FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2023 Illinois Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

February 01, 2023 — Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that two Partners from the Chicago, IL office have been selected to the 2023 Illinois Super Lawyers list. In addition, two Partners have been named to the 2023 Super Lawyers Rising Stars list. 2023 Illinois Super Lawyers

• Brian Bassett – Insurance Coverage
• Dana Rice – Insurance Coverage

2023 Super Lawyers Rising Stars

• Jessica Kull – Civil Litigation: Defense
• Jeremy Macklin – Insurance Coverage

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

---

BHA has a Nice Swing Donates to CDCCF

May 21, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Bert L. Howe & Associates (BHA) would like to congratulate the winners of the BHA Has a Nice Swing golf game for charity. With the help of the participants, BHA was able to donate $1800 to the Construction Defect Community Charitable Foundation (CDCCF). CDCCF was established to provide financial assistance for active members of the construction defect community who have uninsured expenses because of a disability, sickness, and/or the death of a community member or their immediate family member. BHA would also like to congratulate their booth’s raffle winners. Prizes included an iPad Air, four sets of Dodger tickets, a Day at the Del Mar Races, and Best Buy gift cards. Read how the CDCCF assists the construction defect community... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

#4 CDJ Topic: Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc.

December 30, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In the above mentioned case, a Texas architectural firm (HKS Architects, Inc.) hired a California design firm (Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc.) as a sub-consultant, according to Garret Murai of Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP in a post on his California Construction Law Blog. After Vita filed a complaint in California against HKS, HKS filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the landscape design contract included a “Texas forum selection clause.” The court found in favor of Vita, stating that “section 410.42 precludes enforcement of the forum selection clause requiring Vita to litigate its dispute against HKS in Texas.” Read the full story... In their article, “Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of ‘Contractor’ for Forum Selection Clauses,” Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Abigail E. Lighthart and David A. Harris also analyzed the Vita case: “The Vita ruling expands the protections by Section 410.42 beyond traditional ‘builders’ to design professionals and architects who do not actually ‘build’ a project. What remains to be seen is whether other courts will take the expansion to cover other groups that are in any way involved in a construction project.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Georgia Supreme Court Says Construction Defects Can Be an “Occurrence”

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled in an insurance coverage case, concluding that under a commercial general liability policy, defective construction can count as an occurrence. William Wildman and Kent Collier discuss the case in a Legal Alert published by their firm, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP. The court decisions came about after the U.S. Court of Appeals certified the question to the Georgia Supreme Court. Wildman and Collier note that the Georgia Supreme Court “after analyzing recent Georgia decisions regarding CGL insurance and construction defects, as well as noting cases from other jurisdictions, held that ‘an “occurrence” as the term is used in a standard CGL policy, does not require damage to the property or work of someone other than the insured.” The court also “held that an ‘occurrence’ must arise from liability for a causeof action that is consistent with the concept that the ‘occurrence’ is ‘accidental.’” However, they note that the court also concluded that “certain ‘business risk’ coverage exclusions common in many standard CGL policies may apply to exclude coverage for defective construction even though such defective construction constitutes an ‘occurrence.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Mexico City Metro Collapse Kills 24 After Neighbors’ Warnings

May 17, 2021 — Max De Haldevang & Maya Averbuch - Bloomberg
The collapse of a long-troubled Mexico City metro track killed 24 people and put two of President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador’s top allies in the line of fire Monday night, after a decade of safety concerns and probes surrounding the project. About 79 people were injured, Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum said Tuesday. A broken beam led to the incident on the Golden Line of the metro system, she said. An international agency and the attorney general’s office will investigate. Reprinted courtesy of Max De Haldevang, Bloomberg and Maya Averbuch, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Resulting Loss From Faulty Workmanship Covered

May 20, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Washington Supreme Court found there was coverage for resulting loss despite the original faulty contraction, an exclusion in the policy. Gardens Condominium v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 544 P.3d 499 (Wash. 2024). Farmers issued a policy to Gardens Condominium providing coverage for loss or damage caused by a "Covered Cause of Loss." "Covered Cause of Loss" was defined as any risk of direct physical loss. However, a loss was not covered if it was caused by an excluded event. The policy further provided that damage was caused by an excluded event if that event "initiates a sequence of events that results in loss or damage, regardless of the nature of any intermediate or final event in that sequence." The policy excluded coverage for faulty, inadequate, or defective design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, or renovation. The faulty workmanship exclusion also contained a resulting loss exception: "[I]f loss or damage caused by a Covered Cause of Loss results, we will pay for that resulting loss or damage." Gardens found damage to the building that was caused by faulty design and construction of the building's roof. There was insufficient interior vents and the design of the rafters and joists prevented need ventilation Water vapor condensed on the underside of the roof sheathing, causing damage. Gardens redesigned and repaired the roof assembly to increase ventilation and eliminate condensation by installing sleepers on top of the joists. 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

---

Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 2: Coverage for Smoke-Related Damages

July 03, 2022 — Scott P. DeVries & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
For many policyholders, smoke emanating from wildfire causes as much if not more damage than the fire itself. In this post in the Blog’s Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, we discuss damages caused by smoke emanating from wildfires. Some insurers argue that policies are limited to fire damage to the insured property and do not include smoke damage associated with nearby fires. A treatise frequently cited by insurers states otherwise: “The concept that fire insurance covers non-fire damage which is the proximate result of fire finds application also when the fire occurs on other property and causes harm to the insured property. In such case, the harm to the insured property, even though it is a non-fire harm, has long been recognized to be the result of fire, and, therefore, within the policy coverage.”[1] Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

September 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire has ruled in the case Wyle v. Lees. The Leeses owned a two-unit apartment building in North Conway, New Hampshire. They hired a contractor to add a third, larger apartment, including a two-car garage. The Leeses and their contractor submitted a building permit application. They were informed that site plan review was required. After receiving approval on the site plan, construction started. At no point did they obtain a building permit and the construction was never inspected. The Leeses subsequently added more space to the unit, reducing parking spaces below the minimum required. Again, they did not obtain a building permit.

In 2007, three years after all these changes were complete, the Leeses sold their building to Mr. Wyle. To the question “are you aware of any modifications or repairs made without the necessary permits?” they answered “no.” About six weeks after closing, Wyle “received a letter from the town code enforcement officer regarding the legality of the removal of a garage door from the new unit.” A subsequent inspection revealed “numerous building and life safety code violations.”

Mr. Wyle brought a claim against the Leeses for negligent misrepresentation. The defendants filed a motion “seeking to preclude economic loss damages.” At a two-day bench trial, Mr. Wyle won. The Leeses appealed.

The appeals court found that “the defendants negligently misrepresented that the premises were licensed for immediate occupancy and that the defendants had obtained all necessary permits,” and thus upheld the lower court’s finding of negligent misrepresentation. The appeals court also rejected the Leeses’ argument that damages must be apportioned on all parties, including “the plaintiff himself, the plaintiff’s building inspector, and the defendant’s contractor,” finding a lack of “adequate evidence.”

The Leeses further argued that they were unaware that modifications and repairs were accomplished without the required permits. The appeals court noted that “the trial court found that both the conditional approval and final approval for the site plan stated that a building permit and a certificate of occupancy were required prior to any use.” The court concluded that the Leeses “knew or should have known of the falsity of their representation.”

The appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---