Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence

July 13, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Sometimes, hedging a position on a potential occurrence is not prudent. Stated differently, hedging a position on a contingent event is not the right course of action. The reason being is that a potential occurrence or contingent event is SPECULATIVE. The occurrence or event may not take place and, even if it does take place, the impact is unknown. An example of hedging a defense on such a potential occurrence or contingent event can be found in a construction dispute involving a federal project out of the Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co., 2020 WL 1644565 (E.D.Va. 2020). In this case, the prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform electrical work, under one subcontract, and install a security system, under a separate subcontract. The subcontractor claimed it was owed money under the two subcontracts and instituted a lawsuit against the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond. The prime contractor had issued the subcontractor an approximate $71,000 back-charge for delays. While the subcontractor did not accept the back-charge, it moved for summary judgment claiming that the liability for the back-charge can be resolved at trial as there is still over $300,000 in contract balance that should be paid to it. The prime contractor countered that the delays caused by the subcontractor could be greater than $71,000 based on a negative evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”). A negative CPARS rating by the federal government due to the delays caused by the subcontractor would result in a (potential) loss of business with the federal government (i.e., lost profit) to the prime contractor. The main problem for the prime contractor: a negative CPARs rating was entirely speculative as there had not been a negative CPARs rating and, even if there was, the impact a negative rating would have on the prime contractor’s future business with the federal government was unknown. To this point, the district court stated:

In this case, [prime contractor’s] claim for damages is wholly speculative. [Prime contractor] has not produced any evidence that its stated condition precedent—a negative CPARS rating—will actually occur and will have a negative impact on its future federal contracting endeavors. Specifically, [prime contractor] has not identified any facts that indicate that it will be subject to a negative CPARS rating or any indication of the Navy’s dissatisfaction with its work as the prime contractor on the Project… Further, a CPARS rating is only one aspect taken into consideration when federal contracts are awarded. In sum, there is no evidence of the following: (1) a negative CPARS rating issued to [prime contractor]; (2) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative rating will be the result of the delay [prime contractor] alleges was caused by [subcontractor]; or (3) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative CPARS rating will result in future lost profits.

U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc., supra, at *2 (internal citation omitted).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Additional Insured Prevails on Summary Judgment For Duty to Defend, Indemnify

October 02, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
On summary judgment, the insured general contractor prevailed not only on the duty to defend, but also the duty to indemnify. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Old Republic Gen. Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103954 (S.D. N. Y. Aug. 7, 2015). 170 Broadway entered into a construction management agreement with McGowan Builders Inc. to serve as its construction manager for a hotel being built in Manhattan. Under the agreement, McGowan obtained a general liability policy from Old Republic naming 170 Broadway as an additional insured. 170 Broadway also secured its own policy from Wausau. Adam Burawski, an employee of a security company, came to the 170 Broadway site to meet with McGowan about provided security services for the project. Before the meeting, Burawski tripped and fell, sustaining a serious injury. 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

Contractor May Be Barred Until Construction Lawsuit Settled

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In July, Pamar Enterprises was constructing a water main in Bad Axe, Michigan and an error on their part sent water and sewage into homes. This was similar to what happened when they constructed a water main in 2007 in Lyon Township. Now Michigan Representative Terry Brown wants the state to stop awarding contracts to Pamar until the lawsuits are resolved. “I’ve asked [the Michigan Department of Transportation] not to have any more contracts with Pamar,” said Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown is also seeking that the state withholds payments to Pamar. “I was assured that they would not be getting any more payments until the situation was satisfactorily resolved.” In the 2007 case, Pamar won in Oakland County Circuit Court, but the Michigan Court of Appeals, found that Pamar failed in its “duty to exercise reasonable care when it entered onto an altered private property.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Travelers Insurance Sues Chicago for $26M in Damages to Willis Tower

May 15, 2023 — Annemarie Mannion - Engineering News-Record
Travelers Property Casualty Co. is suing the City of Chicago and its water district for $26 million in damages caused when more than 1 million gallons of Chicago River water flooded into a 110-story skyscraper during a 2020 storm. Reprinted courtesy of Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-Record Ms. Mannion may be contacted at manniona@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Nevada Legislature Burns Insurers' Rights to Offer Eroding Limits

August 28, 2023 — William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Nevada’s legislature recently passed a groundbreaking law imposing two prohibitions on insurers. First, the law prohibits insurers from issuing or renewing any liability insurance policy with an “eroding limits” provision. While the first section of the law will have the most immediate effects, the statute goes further, generally prohibiting insurers from limiting the availability of coverage for the costs of defense, legal costs and fees, and other claim expenses. This second section leaves a great deal to interpretation, with the potential to massively expand policyholder rights, and may throw the traditional structure of liability insurance policies into question. Nevada Statute §679a provides as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an insurer, including, without limitation, an insurer listed in NRS 679A.160, shall not issue or renew a policy of liability insurance that contains a provision that:

Reduces the limit of liability stated in the policy by the costs of defense, legal costs and fees and other expenses for claims; or
Otherwise limits the availability of coverage for the costs of defense, legal costs and fees and other expenses for claims.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at WBennett@sdvlaw.com

Insured's Remand of Bad Faith Action Granted

December 30, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court agreed remand of the insured's bad faith action to state court was appropriate. Kavanaugh v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138465 (C.D. Calif. Aug. 15, 2019). The insured sued National Union and Great American Insurance Company in state court for failing to defend him in three civil actions. In the alternative, claims were brought against Gallagher Risk Management Services, Inc. and Chelsea Laing for professional negligence in failing to broker and procure adequate insurance for him. Laing acted as an "agent and/or broker and procured at least one of the policies at issue." Gallagher removed the action based on federal diversity jurisdiction. Although Laing was a citizen of California, Gallagher argued she was fraudulently joined and was a sham defendant, so her citizenship should be disregarded for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. The insured moved to remand because Laing was a proper defendant. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Watch Your Step – Playing Golf on an Outdoor Course Necessarily Encompasses Risk of Encountering Irregularities in the Ground Surface

May 08, 2023 — Kaitlyn A. Jensen & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On April 27, 2023, the First District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Walter Wellsfry, et al. v. Ocean Colony Partners, LLC (A165175, April 27, 2023) affirming summary judgment for a golf course owner on the grounds that the injured golfer’s lawsuit was barred by the primary assumption of risk doctrine. In doing so, the Court of Appeal found that outdoor golfers assume the risks associated with the topographical features of the course, including the risk of stepping on an inconspicuous tree root. Recreational golfer Walter Wellsfry was walking from a tee box back to his golf cart when he allegedly stepped on a small tree root concealed by grass, causing him to fall into his golf cart in immediate pain. The ground consisted of mixed terrain, including a combination of grass, dirt, and sand. The tree root was estimated to be approximately 1.5 inches high by 1.5 inches wide. Believing he may have only sprained an ankle, Wellsfry continued the course and reported the incident to management. He later sued the golf course owner Ocean Colony Partners for negligence, claiming that the tree root was a “hidden obstruction” creating an unreasonable risk of harm to anyone who traversed the area. Reprinted courtesy of Kaitlyn A. Jensen, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Jensen may be contacted at kjensen@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Subcontract Should Flow Down Delay Caused by Subcontractors

December 21, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A general contractor’s subcontract with its subcontractor should include a provision that entitles it to flow down liquidated damages assessed by the owner stemming from delays caused by the subcontractor. Such a provision does not mean the general contractor does not have to prove delays caused by the subcontractor or can arbitrarily allocate the amount or days it claims the subcontractor is liable. The general contractor still will need to reasonably establish the delays the subcontractor caused the critical path of the schedule, i.e., delayed the job. In addition to the right to flow down liquidated damages, the subcontract should also entitle the general contractor to recover its actual extended general conditions caused by the subcontractor’s delays (regardless of whether the owner assesses liquidated damages). The objective is that if the subcontractor delays the job, the subcontractor is liable for liquidated damages the general contractor is liable to the owner for in addition to the general contractor’s own delay damages. This is an important subcontractual provision so that the risk of delay caused by subcontractors is clearly flowed down to them in the subcontract. In a 1987 case, Hall Construction Co., Inc. v. Beynon, 507 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), the subcontract at-issue contained language that stated, “The parties hereto agree that a supplier who delays performance beyond the time agreed upon in this Purchase Order shall have caused [general contractor] liquidated damages in the amount required of [general contractor] by their contract per day for each day such delay continues which sum the supplier hereby agrees to pay.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES