FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Insurance Policy’s “No Voluntary Payment” Clauses Lose Some Bite in Colorado

October 22, 2013 — Brady Iandiorio — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
The Colorado Court of Appeals recently handed down an opinion dulling the teeth of the “no voluntary payment” clauses found in many contractors’ insurance policies. In the case of Stresscon Corporation v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, 2013 WL 4874352 (Colo. App. 2013), the Court of Appeals found that an insured’s breach of the “no voluntary payment” clause does not always bar the insured from receiving benefits from its insurance company. In July 2007, at a construction project run by Mortenson (the “GC”), a partially erected building collapsed, killing one worker and gravely injuring another. The collapse was caused by a crane hook pulling a concrete component off of its supports. The GC contracted with Stresscon Corporation (“Stresscon”) to build pre-cast concrete components for the project, and in turn Stresscon hired two sub-subcontractors, RMS and Hardrock (the “Crane Team”) to work together to erect those concrete components. Stresscon and the Crane Team had liability insurance, and Stresscon was insured by Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”). The accident led to three separate lawsuits: 1) one brought by the deceased worker; 2) one brought by the injured worker; and 3) one brought by the GC against Stresscon claiming it was entitled to contract damages incurred because the project was delayed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
Brady Iandiorio can be contacted at Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

---

Supreme Court Finds Insurance Coverage for Intentional (and Despicable) Act of Contractor’s Employee

July 21, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Not to cast shade on your fun in the sun, but here’s an unusual, albeit sad and creepy, one for you. I’m bummed even writing about this one. In Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Company, Inc., Case No. S236765 (June 4, 2018), the California Supreme Court addressed whether a general contractor’s commercial general liability carrier was obligated to defend and whether the carrier was liable for damages sustained by a young girl who was molested by an employee of the general contractor during construction at a school. At issue was whether the policy’s definition of an “occurrence,” which was defined, like most policies, as “an accident,” was triggered by the “intentional” and clearly not accidental act of the general contractor’s employee. 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

---

Congratulations to Woodland Hills Partner Patrick Au and Senior Associate Ava Vahdat on Their Successful Motion for Summary Judgment!

February 14, 2023 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to Woodland Hills Partner Patrick Au and Senior Associate Ava Vahdat on their successful Motion for Summary Judgment in Los Angeles Superior Court! BWB&O’s client was a concrete contractor hired by a government entity for a limited sidewalk repair project many years ago. The Plaintiff, who was confined to a wheelchair, filed suit against BWB&O’s client alleging Negligence and Premises Liability after an alleged fall injury on a public sidewalk. Plaintiff’s primary alleged theory of liability against BWB&O’s client was that it either worked on or was supposed to work on that subject sidewalk and in doing so, or failure to do so, caused Plaintiff’s fall and subsequent alleged injuries/damages. Plaintiff claimed in excess of $1 million in damages. After extensive discovery, Mr. Au and Ms. Vahdat gathered enough evidence to prove that BWB&O’s client neither worked on the subject area nor was required to do so. Accordingly, they prepared a successful Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that no duty was owed to Plaintiff thereby refuting the negligence cause of action. The dispositive motion also proved that the subject sidewalk was not owned, controlled, or maintained by BWB&O’s client thereby negating the premises liability cause of action. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

New York Philharmonic Will Open Geffen Hall Two Years Ahead of Schedule

April 11, 2022 — James Tarmy - Bloomberg
After decades of setbacks, the New York Philharmonic will finally perform in a gut-renovated concert hall in October. “The key is—two years early—on budget and on schedule,” says a triumphant Deborah Borda, the president and chief executive officer of the New York Philharmonic, standing under a scaffold in what will be the completely revamped concert hall. A happy ending was by no means guaranteed. The venue, set at New York’s Lincoln Center, had problems almost as soon as its doors opened in 1962. Concertgoers and performers complained that the sound was muddy and deadening. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James Tarmy, Bloomberg

---

“But I didn’t know what I was signing….”

May 30, 2018 — Bobby Kethcart - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In real estate cases—which frequently involve long purchase agreements, loan documents, personal guarantees, deeds of trust, etc.—we’ve likely all had a client or opposing party who trots out the line that they didn’t know what they were signing, or they didn’t read or understand what they were signing, so the document shouldn’t be enforced according to its terms. Most of us instinctively believe the claim is a loser: You signed the document, you’re bound by it. But is this actually right? Well, we did some digging. Here is the Arizona law on the subject: Nationwide Resources Corp. v. Massabni, 134 Ariz. 557, 658 P.2d 210 (App. 1982):

“A mistake of only one of the parties to a contract in the expression of his agreement or as to the subject matter does not affect its binding force and ordinarily affords no ground for its avoidance, or for relief, even in equity.” “A manifestation of acceptance to the offeror or his agent forms a contract regardless of the intent of the acceptor.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bobby Kethcart, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Kethcart may be contacted at rkethcart@swlaw.com

---

The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- The Claim

January 12, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
A new year brings with it promise and challenges. The promise is a relatively clean slate and the thought that 2015 will be a great year for construction professionals and those that assist them. The challenges come from the almost inevitable issues that can arise on a construction site with its many moving parts and enough potential pitfalls to make even the most optimistic construction attorney, contractor, subcontractor or supplier think that Murphy was an optimist. In order to assist with the potential challenges, this post will be the first in a series of “musings” on the best way to handle a payment dispute arising from a construction contract. This week’s post will discuss what the first steps should be once a payment dispute or claim arises. We’ll assume that you, as a construction contractor, have taken early advantage of the services of a construction lawyer and have carefully reviewed your contract for issues before signing that contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Association Insurance Company v. Carbondale Glen Lot E-8, LLC: Federal Court Reaffirms That There Is No Duty to Defend or Indemnify A Builder For Defective Construction Work

December 20, 2017 — David M McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
In a case that squarely confronts the juxtaposition of an insurer’s duty to defend or indemnify its insured for construction related defects, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado recently granted an insurer’s motion for summary judgment on both matters against a construction subrogee, in Ass’n Ins. Co. v. Carbondale Glen Lot E-8, LLC, No. 15-cv-02025-RPM, 2016 WL 9735743, at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 10. 2017). Mountainview Construction Services, LLC (“MCS”) served as the general contractor for the construction of a residence on a lot owned by Glen Lot E-8, LLC (“E-8”). MCS took out a Commercial General Liability Policy (“Policy”) with Association Insurance Company (“AIC”) that provided coverage to MCS for the relevant time period for the construction of the residence. E-8 then asserted a series of claims against MCS, based on the allegation that MCS and its subcontractors defectively constructed the home by, among other things, building the residence two feet too high in violation of applicable codes. E-8 also argued that MCS and its subcontractors made significant alterations and/or deviations from the original project specifications without obtaining E-8’s consent or approval from relevant authorities. MCS tendered the claim to AIC for defense and indemnity. In turn, AIC declined coverage on the argument that the Policy precluded any coverage for defective work MCS may have performed on the project, absent damage to person or other property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law

November 13, 2023 — Yaron Shaham - Kahana Feld
In order for a plaintiff to prove a defendant is negligent, the plaintiff must prove the defendant (1) owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) breached that duty, (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the resulting monetary damage. However, for both plaintiffs and defendants it is not an all or nothing game in California. This is because California is a pure Comparative Negligence state. California’s Comparative Negligence law provides that even if a plaintiff is deemed 99% at fault, the plaintiff can still recover 1% in damages from a defendant. Thus, even if a plaintiff is deemed to be more than 50% (or even 99%) at fault for the incident, the plaintiff could still recover some monetary amount, or the defendant will still have to pay plaintiff, depending on how you see it. In most instances, a jury decides what percentage of fault to assign to each party. Just as a plaintiff must prove he/she/its negligence case against a defendant, if the defendant claims plaintiff was partially responsible for the incident, the defendant must prove plaintiff was also negligent and said negligence contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. The total amount of monetary responsibility distributed among all defendants and plaintiffs must equal 100%. As crazy as it may sound, a plaintiff found to be 99.9% at fault, is still entitled to recover 0.01% from a defendant in California. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Yaron Shaham, Kahana Feld
Mr. Shaham may be contacted at yshaham@kahanafeld.com

---