Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Is Your Design Professional Construction Contract too Friendly? (Law Note)

July 09, 2014 — Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law North Carolina
My husband often travels the back roads between Chapel Hill and Fuquay Varina to visit friends. En route (a circuitous route that goes past Sharon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, among other places), he passes by the “Friendly Grocery.” [Sign] No *Loitering*Littering*Alcoholic Beverages on Premises*Bike*Skateboard* *10 minutes Parking Limit*Towing Enforced* I’m not sure which is the “friendly” part of that sign. In fact, the sign seems to be the antithesis of friendly. What does this have to do with your construction contracts? Sometimes, in an effort to please the client and/or secure the project, architects and engineers have the habit of being too friendly in their contract language. That is, you make promises or proposals that may promise too much of a good thing for the client. This can cause big problems. Bigger than being towed away from a rural grocery store in the middle of nowhere. You could be putting your insurance coverage at risk. Have you ever promised to use “best efforts” in your design or plans? Promised to design to a specific LEED standard? Guaranteed 100% satisfaction? You might be putting your errors & omission coverage at issue. By warrantying or guaranteeing something, you are assuming a level of liability well beyond the standard of care required by law. By law, you only need to conform to the standard of care, and your insurance will only provide coverage up to that standard of care. In other words, if you make guarantees or promise “best efforts,” you are contracting to something that will *not* be insured. If something goes wrong, you will be without the benefit of your professional liability coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

Contractor's Agreement to Perform Does Not Preclude Coverage Under Contractual Liability Exclusion

January 31, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
In a much anticipated decision, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that a general contractor who agrees to perform its work in a good and workmanlike manner does not "assume liability" for damages arising out of its defective work so as to trigger the Contractual Liability Exclusion. Ewing Constr. Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 2014 Tex. LEXIS 39 (Tex. Jan.17, 2014). Ewing signed an agreement with the School District to serve as general contractor to renovate and build additions to a school, including tennis courts. After construction was completed, the tennis courts started flaking, crumbling, and cracking. The School District filed suit, alleging breach of contract and negligence. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

FEMA, Congress Eye Pre-Disaster Funding, Projects

November 08, 2017 — Pam Radtke Russell - Engineering News-Record
Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Brock Long wants to revamp the way federal disaster funds are distributed, putting a greater emphasis on building more-resilient structures and communities before disasters strike, Long told a House panel reviewing federal response to the recent slate of disasters. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pam Radtke Russell, ENR
Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com

Economic Damages and the Right to Repair Act: You Can’t Have it Both Ways

March 16, 2017 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
In 2002, the California State Legislature passed Senate Bill 800 also known as the Right to Repair Act (Civil Code Sections 895 et seq.) in an effort to stem a then rising tide in residential construction defect litigation. SB 800, which applies to newly constructed residential units including single-family homes and condominiums (but not condominium conversions) sold after January 1, 2003, was intended to curb residential construction defect lawsuits by giving developers and others in the construction chain an opportunity to repair construction defects before being sued in court. SB 800 also provides minimum construction standards and limits the time in which a homeowner can bring a claim for construction defects. In Acqua Vista Homeowners Association v. MWI, Case No. D068406 (January 26, 2017), the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District examined the circumstances in which homeowners can sue a material supplier under the Right to Repair Act. 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

No Duty to Defend Suit That Is Threatened Under Strict Liability Statute

July 09, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Washington Court of Appeals found there was no duty to defend the insured under a strict liability statute for alleged contamination when no action was threatened by the agency. Gull Indus., Inc. v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1338 (Wa. Ct. App. June 2, 2014). Gull leased a gas station to the Johnsons from 1972 to 1980. In 2005, Gull notified the Department of Ecology (DOE) that there had be a release of petroleum product at the station. DOE sent a letter acknowledging Gull's notice of suspected contamination. In 2009, Gull tendered its defense to its insurer, Transamerica Insurance Group. Gull also tendered its claims as an additional insured to the Johnson's insurer, State Farm. Neither insurer accepted the tenders. Gull then sued the insurers, arguing they had a duty to defend. Gull contended that because the state statute imposed strict liability, the duty to defend arose whether or not an agency had sent any communications about the statute or cleanup obligations. The insurers moved for partial summary judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of the insurers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Construction Law Alert: Unlicensed Contractors On Federal Projects Entitled To Payment Under The Miller Act

May 07, 2014 — Steven M. Cvitanovic and Jessica M. Lassere Ryland - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
As a matter of first impression, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Technica LLC ex rel. U.S. v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., 12-56539, 2014 WL 1674108 (9th Cir. Apr. 29, 2014), allowed an unlicensed subcontractor to recover from a prime contractor for unpaid services relating to a federal construction project under a federal Miller Act claim. California law otherwise prevents unlicensed contractors from recovering for unpaid work on non-federal projects as a penal measure intended to encourage contractors to maintain a valid license at all times. Technica LLC (“Technica”) worked as a sub-subcontractor on a large federal fence replacement project (the “Project”). Over the course of a year, Technica supplied nearly a million dollars worth of labor, materials, and services for the Project. However, Technica received only $287,861.81 in partial payments for its work. Technica proceeded to file suit in district court against the prime contractor Candelaria Corporation (“Candelaria”) and its payment surety Carolina Casualty Insurance Company (“CCIC”) under the Miller Act to recover amounts owed to it on the subcontract against the payment bond. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP and Jessica M. Lassere Ryland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Lassere Ryland may be contacted at jlassere@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Scaffolding Purchase Suggests No New Building for Board of Equalization

July 30, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Employees at California’s Board of Equalization spoke out against the Brown administration after the state purchased new scaffolding for the defect-riddled building, rather than finding a new facility, reported the Sacramento Bee. The existing scaffolding was leased for $10,000 per month, but the lease expired, prompting the purchase of new scaffolding for about $100,000. The board’s Chairman Jerome Horton stated “that while the change may make financial sense in the short term, it sends a signal that the Department of General Services intends to keep Equalization’s 2,200 or so employees in the troubled building,” according to the Sacramento Bee. Building problems include “toxic mold, defective elevators, leaking windows, corroded wastewater pipes, floods, and exterior glass panels that spontaneously break or pop off.” So far, $2.3 million has been paid “in connection with building-related employee injury claims” along with $60 million in repairs. However, an additional $115 million is estimated to completely fix the defects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New York Court Rejects Owner’s Bid for Additional Insured Coverage

September 06, 2021 — Eric D. Suben - Traub Lieberman
Tenders for additional insured coverage in construction accidents are frequently litigated in New York courts. Although the past few years have seen changes in the law regarding the causal nexus between the named insured’s work and coverage for the purported additional insured, courts often find there is at least a duty to defend the additional insured where there are allegations of the employer/subcontractor’s presence at the site. An exception is the recent decision in Gemini Insurance Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Index No. 652669/20 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (Lebovits, J.). In that case, Gemini insured the owner and general contractor of a construction project, and Lloyd’s insured the injured claimant’s employer under a policy endorsed to provide additional insured coverage to entities who “have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement” with the named insured that they must be “added as additional insured.” Although the court found that the contracts here satisfied this requirement for additional insured coverage, the court’s analysis did not end there. Noting that even where such contract exists, the Lloyd’s policy would not provide additional insured coverage “in all circumstances” (emphasis in original), the court next considered whether the underlying injury was “caused in whole or in part by: 1. [The named insured’s] acts or omissions, or 2. The acts or omissions of those acting on [the named insured’s] behalf,” as required under the endorsement’s wording. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES