FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Iconic Seattle Center Arena Roof the Only Piece to Stay in $900-Million Rebuild

July 09, 2019 — Tim Newcomb - Engineering News-Record
The roof covering the under-construction Seattle Center Arena will remain. And it won’t move, even as contractors remake the entire arena beneath it. OVG-Seattle has started the task of remaking the city-owned structure—and the only major arena within a park in North America—into the home for the expansion NHL Seattle franchise and the start of the 2021 NHL season. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tim Newcomb, ENR
Mr. Newcomb may be contacted at

---

Montana Court Finds Duty to Defend over Construction Defect Allegation

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The U.S. District Court for Montana recently ruled on a case with underlying construction defect issues. Brian Margolies discussed Lukes v. Mid-Continent on the blog run by his firm, Traub Lieverman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP. In the construction defect case, the homeowner “alleged that the siding warped and pulled away from the house, which allowed for water intrusion and resulting exterior and interior damage.” Further, there were claims that “the insured or its subcontractor failed to install proper flashing, which also allowed for water intrusion.” The insured was Bernie Rubio, who had a general liability policy from Mid-Continent. Mid-Continent disclaimed coverage, citing sections of the business risk exclusions. The court did not find the clauses ambiguous, but concluded that they didn’t apply to the facts of the case. While the court concluded that Mid-Continent had a duty to defend, they did not determine if there was a duty to indemnify. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Connecticut Appellate Court Breaks New Ground on Policy Exhaustion

April 26, 2021 — Eric B. Hermanson & Austin D. Moody - White and Williams
The Connecticut Appellate Court recently issued a wide-ranging opinion, Continental Casualty Co. v. Rohr, Inc.,[1] which significantly extended the current restrictive view on when a general liability policy can be considered exhausted so as to trigger overlying excess coverage. The case marks a further step away from Judge Augustus Hand’s almost-century-old ruling in Zeig v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.,[2] which held that an underlying policy could be “exhausted” by a below-limits settlement as long as the insured was willing to “fill the gap” between the settlement amount and the limits of the policy.[3] In recent years, courts in California and elsewhere have increasingly walked back Zeig’s broad ruling – holding in Qualcomm v. Certain Underwriters,[4] for example, that an insured’s below-limits settlement with primary carriers does not exhaust the limits of primary coverage, or allow the insured to access overlying excess coverage.[5] Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and Austin D. Moody, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Recent Decision Further Jeopardizes Availability of Additional Insured Coverage in New York

July 08, 2024 — Nina Catanzaro & Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Additional insured endorsements often provide “blanket” coverage to persons or organizations as required by a written contract. However, the wording of the “blanket” language is critically important, as the inclusion of certain phrases in an additional insured endorsement can result in a denial of coverage for the upstream party. For example, risk transfer issues can arise when an additional insured endorsement provides coverage to parties “when you [the named insured] and such person or organization [the additional insured] have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement.” Courts in New York (among other jurisdictions) have interpreted this phrase to require contractual privity – that is, only the entity that contracted directly with the named insured is entitled to additional insured coverage, even if the named insured agreed in that contract to provide additional insured coverage for others as well. The same goes for the phrase “any person or organization with whom you [the named insured] have agreed to add as an additional insured by written contract.” Reprinted courtesy of Nina Catanzaro, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Catanzaro may be contacted at NCatanzaro@sdvlaw.com Ms. Barrese may be contacted at BBarrese@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Wichita Condo Association Files Construction Defect Lawsuit

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Key Construction, the contractor of a downtown Wichita, Kansas mixed-use development has been sued by the condominium association of the development’s condo building. The WaterWalk Place Owners Association claims that the balconies on the building do not drain properly. Additionally, the suit claims that the building has water intrusion problems due to inappropriate or missing sealant at windows, doors, and expansion joints. Key Construction says that they are dealing with the problems and describe the suit as due to “a deadline pushing on” the residents. Wyatt Hock, the attorney for the residents, says that he hopes for a settlement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor

December 20, 2012 — HEATHER ANDERSON , HIGGINS, HOPKINS, MCLAIN & ROSWELL
Judge Paul King of the Douglas County District Court recently confirmed that subcontractors in residential construction owe an independent duty, separate and apart from any contractual duties, to act without negligence in the construction of a home in Colorado. See Order, dated September 7, 2010, Sunoo v. Hickory Homes, Inc. et al., Case No. 2007CV1866; see also Cosmopolitan Homes, Inc. v. Weller, 663 P.2d 1041 (Colo. 1983); A.C. Excavating v. Yacht Club II Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 114 P.3d 862 (Colo. 2005). He also verified that the holding in the B.R.W. Inc. v. Dufficy & Sons, Inc., 99 P.3d 66 (Colo. 2004)[1] case does not prohibit general contractors, such as Hickory Homes, from enforcing a subcontractor’s independent duty to act without negligence in the construction of a home. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heather Anderson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
Ms. Anderson can be contacted at anderson@hhmrlaw.com

---

Subprime Bonds Are Back With Different Name Seven Years After U.S. Crisis

January 28, 2015 — Jody Shenn – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- The business of bundling riskier U.S. mortgages into bonds without government backing is gearing up for a comeback. Just don’t call it subprime. Hedge fund Seer Capital Management, money manager Angel Oak Capital and Sydney-based bank Macquarie Group Ltd. are among firms buying up loans to borrowers who can’t qualify for conventional mortgages because of issues such as low credit scores, foreclosures or hard-to-document income. They each plan to pool the mortgages into securities of varying risk and sell some to investors this year. JPMorgan Chase & Co. analysts predict as much as $5 billion of deals could get done, while Nomura Holdings Inc. forecasts $1 billion to $2 billion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jody Shenn, Bloomberg
Ms. Shenn may be contacted at jshenn@bloomberg.net

---

In Massachusetts, the Statute of Repose Applies to Consumer Protection Claims Against Building Contractors

January 28, 2019 — Shannon M. Warren - The Subrogation Strategist
In Bridgwood v. A.J. Wood Construction, Inc., 105 N.E.3d 224 (Mass. 2018), the Supreme Court of Massachusetts determined that the statute of repose barred the plaintiff’s consumer protection claims commenced more than six years after the occurrence of the event that gave rise to the claims. In Bridgwood, the homeowner filed suit against the contractors who had performed renovations 15 years earlier. The homeowner asserted that concealed faulty electrical work caused a fire 11 years after the work was completed. The complaint alleged that the contractors, by violating Mass. Gen. Laws. Chapter 142A §17(10), committed an unfair and deceptive act pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 93A. Section 17(10) prohibits contractors from violating building laws and specifically states that a violation of Section 17(10) constitutes an unfair and deceptive act as defined by Chapter 93A. Chapter 93A is regarded as one of the most stringent consumer protection statutory schemes in the nation, and allows litigants to seek remedies such as treble damages and attorney fees. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams
Ms. Warren may be contacted at warrens@whiteandwilliams.com

---