FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Ohio Supreme Court Holds No Occurence Arises from Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship

January 09, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ohio Supreme Court bucked the modern trend by finding that there was no coverage under CGL policy's the subcontractor's exception for faulty workmanship claimed against the insured. Ohio N. Univ. v. Charles Constr. Servs. 2018 Ohio LEXIS 2375 (Ohio Oct. 9, 2018). The University contracted with Charles Construction Services, Inc. to build a new luxury hotel and conference center on campus. After work was completed, the University discovered extensive water damage from hidden leaks that it believed were caused by the defective work of Charles Construction and its subcontractors. Repairs were made at the cost of $6 million. 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

---

Construction Litigation Roundup: “The New Empty Chair.”

June 04, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
In a unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court ruled that cases in litigation in federal court but which are determined to be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act should be stayed pending arbitration, not dismissed. Traditionally, some federal circuits treated the text of 9 U.S.C. §3 – which speaks in terms of a stay of a matter filed in court but referred to arbitration (“…shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement…”) – as discretionary, dismissing suits when all of the claims brought in the court were referred to arbitration. In the case, the plaintiffs sued in Arizona state court on labor law violations, and the case was removed to federal court. When the defendant moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss, the plaintiffs “conceded that all of their claims were arbitrable.” Nonetheless, the plaintiffs requested a stay of the case, which the district court refused, dismissing the case without prejudice. 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

---

Florida Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Homeowners Unaware of Construction Defects and Lack of Permits

December 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Florida Court of Appeals has ruled that a homeowner is not liable for defects in unpermitted alterations, reversing a lower court’s decision in Jensen v. Bailey. The Jensens sold their house to the Baileys. During the sale, the Jensens filled out a property disclosure statement, checking “no” to a question about “any improvement or additions to the property, whether by your or by others that have been constructed in violation of building codes or without necessary permits.”

After moving in, the Baileys discovered several problems with the home. One involved a defective sewer connection leading to repeated backups. The Baileys also found problems with remodeling the Jensens had done in the kitchen, master bath, and bedroom. The remodeling work was not done with required permits nor was it up to code.

The court noted that an earlier case, Johnson v. Davis, established four criteria: “the seller of a home must have knowledge of a defect in the property; the defect must materially affect the value of the property; the defect must not be readily observable and must be unknown to the buyer; and the buyer must establish that the seller failed to disclose the defect to the buyer.” The court found that the first of these criteria was crucial to determining the case.

In the Johnson ruling, the then Chief Justice dissented, fearing that the courts “would ultimately construe Johnson’s requirement of actual knowledge to permit a finding of liability based on constructive knowledge,” quoting Justice Boyd, “a rule of constructive knowledge will develop based on the reasoning that if the seller did not know of the defect, he should have known about it before attempting to sell the property.” The Appeals Court concluded that the lower court hit this point in ruling on Jensen v. Bailey.

Citing other Florida cases, the court noted that the Johnson rule does require “proof of the seller’s actual knowledge of the defect.” The court cited a case in which it was concluded that the seller “should have known” that there was circumstantial evidence was that the seller did know about the defects, as the seller had been involved in the construction of the home.

In the case of the Jensens, the lower court concluded that they did not know that the work was defective, nor did they know that they were obligated to obtain permits for it. The Appeals Court found this one fact sufficient to reverse the decision and remand the case to the lower court for a final judgment in favor of the Jensens.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Subcontractor Not Liable for Defending Contractor in Construction Defect Case

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals has ruled on January 9, 2012 in Hensel Phelps Construction Company v. Urata & Sons Cement, upholding the judgment of the lower court.



Hensel Phelps was the general contractor for a high-rise in Sacramento. They were sued by the owners of the building after problems were discovered in the concrete slabs of the building’s parking garage. Instead of welded steel wire mesh, the slabs had been constructed with fiber mesh. Hensel Phelps filed a cross-complaint against Urata Cement, the subcontractor that had performed the cement work. Urata refused to defend Hensel Phelps. The owners’ case was subsequently dismissed due to the statute of limitations.



Although the original case was over, Hensel Phelps continued in their claims against Urata. “Urata argued that a handwritten interlineation required Hensel Phelps to prove Urata was at fault for the injury alleged in the building owners’ complaint before Urata was obliged to defend Hensel Phelps in that action.”



The lower court concluded that Urata would have been obligated to defend Hensel Phelps if the owners’ lawsuit had alleged that the damage was due to the subcontractor’s work or if evidence at trial established this. The lower court found neither of these true. Instead, the use of the fiber mesh was a design issue and “that decision was outside the scope of the subcontractor’s work.”



During the trial, Hensel Phelps conceded that Urata was not at fault. The appeals court could find no reading of the contract that would cause Urata to be obligated to defend Hensel Phelps, calling Hensel Phelps’s reading of the contact as “grammatically infeasible.”



Judges Nicholson, Raye, and Butz upheld the decision of the lower court and awarded costs on appeal to Urata.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes

September 01, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

This is the fourth installment of posts on Vision One v. Philadelphia Indemnity, a Washington Supreme Court case touching on Washington construction and insurance law. After Williams v. Athletic Field got so much coverage, I wished that I had provided a forum for argument on Builders Counsel. While we await that opinion from the Supreme Court, I decided to let a few good writers have at Vision One here on the blog.  Last week, attorney Chris Carr weighed in. Today, insurance expert David Thayer returns to give his final impression. David provided an initial peak at the case earlier this year. Thanks to both Chris and David for contributing to the debate.

In August 2011 the Washington Supreme Court will rule on a pair of joined cases that involve critical insurance coverage issues. The outcome of the ruling will impact a large swath of policyholders in Washington State including builders, developers, and homeowners to name a few.

The cases are Vision One vs. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance and Sprague vs. Safeco. The Vision one case comes from Division Two of the Appellate Court which overturned a lower court decision in favor the plaintiff, Vision One. Division Two decided that the collapse of a concrete pour during the course of construction did not constitute a resulting loss due to faulty workmanship. They further went on to redefine efficient proximate cause in a way that is harmful to policyholders by broadening rather than narrowing the meaning of exclusionary language in Philadelphia’s Builders Risk Policy.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

---

Housing Starts in U.S. Surge to Seven-Year High as Weather Warms

May 20, 2015 — Sho Chandra – Bloomberg
New residential construction in the U.S. surged in April to the highest level in more than seven years, indicating the industry has moved beyond a weather-related soft patch to regain strength. Housing starts jumped 20.2 percent to a 1.14 million annualized rate, the most since November 2007, from a 944,000 pace in March, a Commerce Department report showed Tuesday in Washington. The median forecast of 83 economists surveyed by Bloomberg was 1.02 million. More permits, a proxy for future construction, were issued than at any time since June 2008. An improving labor market and mortgage costs close to multiyear lows are reviving residential construction, a sign that the weakness in early 2015 was probably due to harsh winter weather. Builders including PulteGroup Inc. have said the spring selling season is off to a good start, and sentiment data for May showed developers are optimistic about the next six months. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shobhana Chandra, Bloomberg

---

“You’re Out of Here!” -- CERCLA (Superfund) Federal Preemption of State Environmental Claims in State Courts

October 20, 2016 — Joshua J. Anderson & John E. Van Vlear – Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C § 9601 et seq. (“CERCLA”), commonly referred to as “Superfund,” is a federal statute that provides funding and cost-recovery to address our nation’s worst hazardous-waste sites. While CERCLA generally vests United States District Courts with exclusive original jurisdiction over all related controversies, section 113(h) of the Act delays such jurisdiction while the United States Environmental Protection Agency supervises or undertakes environmental response action plans. What impact does this delayed federal jurisdiction have on state law claims brought in state courts? Short answer: “You’re out of here!” Litigants are precluded from bringing claims in state court that “challenge” environmental response actions under CERCLA during the pendency of those actions. Reprinted courtesy of Joshua J. Anderson, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP and John E. Van Vlear, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP Mr. Anderson may be contacted at joshua.anderson@ndlf.com Mr. Van Vlear may be contacted at john.vanvlear@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Call Me Maybe? . . . Don’t Waive Your Rights Under the Right to Repair Act’s Prelitigation Procedures

March 22, 2017 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
We’ve written before about the Right to Repair Act (Civil Code Sections 895 et seq.). The Act, also commonly known as SB 800 after the bill that established it, applies to newly constructed residential units including single-family homes and condominiums (but not condominium conversions) sold after January 1, 2003. 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

---