Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Insurer Incorrectly Relies Upon "Your Work" Exclusion to Deny Coverage

June 10, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's determination that there was no coverage based upon the policy's "your work" exclusion. Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Mac Contractors of Fla, LLC, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10689 (11th Cir. April 11, 2019). Mac Contractors contracted with the homeowners to custom build their home. After construction began, Mac left the site before completing the project and before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The homeowners sued, alleged damage to wood floors and the metal roof. Southern-Owners originally agreed to defend under the CGL policy, but later withdrew the defense and filed this action for declaratory relief. The parties cross-filed motions for summary judgment. Southern-Owners argued that the "your work" exclusion applied to bar coverage. The "your work" exclusion barred coverage for "'property damage' to 'your work' arising out of it or any part of it and included in the 'products' completed operations hazard.'" The "products' completed operations hazard" included all "'property damage' occurring away from premises you own or rent and arising out of . . . 'your work' except . . . (1) products that are still in your physical possession; or (2) work that has not yet been completed or abandoned." 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

The Prompt Payment Rollercoaster

February 23, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
This past year we wrote about a case involving California’s prompt payment laws and the current state of confusion with the prompt payment statutes which are scattered throughout the state Code and which are inconsistent in the use of their terminology and, thus importantly, application. In United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., California Court of Appeals for the Second District, Case No. B258860 (December 18, 2015), the Court of Appeals for the Second District addressed whether under one of the prompt payment statutes, Civil Code section 8814, a general contractor may withhold retention without being subject to prompt payment penalties if there is a dispute of any kind between the general contractor and the subcontractor, or only when the dispute relates to the retention itself. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Does Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code Impact Your Construction Project?

November 07, 2022 — Chris Cazenave - ConsensusDocs
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is a set of statutes governing commercial transactions. Every state has adopted the UCC or some version of it. Understanding when and how the UCC applies to construction contracts is important because it can affect the agreement’s terms. Article 2 of the UCC applies to the sales of goods, which the UCC defines very broadly to mean “all things (including specialty manufactured goods) which are movable . . . other than money in which the price is to be paid . . . .” UCC § 2-105. For the construction industry, UCC Article 2 governs most, if not all, purchases of materials and equipment installed or incorporated into the project. As a result, contractors and subcontractors should be familiar with the circumstances under which Article 2 may apply and how it may affect the project. This article provides a brief overview of when Article 2 may affect your construction project and why it matters. The article also generally covers the UCC’s potential effects on the applicable statute of limitations, implied warranties, and when the obligation to make the payment arises. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chris Cazenave, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Cazenave may be contacted at ccazenave@joneswalker.com

New Jersey Construction Worker Sentenced for Home Repair Fraud

October 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Marcin Gradziel, who formerly worked for a construction company in Camden County, New Jersey, has been sentenced to seven years in state prison for insurance fraud. Mr. Gradziel admitted to creating fraudulent property damage claims, which he did for Precision Network Solutions, which did business as Precision Builders. Mr. Gradziel and others went through neighborhoods telling residents that their roofs or siding were damaged by hail and that they could get their homes repaired at no cost. Mr. Gradziel would then return to create damage before the inspectors arrived. Another employee, Dominik Sadowski, previously plead guilty, as did Precision Builders. The firm paid out $68,720 in restitution and is now out of business. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Back to Basics – Differing Site Conditions

December 19, 2018 — Tracey W. Pruiett - Smith Currie
Encountering an unexpected site condition is one of the more common risks on a construction project. A “differing site condition”, or it is sometimes called a “changed condition”, is generally understood to be a physical condition that is discovered while performing work and that was not visible or otherwise expected at the time of bidding. Often, the condition could not have been discovered by a reasonable site investigation. Examples of common differing site conditions include: soil with inadequate bearing capacity to support the building being constructed, soil that cannot be reused as structural fill, unanticipated groundwater, quicksand, mud, rock formations, or other artificial subsurface obstructions. Differing site conditions may also occur within the walls or ceilings of a renovation project such as the renovation of a hospital or historic building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tracey W. Pruiett, Smith Currie
Ms. Pruiett may be contacted at twpruiett@smithcurrie.com

Alabama Limits Duty to Defend for Construction Defects

October 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
While supreme courts in several states have expanded what is covered under a commercial general liability policy, Alabama has bucked the trend. Martha P. Brown and David L. Brown discuss this in a post on the site of their firm, Nelson Levine de Luca & Hamilton. They note that in a recent case, Owners Insurance Company v. Jim Carr Homebuilders, “the court held that liability for defective construction resulting in water intrusion damage to otherwise properly constructed component parts is not covered under a general contractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy because such damages are not caused by an ‘occurrence.’” The background of Owners v. Jim Carr was that the work of the subcontractors was found not only to be defective, but responsible for damage to correctly performed work. The court held, however, that it was all part of the same project. The court “distinguished the present case from a situation where the insured’s work results in damages to other property outside the scope of the insured’s work,” which they noted could be covered under a CGL policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Philadelphia Proposed Best Value Procurement Bill

December 08, 2016 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
An opinion piece in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer concerning proposed legislation that would change the way the City of Philadelphia awards public construction projects is causing quite a stir. The article concerns legislation that would allow the City to award public construction contracts based on a “best value” approach rather than the current requirement that the contract be awarded to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. The author worries that by removing the current objective criteria and replacing it with subjective ones, contracts can be steered to politically favored contractors. The author cites the recent no-bid contract awarded to a law firm run by the friend of Mayor Jim Kenney as an example of the chaos would ensue if this bill was passed. Considering that the Bill’s sponsor, Bobby Hennon, is under FBI investigation, and some of the Mayor’s biggest supporters are as well, the author has ever right to be concerned. However, article comes up short in explaining what the Bill says and what best value procurement, if adopted, would mean for public construction work in Philadelphia. First, the Bill that Councilman Hennon is proposing is actually a Bill that would make the best value procurement question a ballot question next November. In other words, the Bill, if passed, would but to a City wide vote the question of whether the City should change it procurement practices to permit the best value approach to be used in addition to the low bid approach that is current used. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Update Regarding McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct.

April 28, 2016 — Richard H. Glucksman and David A. Napper – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger In Focus
The construction industry continues to await the California Supreme Court's highly anticipated decision regarding McMillin Albany LLC v. Super Ct. 2015 F069370 (Cal.App.5 Dist.). The Supreme Court will attempt to resolve the conflict presented by the Fourth Appellate District Court's holding in Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98 and rejection of the same by the Fifth Appellate District Court in McMillin Albany. The issue is whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2013. CGDRB has been closely monitoring the progress of the case and understands that the real parties in interest have submitted their opening brief on the merits. The Court granted Petitioners a further and final extension to file the answer brief on the merits. The answer deadline is Monday April 25, 2016. Stay tuned. Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and David A. Napper, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES