FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Allegations that Carrier Failed to Adequately Investigate Survive Demurrer

July 30, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal of a complaint alleging bad faith for the insurer's failure to adequately investigate the claim. Maslo v. Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins., 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 564 (Cal. Ct. App. June 27, 2014). The insured was injured in an auto accident caused by an uninsured motorist. The insured sought policy limits of $250,000 from the insurer. In response, the insurer demanded arbitration. The arbitrator awarded $164,120.91. The insured sued, alleging the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleged the insured was not at fault. The police report found that the uninsured motorist was the sole cause of the accident. The insured provided the police report and medical records to the insurer. When the insured demanded the $250,000 policy limits, the insurer did not respond. 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

---

Rio de Janeiro's Bursting Real-Estate Bubble

September 17, 2015 — Juan Pablo Spinetto & Peter Millard – Bloomberg
At opposite ends of downtown Rio de Janeiro, projects tied to Donald Trump and Eike Batista-- one a billionaire-turned-politician, the other Brazil’s most famous ex-billionaire -- have come to represent the city’s real estate bust. The 23-story Serrador building, a granite-and-glass art deco tower near Rio’s Santos Dumont airport, has sat empty since Batista’s failed empire of commodities companies abandoned it last year. Four miles away, in the city’s gritty port district, an ambitious office project that Trump lent his name to is still nothing more than a weed-filled lot about a year after construction was slated to begin. Reprinted courtesy of Juan Pablo Spinetto, Bloomberg and Peter Millard, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Performance Bonds: Follow the Letter of the Bond and Keep The Surety Informed

December 06, 2021 — Bill Shaughnessy, Jones Walker, LLP - ConsensusDocs
Construction surety bonds are risk management tools utilized by parties on large construction projects. However, bonds are not insurance, and a surety is not an “insurer” of the project. Different from insurance, a surety’s obligation to act typically arises if the principal fails to perform in accordance with the construction contract, and if the claimant satisfies the conditions precedent to enforcing the bond.[1] This article focuses exclusively on performance bonds on private projects,[2] and highlights practical considerations and surety defenses to enforcement of the performance bond.[3] Spoiler alert – the party making a claim on the bond must strictly adhere to the conditions precedent set forth in the bond throughout the construction project and when calling upon the surety to take action, otherwise the performance bond may be rendered void and unenforceable. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Shaughnessy, Jones Walker, LLP
Mr. Shaughnessy may be contacted at bshaughnessy@joneswalker.com

---

Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

March 28, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

Charles and Valerie Myers hired Perry Miller to build their home. Myers v. United Ohio Ins. Co., 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 287 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2012). After completion of the home, Miller was again hired to construct an addition which included a full basement, staircases, bathroom, bedroom, hallway and garage.



After the addition was completed, one of the basement walls began to crack and bow. Miller began to make repairs, but eventually stopped working on the project. Other contractors were hired to make repairs, but further problems developed. A second basement wall began to bow and crack, allowing water into the basement. The wall eventually had to be replaced. Subsequently, the roof over the addition began to leak in five or six places before the drywall could be painted. The leaks caused water stains on the drywall and caused it to separate and tear. It was discovered the roof needed to be replaced.



The Myers sued Miller and his insurer, United Ohio Insurance Company. The trial court ruled that the policy did not provide coverage for faulty workmanship, but did provide coverage for consequential damages caused by repeated exposure to the elements. United Ohio conceded liability in the amount of $2,000 to repair water damage to the drywall. United Ohio was also found liable for $51,576, which included $31,000 to repair the roof and ceiling and $18,576 to replace the basement wall.

Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

---

Can Businesses Resolve Construction Disputes Outside of Court?

August 19, 2024 — Scott L. Baker - Los Angeles Litigation Blog
Time is of the essence in any construction project. So, if a dispute arises at any point, business owners generally wish to avoid the chance of a time-consuming case going to court. Can California construction businesses manage these disputes effectively outside of court? It is possible in some cases. Business owners should carefully consider these three steps. 1. Go Back to the Contract Even if the contract is at the center of the dispute, it is important to refer to any details regarding dispute resolution included within the document. It is common for contracts to have some form of a dispute resolution clause. In such a case, both parties should follow the steps outlined in that agreement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott L. Baker, Baker & Associates
Mr. Baker may be contacted at slb@bakerslaw.com

---

Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals ruled on January 9 in Burrow v. JTL Dev. Corp., a construction defect case in which houses suffered damage due to improperly compacted soil, upholding the decision of the lower court.



Turf Construction entered into a deal with JTL to develop a parcel they acquired. A third firm, Griffin Homes, withdrew from the agreement “when a geotechnical and soils engineering firm reported significant problems with soil stability on 14 of the lots.” Turf Construction then took over compacting and grading the lots. Turf “had never compacted or graded a residential tract before.” Robert Taylor, the owner of Turf, “testified he knew there was a significant problem with unstable soils.”



After homes were built, the plaintiffs bought homes on the site. Shortly thereafter, the homes suffered damage from soil settlement “and the damage progressively worsened.” They separately filed complaints which the court consolidated.



During trial, the plaintiff’s expert said that there had been an inch and a half in both homes and three to five inches in the backyard and pool areas. “He also testified that there would be four to eight inches of future settlement in the next fifteen to twenty years.” The expert for Turf and JTL “testified that soil consolidation was complete and there would be no further settlement.”



Turf and JTL objected to projections made by the plaintiffs’ soil expert, William LaChappelle. Further, they called into question whether it was permissible for him to rely on work by a non-testifying expert, Mark Russell. The court upheld this noting that LaChappelle “said that they arrived at the opinion together, through a cycle of ‘back and forth’ and peer review, and that the opinion that the soil would settle four to eight inches in fifteen to twenty years was his own.”



Turf and JTL contended that the court relied on speculative damage. The appeals court disagreed, stating that the lower court based its award “on evidence of reasonably certain damage.”



Turf also that it was not strictly liable, since it did not own or sell the properties. The court wrote that they “disagree because Turf’s grading activities rendered it strictly liable as a manufacturer of the lots.” The court concluded that “Turf is strictly liable as a manufacturer of the lots.”



Judge Coffee upheld the decision of the lower court with Judges Yegan and Perren concurring.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Gen Xers Choose to Rent rather than Buy

February 05, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
David Crowe reported in Big Builder that the rate of home purchases by Gen Xers is low due to “challenges” they face caused by the recent recession. According to the article, “The headship rate rises from 16 percent to 48 percent in this age group—known as Generation X—as they finish college and become financially independent. There are 42.5 million people in this age range, and they are followed by 43.9 million in the 15 to 24 age cohort.” However, the recession forced many Gen Xers to postpone “independent living, marriage, and children. Birth rates hit all-time lows in 2012 (half the level of the baby boom), and marriage rates are the lowest they’ve been in a century.” Unemployment seems to be the major factor in why many Gen Xers are choosing to live with parents or rent instead of buying a home. Crowe stated, “Young adults continue to express the goal of owning their own homes, but many are faced with challenges such as job availability, tight credit standards, inadequate savings for a down payment, student debt, and careers that are likely to require moves.” However, the “employment picture is expected to improve.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

No Bad Faith In Filing Interpleader

August 19, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eighth Circuit determined that filing an interpleader action in the face of multiple claims against the policy holder did not constitute bad faith. Purscell v. Tico Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10438 (8th Cir. June 22, 2015). Ben Purscell's vehicle collided with another vehicle, in which Tim and Amy Carr were riding. The Carrs were injured, and Purscell's passenger, Amy Priesendorf, was killed. Before the accident, Priesendorf had stretched her leg over and put her foot on the accelerator, on top of Purscell's foot. As the other car approached, Purscell swerved to avoid an accident, but the two vehicles collided. Purscell had a policy with Infinity Assurance Insurance Company. The policy limited liability to $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident for bodily injury. Infinity put the full $50,000 per accident limits on reserve, with $25,000 designated to Priesendorf's fatality and $25,000 designated to the Carrs. 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

---