Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Determining the Cause of the Loss from a Named Windstorm when there is Water Damage - New Jersey

March 23, 2020 — Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Water damage, while one of the leading causes of loss under a property policy, often results in some of the most complex claims due to the intersection of exclusions, sublimits, and complex wording within the policy. One particularly difficult issue is whether water damage caused by a storm surge is covered by the flood sublimit, or under the general policy or water limit. In New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s (“NJTC v. Lloyd’s”), the New Jersey Appeals Court found that the “flood” sublimit of the policy should not apply as the cause of the loss was a “named windstorm” and not a “flood.” In NJTC v Lloyd's the court was asked to determine whether a flood sublimit applied to losses sustained during Superstorm Sandy. The court found that although there was “flooding,” the water damage was more closely related to the “named windstorm”, and therefore, the $400 million policy limits should apply. The court focused its analysis on the definitions for “flood” and “named windstorm” and by applying the efficient proximate cause doctrine to determine which would apply. When reviewing the definitions within the property policies, the court determined that although the loss would qualify under the definition of “flood,” the policy also contained a definition for “named windstorm” which “more specifically encompasses the wind driven water or storm surge associated with a ‘named windstorm’”1. In addition, the policy did not specifically state that “storm surge” associated with a “named windstorm” should be considered a “flood” event and fall under the “flood” sublimit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Perry may be contacted at amp@sdvlaw.com

Insurer's Bad Faith is Actionable Tort for Purposes of Choice of Law Analysis

January 08, 2024 — Janeen M. Thomas - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
When an insurer handles a claim in violation of its duty to act in good faith, policyholders are often eager to sue the insurer for bad faith, seeking extra contractual damages. Before filing suit, however, it is critical that policyholders consider what state’s law applies to the bad faith claim. In the recent case of Scott Fetzer Co. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc.1, the Ohio Supreme Court held that Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws, § 145 (“Section 145"), governed the choice of law dispute, which meant that the insured would be able to obtain discovery of Travelers’ claims-handling procedures, guidelines, internal documents, and communications relating to the claim.2 The insured, Scott Fetzer, argued that the materials were discoverable because documents evidencing an insurer’s bad faith are not protected by attorney-client privilege in Ohio. In response, Travelers argued that the laws of either Indiana (the place where the parties entered into the insurance contract), or Michigan (the location of the insured risk) governed the discovery dispute because Restatement (Second) § 193 (“Section 193”) governs the choice of law analysis for claims that “arise out of insurance contracts.”3 The laws of either Indiana or Michigan were more favorable for Travelers because Indiana does not allow discovery of materials covered by attorney-client privilege, and Michigan does not even recognize a cause of action for bad faith. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Janeen M. Thomas, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at JThomas@sdvlaw.com

City in Ohio Sues Over Alleged Roof Defects

October 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The city of Worthington “is suing the architect and general contractor responsible for constructing the addition to the Worthington Community Center in 2002,” according to ThisWeek Community News. The city is demanding $1.3 million “to replace the roof on the fitness center and pool addition, which is 12 years old.” Moody-Nolan, the architect, and Apex/M&P, the general contractor, have been named as defendants in the case. According to the complaint (as reported by ThisWeek), “experts retained by the city found that the roof has failed ‘due to unknown latent design defects and construction defects that have resulted in property damage.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Developer Africa Israel Wins a Round in New York Condominium Battle

March 12, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In Manhattan, New York, a “Supreme Court judge partially granted a temporary restraining order to Africa Israel,” which “means the developer does not at this time have to cede control of the Downtown Condominium board to unit owners, following a February lawsuit against the developers by state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman,” according to The Real Deal. The condominium battle began after Schneiderman filed suit against the developers, claiming that they did not fix construction defects, which in turn caused them to fail to obtain a certificate of occupancy, reported The Real Deal. The attorney general “also alleged that the pair misappropriated more than $9 million placed in an escrow account to finance those repairs.” However, according to The Real Deal, Africa Israel has claimed not to be a sponsor of the building. “Attorney Aaron Abraham, representing both Africa Israel and the sponsor of 15 Broad, claimed …that Africa Israel, an Israeli development firm led by billionaire Lev Leviev, never signed any documents claiming to be a sponsor of the building, noting that the sponsor principals were Boymelgreen and Pinchas Cohen.” Steve Sladkus, attorney for the condominium unit owners, told The Real Deal, “They partnered up with Boymelgreen — they need to deal with the fallout of that.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Champagne Wishes and Caviar Dreams. Unlicensed Contractor Takes the Cake

August 31, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Before the Kardashians, before Empire, before Crazy Rich Asians there was Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous with Robin Leach. The next case, Moore v. Teed, Case No. A153523 (April 24, 2020), 1st District Court of Appeals, is about the unfulfilled wishes and dashed dreams of the $13 million dollar “fixer upper.” Moore v. Teed The $13 Million Dollar “Fixer Upper” Justin Moore just wanted to buy a house in San Francisco. But he couldn’t afford one in the neighborhoods he preferred. But in 2011, luck struck, when Moore met Richard Teed, a real estate agent with “over 25 years of experience as a building contractor,” “an extensive background in historic restorations” and a “deep understanding of quality construction.” Teed told Moore that he could locate a “lower-priced fixer-upper in a choice neighborhood and then renovate it.” Moore was sold. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Design Firm Settles over Construction Defect Claim

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A Pennsylvania township has announced that it has reached a settlement with the architectural firm that designed its administration building. Cee Jay Frederick Associates will be paying than $1.05 million to settle claims of defects in the design of the building. West Whiteland’s administration building was completed in July 2007. The first leaks were noticed in November and December 2008. In response, the township stopped payments to the contractor, Magnum, Inc. Magnum sued, claiming that their work was not to blame for the leaks. Magnum joined the township in suing the design firm. Although Cee Jay Frederick Associates will be paying the township to settle the claim, West Whiteland will be paying $75,000 of that back to the firm to settle outstanding bills that had been withheld during litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Last, but NOT Least: Why You Should Take a Closer Look at Your Next Indemnification Clause

March 09, 2020 — Aimee Cook Oleson - Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
Indemnification clauses appear in nearly every agreement, but they are often overlooked as mere boilerplate provisions after the parties have painstakingly negotiated all of the other terms. It is not uncommon for parties to simply re-use the indemnity language from a prior agreement without considering whether it is a good fit for their current project. This can be a big mistake that may lead to ambiguities and uncertainties if a dispute arises down the road. A standard or canned indemnification clause might work to undo all of the effort that has gone into properly allocating risk. These clauses often contain language such as “notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein,” or the like, which can alter and override other provisions in the agreement. Indemnification clauses are arguably the most important part of an agreement when an accident or dispute arises on a project. Therefore, they deserve an extra look before finalizing an agreement. Here are a few issues to keep in mind when reviewing your next indemnification clause:

Have you included all necessary parties?

Any party who could face potential liability should be included as an indemnified party. This often includes entities and persons related to the contracting parties, not just the parties themselves.
A well drafted indemnity clause will ensure that all parties are liable for the result of their own work and negligence and that of any party that they have hired to work on a project. This includes employees, agents, subcontractors, or any other similar party.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aimee Cook Oleson, Sheppard Mullin
Ms. Oleson may be contacted at AOleson@sheppardmullin.com

How to Determine the Deadline for Recording a California Mechanics Lien

September 17, 2015 — William L. Porter, Esq. – Porter Law Group Bulletin
The California Mechanics Lien is one of the most valuable collection devices available to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers who are unpaid for work performed and materials supplied in relation to a California private works construction project. The mechanics lien allows the claimant to sell the property where the work was performed in order to obtain payment. As noted below, in order to pursue this remedy, certain deadlines must be met. Know Your Mechanics Lien Filing Deadlines Generally Working within deadlines is absolutely crucial to preserving mechanics lien rights under California law. The deadlines differ, depending on whether you are a ”direct” contractor, also known as “original” or “prime” contractor (one who contracts directly with the property owner) or a subcontractor or material supplier. The primary differences are that the direct contractor is only required to serve the “Preliminary Notice” on the Construction Lender (Civil Code section 8200-8216), whereas the subcontractor and material supplier must serve not only the Construction Lender, but also the Owner and Direct Contractor (see Civil Code section 8200(e)). Another difference is that a direct contractor has a longer period of time in which to record a mechanics lien after a valid “notice of completion” or a “notice of cessation” has been recorded (Civil Code sections 8180-8190), (60 days for original contractors as compared to 30 days for subcontractors and suppliers – See Civil Code sections 8412 and 8414). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, The Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES