicago Sun-Times reports that construction saw a small decline in November, the first since the spring. Happily, though this was the first dip in eight months, construction spending dropped only 0.3 percent, compared to October. The Sun-Times noted that the level of construction is well below what is considered healthy for the economy, while still being above the low of February 2011. While fewer homes (and other buildings) were built, sales of new homes were up 4.4 percent in November. Home purchases were at their highest rate in more than two years. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Update Relating to SB891 and Bond Claim Waivers

June 10, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Several bills were passed and will go into effect on July 1, 2015 that affect the construction industry here in Virginia. The most interesting of these was an amendment to the mechanic’s lien statutes relating to waivers of lien rights. As I posted in March, SB891 amended the mechanic’s lien statute, Va. Code Section 43-3, to remove proactive waivers of lien and bond rights. This bill has been signed into law with a minor modification. 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

Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

October 10, 2013 — Bret Cogdill — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
An issue that has plagued builders in Colorado construction defect litigation is the difficulty of getting additional insured carriers to fully participate in the builder’s defense, oftentimes leaving the builder to fund its own defense during the course of the litigation. Many additional insurers offer a variety of positions regarding why they will not pay for fees and costs during the course of a lawsuit. Some insurers argue that, until after trial, it is impossible to determine its proper share of the defense, and therefore cannot make any payments until the liability is determined as to all of the potentially contributing policies. (This is often referred to as the “defense follows indemnity” approach.) Others may make an opening contribution to defense fees and costs, but fall silent as fees and costs accumulate. In such an event, the builder may be forced to fund all or part of its own defense, while the uncooperative additional insured carrier waits for the end of the lawsuit or is faced with other legal action before it makes other contributions. Recent orders in two, currently ongoing, U.S. District Court cases provide clarity on the duty to defend in Colorado, holding that multiple insurers’ duty to defend is joint and several. The insured does not have to go without a defense while the various insurers argue amongst themselves as to which insurer pays what share. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bret Cogdill
Bret Cogdill can be contacted at cogdill@hhmrlaw.com

Draft Federal Legislation Reinforces Advice to Promptly Notify Insurers of COVID-19 Losses

April 20, 2020 — James Hultz - Newmeyer Dillion
Insurers across the country are nearly universally denying claims for business interruption stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. Those denials have in turn been met with swift litigation and potential legislative action. The first business interruption coverage lawsuit related to COVID-19 was filed in New Orleans on March 16. There are now no less than 13 such cases nationwide and many more are likely to follow. Further, legislatures in at least seven states are considering legislation that would, to varying degrees, mandate business interruption coverage for COVID-19 losses, notwithstanding any seemingly contrary policy provisions. From the early stages of the pandemic, we have consistently advised our clients to promptly notify their insurers of all COVID-19 related losses, even where coverage appeared uncertain. The deluge of coverage litigation and contemplated legislation could drastically alter how insurers handle COVID-19 claims. But policyholders who have failed to satisfy policy notice requirements could miss out on the benefits of those changes. Therefore, policyholders would be ill-advised to sit on the sidelines and wait it out. Now, draft Federal legislation appears to add further impetus to instructions to “tender early.” The contemplated “Pandemic Risk Insurance Act of 2020” would reportedly devote billions of dollars of federal funds through a Department of Treasury administered reinsurance program designed to offset losses sustained by insurers who actually pay business interruption losses. The legislation is still taking shape but would reportedly create “a Federal program that provides for a transparent system of shared public and private compensation for business interruption losses resulting from a pandemic or outbreak of communicable disease.” President Trump is also reportedly pressuring insurers to provide business interruption coverage. The massive influx of federal funds and pressure from the White House could encourage insurers to reconsider denials of COVID-19 business interruption claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Hultz may be contacted at james.hultz@ndlf.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES