Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

North Carolina Federal Court Holds “Hazardous Materials” Exclusion Does Not Bar Duty to Defend Under CGL Policy for Bodily Injury Claims Arising Out of Direct Exposure to PFAs

December 07, 2020 — Paul A. Briganti - White and Williams LLP
On October 19, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina held that a “hazardous materials” exclusion contained in a CGL policy did not preclude a duty to defend the insured against claims alleging bodily injury resulting from direct exposure to perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which are man-made chemicals within the group of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs).[1] In Colony Insurance Company v. Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, the insured was named a defendant in hundreds of underlying suits relating to its manufacture of fire equipment containing aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), a fire suppressant.[2] The underlying plaintiffs alleged that: (a) the AFFF contained PFOS and PFOA; (b) PFOA and PFOS are highly carcinogenic; and (c) exposure to AFFF contained in the defendants’ products caused bodily injury or property damage. Around a third of the underlying complaints alleged harm from both direct exposure to the foam and exposure through the environment. Representative language from those complaints was: “[d]uring [underlying plaintiff’s] employment as a firefighter and firefighter instructor, he was significantly exposed to elevated levels of PFOS and PFOA in their concentrated form as a result of regular contact with [d]efendant’s AFFF products and through PFOS and PFOA having contaminated the FireCollege well system.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com

No Indemnity After Insured Settles Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability Claims

June 09, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Applying Illinois law, the federal district court ruled that there was no coverage for the insured's settlement of claims based upon breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Metro North Condo. Ass'n, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43452 (E.D. Ill. March 31, 2016). Metro North sued the developer of its condominium and a number of its contractors and subcontractors for defective construction that caused various problems, including water infiltration. One subcontractor, CSC, was to provide window and glazing services. After a rainstorm, water infiltrated the project due to CSC's work. Metro North claimed that CSC was liable for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. 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

Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects

July 06, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Last November, mold problems were discovered at the Siena Condominiums in Montclair, New Jersey, which had been described by their developers as “an enclave of luxury in an urban village setting.” The owners have filed a lawsuit against Pinnacle Companies, Kohl Parnters, and Herod Development, seeking “compensatory damages, interest, reasonable attorney’s fee and costs, and for such other, further, and different relief as the Court may deem just and proper.”

According to the article on Baristanet.com, an engineering report commissioned by the condominium association revealed many problems, including improperly installed windows and siding. The developers commissioned two engineering reports themselves and found evidence of water pounding on the roof. Despite these reports and repeated promises, no repairs have been made.

Read the full story…

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

Colorado Homes Approved Despite being Too Close Together

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
ABC 7 reported that more than a dozen homes in Adams County, Colorado were inspected and approved by Building and Safety despite being built too close together. The problem was discovered by an inspector who cited a new home for being “4 inches too close to adjoining property.” Jim Williamette, the Adams County Chief Building Official told ABC 7, “It’s a fire issue for the separation of buildings.” The county may have solved the issue, according to ABC 7. Williamette stated that the properties “will be modified with fire-resistant windows” and combined with the “already-installed fire-resistant siding, the windows will satisfy the international building code.” Currently, the parties are in verbal agreement, and a “signed design proposal” is expected no later than January 21st. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Tall and Sustainable Is Not an Easy Fix

June 01, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Way back in 2009, I discussed the interaction between taller and taller buildings and sustainable (“green”) building. Back then, the reference was to the construction of skyscrapers in the Middle East and Europe. The initially referenced ENR article was written in the context of an urban retrofit of some of Chicago’s taller buildings to make them more sustainable. Just this week, ENR published another article relating to sustainability and super tall buildings. The gist of the article is that while many see taller (rather than wider) as the trend to meld an urban population explosion with more sustainable building practices, this goal is not an easy one to meet. For one, according to the article, energy performance metrics are hard to obtain, both due to the relative newness of these buildings and the seeming reluctance of certain owners to provide the data. Bob Pratt, a managing director in the Shanghai office of developer Tishman Speyer Properties, is quoted in the article, stating

Once we have measuring sticks about performance, we will know what to do” to make buildings sustainable.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrissghill@constructionlawva.com

New York Appellate Court Holds Insurers May Suffer Consequences of Delayed Payment of Energy Company Property and Business Interruption Claims

March 16, 2020 — Syed S. Ahmad & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Andrews Kurth
A New York appellate court recently held that renewable bio-diesel fuel manufacturer BioEnergy Development Group LLC may pursue tens of millions of dollars in damages from its insurers under two all-risk insurance policies, including amounts in excess of the policy limits, where the insurers refused to pay claims in a timely manner. BioEnergy purchased two all-risk property policies from Lloyd’s to provide coverage for its manufacturing plant in Memphis, Tennessee. A fire destroyed the Memphis plant in March 2016, eliminating BioEnergy’s production capacity and sole source of revenue. BioEnergy made claims under the policies and sought to rebuild its plant. The insurers acknowledged coverage and eventually made approximately $8 million in interim payments, but the parties disagreed over the value of the total property damage claim, which BioEnergy contended was in excess of $24 million. The disputed claim was submitted to appraisal, which resulted in the insurers agreeing to pay the full business interruption limit of $15.1 million. The insurers filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit, however, seeking to limit BioEnergy’s recovery to the policy limits of $15.1 million. BioEnergy alleged that the insurers failed to make interim payments in a timely manner after the fire and, as a result, the company suffered increased losses because it could not rebuild without the insurance proceeds. BioEnergy sought actual and consequential damages, plus attorneys’ fees, arising from the delayed payments, including payment of its business interruption losses in excess of the policy limits. Reprinted courtesy of Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Ahmad may be contacted at sahmad@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Navigating the Construction Burrito: OCIP Policies in California’s Construction Defect Cases

November 16, 2023 — Alexa Stephenson & Ivette Kincaid - Kahana Feld
In the early 2000’s, Owner-Controlled Insurance Programs (OCIP) or WRAPS, were traditionally used in large commercial projects of over $50 million in construction costs. As construction defect lawsuits became more prevalent, subcontractors found themselves unable to meet the insurance requirements of their contracts with developers and general contractors because they could not find insurance companies that were willing to insure the risk. This presented a problem for developers and general contractors and left them with no option but to look into new insurance products that would insure them and all subcontractors who worked on the project. OCIPs became in some instances the only insurance option for developers, general contractors, and subcontractors to build single-family or multi-family projects in California and other western states. OCIPS or WRAPS, often likened to the layers of a savory burrito, offer both enticing benefits and potential pitfalls. Just as a burrito’s ingredients can harmonize or clash, OCIP policies can shape the outcome of legal battles, impacting contractors, developers, and insurers alike. Pros – Savoring the OCIP Burrito: 1. Wrapped Protection: Much like a well-folded burrito envelops its contents, OCIP policies offer comprehensive coverage for construction projects. Developers, general contractors, and subcontractors find comfort in knowing that their liability risks are bundled into a single policy, ensuring all enrolled parties have coverage in the event of a claim. Reprinted courtesy of Alexa Stephenson, Kahana Feld and Ivette Kincaid, Kahana Feld Ms. Stephenson may be contacted at astephenson@kahanafeld.com Ms. Kincaid may be contacted at ikincaid@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Mississippi exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

June 07, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Lafayete Ins. Co. v. Peerboom, No. 3:10cv336 (S.D. Miss. June 2, 2011), claimant homeowner Peerboom hired insured contractor Absolute to raise Peerboom’s house two feet to avoid future flooding. While Absolute was raising the house, it fell, resulting in physical injury to the home. Peerboom sued Absolute for negligence, breach of contract, and fraud, seeking damages for the destruction of the home. Absolute’s CGL insurer Lafayette defended under a reservation of rights and filed a declaratory judgment action.