Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Close Enough Only Counts in Horseshoes and Hand Grenades

March 08, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In State Farm General Insurance Company v. Oetiker, Inc., Case No. B302348 (December 18, 2020), a manufacturer sued in subrogation action under the Right to Repair Act almost got away. Almost. The Oetiker Case James and Jennifer Philson’s home was substantially completed, and a notice of completion was recorded, in 2004. In 2016, the Philsons tendered a claim to their homeowner’s insurance carrier, State Farm General Insurance Company, after their home experienced significant water damage due to a defective stainless steel ear clamp. In 2018, after paying the Philson’s claim, State Farm filed a subrogation action against the manufacturer of the ear clamp, Oetiker, Inc. State Farm’s complaint, which included causes of action for negligence, strict products liability and breach of implied warranty, alleged that the home was “damaged by a water leak from the failure of a defective stainless steel ear claim on a water PEX fitting” and that the ear clamp was “defective when it left the control of [Oetiker].” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Now Available: Seyfarth’s 50 State Lien Law Notice Requirements Guide (2023-2024 Edition)

December 23, 2023 — Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Seyfarth’s Construction team is pleased to announce the release of our 2023-2024 edition of the 50 State Lien Law Notice Requirements Guide. The Guide provides the general time requirements for filing lien notices in each state, plus Washington, DC. Reprinted courtesy of Seyfarth Shaw LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Coverage for Contractor's Faulty Workmanship

July 10, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Kentucky Supreme Court determined there was no coverage for the contractor's faulty workmanship in digging the existing basement of a building to make it deeper. Martin v. Acuity, 2018 Ky. LEXIS 188 (Ky. April 26, 2018). Martin Elias/Properties, LLC (MEP) purchased an older home to renovate and resell for profit. MEP hired Tony Gosney to renovate and expand the basement. Gosney agreed to dig the existing basement deeper, pour new footers and pour a new concrete floor. While performing his work, Gosney failed to support the existing foundation adequately before digging around it. Within days, the old foundation began to crack and eventually the entire structure began to sag. Gosney stopped work and notified his insurer, Acuity. 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

NY Court Holds Excess Liability Coverage Could Never be Triggered Where Employers’ Liability Policy Provided Unlimited Insurance Coverage

February 28, 2018 — Theresa A. Guertin and Samantha M. Martino - SDV Blog
In a potentially significant development in New York insurance law, a recent appellate level decision held that an excess liability policy was not obligated to provide coverage where the underlying employer’s liability policy provided unlimited coverage pursuant to New York regulations. The Arthur Vincent & Sons Construction, Inc. v. Century Surety Insurance Co.1 case arose out of an underlying wrongful death claim. Fordham University hired Arthur Vincent and Sons Construction, Inc. (“AVSC”) to install a new roof on its Lewis Calder Center. As is typical of most construction contracts, AVSC agreed to indemnify the University against any claims arising out of its negligence, and to name the University as an additional insured on its commercial general liability policy. AVSC was insured by three policies: (1) a worker’s compensation and employer’s liability policy issued by Commerce and Industry Insur¬ance Company (“CIIC”); (2) a primary CGL policy issued by Century Surety Insurance Company (“Century”); and (3) an excess liability policy issued by Admiral Insurance Company (“Admiral”). Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Samantha M. Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com Ms. Martino may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

COVID-19 Win for Policyholders! Court Approves "Direct Physical Loss" Argument

October 12, 2020 — Gregory D. Podolak & Christine Baptiste-Perez - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Late last week, a Missouri federal district court provided a significant victory for insurance policyholders for COVID-19 losses. In Studio 417, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company 6:20-cv-03127-SRB (W.D. MO, So. Div., Aug. 12, 2020), the Court was called upon to decide whether allegations involving the presence of COVID-19 in and around physical structures qualify as “direct physical loss or damage” to covered property. For those actively monitoring the COVID-19 insurance coverage litigation landscape, this has been a central question – and hotly contested debate – in virtually all first-party property and business interruption claims. Through a detailed and well-reasoned discussion, the Court answered the question with an emphatic “Yes.” The Plaintiffs – a proposed class of hair salons and restaurants - purchased “all-risk” property insurance policies (the “Policies”) from Cincinnati. The Policies provide that Cincinnati would pay for “direct ‘loss’ unless the ‘loss’ is excluded or limited.” They also defined a “Covered Cause of Loss” as “accidental [direct] physical loss or accidental [direct] physical damage.” The Policies did not contain a virus exclusion. Anecdotally, Cincinnati has been vocal about the general lack of virus exclusions on its standard forms, having recently publicized that the company considers such exclusions “unnecessary” because, in its view, “a virus does not produce direct physical damage or loss to property.” From Cincinnati’s perspective, the insuring agreement is not triggered by these events, so there’s no need to analyze exclusions. Cincinnati relied heavily on that analysis in this case. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Christine Baptiste-Perez, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Podolak may be contacted at gdp@sdvlaw.com Ms. Baptiste-Perez may be contacted at cbp@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Litigation Roundup: “That’s Not How I Read It”

June 05, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A general contractor seeking to litigate with its subcontractor concerning a construction project in Indiana found itself fighting in court against assertions by the sub that arbitration of the dispute was required. The GC was already in litigation in federal court with the project owner. The GC filed a third-party demand against the sub, which was met with a motion to stay and to compel arbitration. At the crux of the sub’s argument was this clause in its subcontract: “Subcontractor agrees that the dispute resolution provisions of the Prime Contract between [GC] and Owner, if any, are incorporated by reference as part of this Subcontract so as to be binding as to disputes between Subcontractor and [GC] that involve, in whole or in part, questions of fact and/or law that are common to any dispute between [GC] and Owner or others similarly bound to such dispute resolution procedures... ." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Construction Attorneys Tell DBR that Business is on the Rise

October 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Daily Business Review reported that Florida “attorneys anticipate lawsuits over construction defects, workmanship, change orders and warranties.” "We construction lawyers know this wave of litigation is coming, and we are getting ready," said attorney Jason Kellogg, a partner at Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman in Miami, told the Daily Business Review. Kellogg also stated that “there is a shortage of skilled workers in areas such as plumbing, electrical and other specialities that almost inevitably will lead to subpar work and defect litigation.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Once Again: Contract Terms Matter

May 11, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I know, you’ve heard this over and over again here at Construction Law Musings: courts in Virginia will interpret a contract strictly and in a manner that gives meaning to its unambiguous terms. A recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court, White Oak Power Constructors v. Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, reinforces this point. The basic facts of the case relevant to this discussion and the Court’s opinion are these. Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) hired White Oak Power Constructors (White Oak) to build a natural gas power plant. The contract between ODEC and White Oak provided for liquidated damages for delay and also contained a risk of loss provision making ODEC responsible for certain losses or damages due to property damage at the plant. I highly recommend that you read the facts of the case in full to get the details of the terms of these clauses. Needless to say (or this case wouldn’t be the subject of a construction law blog), the project ran past completion date and liquidated damages were assessed to the tune of more than $50,000,000.00. The delay was alleged to have been caused in substantial part by property damage due to weather, fire, and ice among other causes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES