FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Government Claims Act Does Not Apply to Actions Solely Seeking Declaratory Relief and Not Monetary Relief

March 25, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Perhaps it should come as no surprise, but public entities get special treatment under the law, and when filing a claim against a public entity, in most cases, a claimant is required to file a claim with the public entity before filing suit under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code §810 et seq.). But, as the next case demonstrates, that’s not always the case. In Stronghold Engineering Incorporated v. City of Monterey, 96 Cal.App.5th 1203 (2023), the 6th District Court of Appeals examined whether a public works contractor that alleged an extended overhead claim was required to file a Government Claims Act claim before filing suit when its initial complaint was limited to a claim for declaratory relief. The Stronghold Case In December 2015, general contractor Stronghold Engineering Incorporated entered into a construction contract with the City of Monterey for the renovation of the City’s conference center and an adjacent city-owned plaza. The construction contract provided that any modification to the construction contract had to be approved by the City through a written change order. No surprise there. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Apartment Boom in Denver a Shortcut Around Condo Construction Defect Suits?

September 24, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
For every condo currently being built in Denver, there are 40 apartment units. And there are some who think that this is being done to evade construction defect lawsuits. At issue is the statute of limitations for construction defects. Under Colorado law, condominium buyers have six years after the completion of constrution to sue for construction defects, unless the defect isn’t discovered until the fifth or six year, in which case they are given until the eighth year. But what if someone built an apartment building, rented out the units for six years, and then converted the whole thing to condominiums? Some think that the construction defect clock would be reset. Amie Mayhew, the CEO of the Colorado Association of Home Builders noted that if this is the case, “you’d be back at square one.” But Doug Benson, a construction defect attorney, thinks that if a builder did this, and didn’t make any further construction, no one would be able to sue for construction defects, even if the condo owners found them. Mr. Benson, who represents homeowners, said that “they’re apartment homes and that’s just to avoid liability.” Mike Gifford, the president of the Associated General Contractors of Colorado, noted that insurance companies were already wary of apartment complexes, fearing that they would be turned into condos. Whatever the cause, Denver seems to have a shortage of condos. But, they’re going to have a lot of apartments available. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Whose Employee is it Anyway?: Federal Court Finds No Coverage for Injured Subcontractor's Claim Based on Modified Employer's Liability Exclusion

September 28, 2020 — Jeffrey J. Vita & Kerianne E. Kane - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
In Nagog Real Estate Consulting Corp. v. Nautilus Insurance Co.,1 the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that an insurer had no duty to defend its insureds against claims brought by an injured subcontractor, based on an overbroad employer’s liability exclusion in the policy. Nautilus Insurance Company issued a commercial general liability policy to developer Nagog Homes LLC and its related construction company, Nagog Real Estate. The policy was endorsed with an Employer’s Liability Exclusion (the L205 Endorsement) that expanded the scope of the standard exclusion in the coverage form to include bodily injury claims of employees of “any” insured and their contractors or subcontractors, as opposed to simply the employees of the named insured. Nagog Homes was the developer, and Nagog Real Estate was the general contractor for a residential construction project. An employee of the framing subcontractor hired by Nagog Real Estate was injured while working on the project and sued both Nagog entities for his injuries. Nautilus, relying on the modified employer’s liability exclusion, denied coverage for the lawsuit based on allegations that the Nagog entities hired the framing subcontractor to perform work, which effectively made the plaintiff an employee of one or both of the Nagog entities. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita , Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Ms. Kane may be contacted at kek@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

BHA has a Nice Swing Donates to CDCCF

May 21, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Bert L. Howe & Associates (BHA) would like to congratulate the winners of the BHA Has a Nice Swing golf game for charity. With the help of the participants, BHA was able to donate $1800 to the Construction Defect Community Charitable Foundation (CDCCF). CDCCF was established to provide financial assistance for active members of the construction defect community who have uninsured expenses because of a disability, sickness, and/or the death of a community member or their immediate family member. BHA would also like to congratulate their booth’s raffle winners. Prizes included an iPad Air, four sets of Dodger tickets, a Day at the Del Mar Races, and Best Buy gift cards. Read how the CDCCF assists the construction defect community... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Fair Share Act Impacts the Strategic Planning of a Jury Trial

May 10, 2017 — Andrew Ralston, Jr. - White and Williams LLP
Complex questions surrounding the application of the Fair Share Act, which modified Pennsylvania’s common law “joint and several” liability law, are being taken up by courts in the Commonwealth with increasing frequency. Given the practical consequences of the differences in application between the Act and “joint and several” liability, additional litigation over the application of the Fair Share Act to real world factual situations will undoubtedly arise. Recent Caselaw Currently, in Roverano v. PECO Energy, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania is considering the question of whether, under the Fair Share Act, the jury, or else the trial judge, is responsible for the task of apportioning liability to multiple defendants in a strict liability case. In Roverano – an asbestos case -- a jury awarded the plaintiff $6.3 million. On the verdict sheet were eight joint tortfeasor co-defendants. The judge did not allow the jury to apportion liability to each defendant and, as a result, no guidance was provided by the jury about how much each defendant was to contribute to the award. Instead, the judge merely divided the jury’s award by eight (the number of defendants in the case) and apportioned to each defendant one-eighth of the verdict amount. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrew Ralston, Jr., White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ralston may be contacted at ralstona@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Harmon Tower Opponents to Try Mediation

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
There are plenty of issues on the table in the fight between CityCenter and Tutor Perini over the Harmon Tower project in Las Vegas. Some of them might be solved at a mediator’s table instead of reaching the courtroom. Both sides will be participating in a six-day negotiation with an outside mediator. Their hope is that the projected two-year jury trial can be reduced to only one year. The judge in the case remains skeptical. “It ain’t happening. I know you all,” was Clark County District Judge Elizabeth’s Gonzalez’s comment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

A Win for Policyholders: Court Finds Flood Exclusion Inapplicable to Plumbing Leaks Caused by Hurricane Rainfall

October 21, 2024 — Kelly A. Johnson & Damian S. Barquin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
A recent decision by a federal court helps clear the path to coverage for property owners this hurricane season. The Court deemed one property policy’s flood exclusion inapplicable to bar coverage for water damage from backed-up drainage and overflow caused by excessive rainfall. The case, styled G.E.M.S. Partners LLC v. AmGUARD Ins. Co., — F.Supp. 3d —, No. CV 22-1664, 2024 WL 3568932 (D.N.J. July 29, 2024)), involved a familiar dispute between the insured and insurer following damage to covered property after a named storm’s heavy rainfall. Here, G.E.M.S. Partners LLC (“Insured”) obtained a commercial property policy from AmGUARD Insurance Company (“AmGUARD”) to cover three neighboring buildings in Union, New Jersey. In September 2021, intense rainfall from Hurricane Ida overwhelmed the local infrastructure and sewer system, leading to water leakage from plumbing fixtures at the insured property. To secure coverage under its AmGUARD policy, the Insured wisely relied on its “Water Back-Up and Sump Overflow Endorsement” (“Back-Up/Overflow Endorsement”). Under this endorsement, AmGUARD promised to “pay for ... damage ... caused by ... water ... which backs up through or overflows or is otherwise discharged from a sewer.”1 Indeed, a plumber that inspected the buildings following Hurricane Ida described the root cause of the water damage as a “back up” of “sewer ... water.”2 Reprinted courtesy of Kelly A. Johnson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Damian S. Barquin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Johnson may be contacted at KJohnson@sdvlaw.com Mr. Barquin may be contacted at DBarquin@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Delaware Supreme Court Choice of Law Ruling Vacates a $13.7 Million Verdict Against Travelers

August 07, 2018 — Gregory Capps & Zachery Roth - White and Williams LLP
On July 16, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court held in Travelers Indemnity Company v. CNH Industrial America, LLC, No. 420, 2017 (Del. Jul. 16, 2018), that a court’s choice of law inquiry in an insurance coverage dispute should focus on the contacts most relevant to the insurance contract rather than the location of the underlying claims. In Travelers, CNH Industrial America, LLC (CNH), sought coverage for asbestos liabilities associated with J.I. Case, Inc., a subsidiary it had acquired, under policies issued to J.I. Case and its former parent company, Tenneco, Inc. The issue before the Delaware Supreme Court was whether the anti-assignment clause in three Travelers policies issued to Tenneco, Inc. precluded the assignment of the policies to CNH. The validity of the assignment turned on which state’s law governed the dispute. (Under Wisconsin law, the parties agreed that the assignment was valid, while under Texas law, the parties agreed the assignment was invalid.) Reprinted courtesy of Gregory Capps, White and Williams LLP and Zachery Roth, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Roth may be contacted at rothz@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---