FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Stucco Contractor Trying to Limit Communication in Construction Defect Case

November 13, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
South Carolina State Plastering claimed in the South Carolina Court of Appeals that communication between attorneys and residents of a retirement community could undermine the judgment in the case. Residents of Sun City had filed a class action lawsuit over problems with stucco in the community. Phillip Segul, the plaintiffs’ attorney, noted that plasterer was “directly communicating with the class members and getting them to sign opt-outs and releases of their claims,” although this was something that Everett Kendall, the plasterer’s attorney denied. The lawsuit has been grinding along for six years. Some residents fear they won’t outlive the construction defect lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Coverage Fun House Mirror: When Things Are Not What They Seem

December 14, 2020 — Randy J. Maniloff - White and Williams LLP
When it comes to commercial general liability coverage, sometimes things are not what they seem. Some policy language looks like it has a clear meaning. But it turns out that there is more than meets the eye. To see this, you need not look further than the first page of the commercial general liability form. Take its insuring agreement. Its words are by now etched in stone tablets. But even so. Any potential coverage is tied, in part, to damages because of “bodily injury.” Everyone knows what “bodily injury” is. The blood and broken bones are hard to miss. But is emotional injury bodily injury? Or what about hair loss, weight loss, fragile fingernails, loss of sleep, crying or a knot in your stomach? Courts have been required to address whether all of these are “bodily injury.” And was that “bodily injury” caused by an “occurrence?” as required by the CGL insuring agreement? An “occurrence” is defined as an accident. Of course everyone knows what an accident is. Then why is it the oldest and most litigated coverage question of them all, with courts struggling with it for about 150 years? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Randy J. Maniloff, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Maniloff may be contacted at maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Are Construction Defect Claims Covered Under CGL Policies?

January 27, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Courts have ruled differently as to whether a construction defect is or is not an “occurrence,” according to the publication Business Insurance. Four states—Colorado, Arkansas, Hawaii and South Carolina—have sought to remove ambiguity by passing statutes that define construction defect claims as occurrences. Colorado, the first state to create such a statue, passed H. B. 10-1394 in May 2010. The state legislature passed the statute “because of the complex and lengthy endorsements and exclusions facing construction professionals, according to the bill” reported Business Insurance. The article stated that “incongruous court decisions over whether construction defect claims are covered under CGL policies continue to drive uncertainty in coverage and increase litigation costs.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion

August 11, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Mosser Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., No. 09-4449 (6th Cir. July 14, 2011)(unpublished), claimant project owner Port Clinton contracted with insured general contractor Mosser for the construction of a building.  Following completion, Port Clinton sued Mosser for breach of contract seeking damages because of physical injury to the project occurring after completion resulting from defective backfill material that settled improperly.

Mosser’s CGL insurer Travelers denied a defense and Mosser filed suit against Travelers seeking a declaratory judgment. Mosser and Travelers filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the supplier of the backfill material?Gerken?qualified as a subcontractor for purposes of the subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion—exclusion l.—for property damage to or arising out of Mosser’s completed work.   Mosser had purchased the backfill material from Gerken pursuant to a purchase order specifying that Gerken was to supply Mosser with an industry standard grade of backfill for use in the Port Clinton project.

Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

---

Montana Supreme Court: Insurer Not Bound by Insured's Settlement

December 02, 2019 — K. Alexandra Byrd - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In Draggin’ Y Cattle Co., Inc. v. Junkermier, et al.1 the Montana Supreme Court held that where an insurer defends its insured and the insured subsequently settles the claims without an insurer’s participation, a court may approve the settlement as between the underlying plaintiff and underlying defendant, but the settlement will not be presumed reasonable as to the insurer. Therefore, an insurer who defends its insured cannot be bound by a stipulated settlement that the insurer did not expressly consent to. The case involved Draggin’ Y Cattle Company (the “Cattle Company”), a ranching and cattle business that utilized the services of an accounting firm, Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. (“Junkermier”), to structure the sale of real property to take advantage of favorable tax treatment. It was discovered that Junkermier’s employee misinformed the Cattle Company’s owners of the tax consequences of the sale. The Cattle Company’s owners subsequently filed suit against Junkermier and its employee and alleged nearly $12,000,000 in damages due to the error. Junkermier’s insurer, New York Marine, provided a defense for Junkermier and its employee. The Cattle Company’s owners offered to settle the claims against Junkermier and its employee for $2,000,000, the policy limit of the New York Marine policy. New York Marine refused to give its consent or tender the policy’s limit. Subsequently, Junkermier, its employee, and the Cattle Company entered into their own settlement agreement for $10,000,000. The settlement was contingent upon a reasonableness hearing to approve the stipulated agreement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Byrd may be contacted by kab@sdvlaw.com

---

COVID-19 Is Not Direct Physical Loss Or Damage

April 13, 2020 — Joseph Blyskal, Dennis Brown & Michelle Bernard - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law Blog
Is a cash register that is not being used damaged property? When you need to wash a table, a chair, or a section of flooring with readily available cleaning products to make them safe and useable, are you repairing damaged property? Is a spilled cup of coffee waiting to be wiped up actual damage to the premises? If your customers stay home to help stop the spread of a virus, has there been a physical loss inside your shuttered store or restaurant? The insuring agreements typically found in commercial property insurance policies require “direct physical loss of or damage to” covered property as the triggering event. Without establishing direct physical loss or damage a policyholder cannot meet its burden to trigger coverage for a purely economic loss of business income resulting from shuttering its business due to concerns over exposure to—or even the actual presence of—COVID-19. Despite this well-understood policy language, it is already beyond question that insurers will confront creative—albeit strained—arguments from policyholder firms attempting to trigger coverage for pure economic loss. The scope of the human and economic tragedy we all face will be matched by the scope of the effort to force the financial harm onto insurance companies. The plaintiffs in what appears to be the first-filed case seeking a declaratory judgment in the context of first-party insurance coverage rely on the assertion that “contamination of the insured premises by the Coronavirus would be a direct physical loss needing remediation to clean the surfaces” of its establishment, a New Orleans restaurant, to trigger coverage for business interruption.[1] See Cajun Conti, LLC, et. al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et. al. Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. The complaint alleges that the property is insured under an “all risk policy” defining “covered causes of loss” as “direct physical loss.” The plaintiffs rely on the alleged presence of the virus on “the surface of objects” in certain conditions and the need to clean those surfaces. They go so far as to claim that “[a]ny effort by [the insurer] to deny the reality that the virus causes physical damage and loss would constitute a false and potentially fraudulent misrepresentation. . . .” Reprinted courtesy of Gordon & Rees attorneys Joseph Blyskal, Dennis Brown and Michelle Bernard Mr. Blyskal may be contacted at tblatchley@grsm.com Mr. Brown may be contacted at dbrown@grsm.com Ms. Bernard may be contacted at mbernard@grsm.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Another Municipality Takes Action to Address the Lack of Condominiums Being Built in its Jurisdiction

March 12, 2015 — Heather M. Anderson – Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Whether you are in the market to downsize or are looking to be a first time home buyer, you have likely noticed that your housing options in Colorado have become extremely limited over the course of the last several years. If you are a contractor and have worked on multi-family projects in the recent past, you know why the housing options are limited in the State of Colorado. In the past two years, there have been studies commissioned and articles published in local periodicals investigating the extreme slowdown seen in the construction of owner-occupied multi-family housing, namely condominiums and townhomes. Those of us involved in and with the construction industry are intimately familiar with the lengthy, complicated, and incredibly expensive construction defect litigation that has plagued multi-family construction in the State of Colorado and brought it to a virtual halt. And now, local municipalities and elected officials are starting to take notice. Most recently, the City of Lone Tree passed Ordinance No. 15-01, to become effective on April 1, 2015. According to the City of Lone Tree, Ordinance No. 15-01 is “aimed at encouraging the development of owner-occupied, multi-family residential projects through the adoption of regulations designed to balance the risk and exposure to builders and developers of such projects, while still protecting homeowners from legitimate construction defect claims.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heather M. Anderson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Anderson may be contacted at Anderson@hhmrlaw.com

---

The Colorado Construction Defect Reform Act Explained

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Colorado passed its Construction Action Defect Reform Act twelve years ago, but as Anne K. McMichael of Zupkus & Angell, PC, points out, “while portions of this act are reasonably straightforward, several of the sections are subject to ongoing debate as to how these concepts should be applied to achieve fair and unbiased results.” The process for a construction defect claim under the CDARA starts with filing a notice of defects, after which the construction professional is permitted to inspect the alleged defect. The construction professional can then offer to repair or settle. The law offers protections for construction professionals who follow through with the process. But, as Ms. McMichael notes, these are denied to construction professionals who do not make offers, fail to meet settlement agreements, or offers a settlement that is insufficient for repairs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---