Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim

January 27, 2010 — Steven M. Cvitanovic

In the recent case of UDC-Universal Development, L.P. v. CH2M Hill, 2010 Cal.App.LEXIS 47 (filed January 15, 2010), the Sixth District Court of Appeal provided a stunning illustration of the far-reaching effects of the California Supreme Court’s holding in Crawford v. Weather Shield Manufacturing Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 541. In Crawford, the Court held the duty to defend under an indemnity agreement arose upon the mere tender of defense of a claim covered by the indemnity.

In the UDC case, CH2M Hill provided engineering and environmental planning services to developer UDC on a project that ultimately wound up in a construction defect lawsuit by the homeowners association ( HOA ). UDC tendered its defense to CH2M Hill, the tender was rejected, and UDC filed a cross-complaint for negligence, breach of contract and indemnity against CH2M Hill and others. After the HOA’s construction defect claims were settled, UDC proceeded to trial against CH2M Hill. The jury found in favor of CH2M Hill on the claims for negligence and breach of contract. At the request of the parties prior to trial, the trial court ruled on the application of the indemnity agreement in light of Crawford and, in so doing, found that the defense obligation arose upon the tender and that CH2M Hill breached that duty despite the jury finding in favor of CH2M Hill.

The Court of Appeal affirmed, noting that the defense obligation arose as soon as the defense was tendered and did not depend on the outcome of the litigation, and that the HOA’s general description of the defects along with an allegation that Doe engineers were negligent triggered the duty to defend.

Although this case did not expand the crushing impact of Crawford’s holding, it is

Read the full story...

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

Illinois Court Assesses Factual Nature of Term “Reside” in Determining Duty to Defend

October 30, 2023 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Guevara, 2023 IL App (1st) 221425-U, P2, the Illinois First District Court of Appeals addressed an insurance carrier’s duty to defend under a homeowners insurance policy. The underlying suit stemmed from an alleged injury suffered at a residence located in Berwyn, Illinois and owned by named insured Luz Melina Guevara, a defendant in the suit. After Guevara tendered the suit, State Farm filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Guevara because Guevara did not “reside” at the insured premises. The policy defined the "insured location" as the "residence premises," and residence premises was defined as "the one, two, three or four-family dwelling, other structures, and grounds or that part of any other building; where you reside and which is shown in the Declarations." In response to the underlying lawsuit, Guevara had filed an answer and affirmative defenses in which Guevara denied the allegation that "At all relevant times, [Guevara] resided in Berwyn, Cook County, Illinois." Guevara admitted that she owned the Berwyn property but denied that she "resided in, maintained and controlled the property". The declaratory judgment complaint alleged (among other things) that, based on admissions by Guevara in her answer, the Berwyn residence was not an "insured location" under the State Farm policy. State Farm moved for summary judgment at the trial court level on this ground and summary judgment was granted in State Farm’s favor. An appeal ensued wherein the parties disagreed as to whether there is a genuine issue of material fact that, under the language of the policy, State Farm had no duty to defend because the Berwyn property was not an "insured location" because she did not "reside" there. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

Iowa Apartment Complex Owners Awarded Millions for Building Defects

March 31, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The owners of a West Des Moines, Iowa apartment complex received an award of $12.4 million by a Polk County jury, according to The Des Moines Register, who declared that “[i]t’s believed to be one of the largest judgments of its kind in state history.” The owners had sued the builders “over leaks and mold the owners said took years to correct.” The verdict “marked the culmination of a nearly decade-long saga involving the construction of the Westlake apartments and condos, a 300-unit complex built at 1770 92nd St. on the Dallas County side of West Des Moines during the pre-recession housing boom.” Attorney Steve Eckley told The Des Moines Register that “the settlement covers about $3 million in previous repairs, about $6 million in expected repairs and maintenance and about $6 million in lost revenue.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Disaster Remediation Contracts: Understanding the Law to Avoid a Second Disaster

August 30, 2017 — Todd Colvard – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, consumers and contractors should be aware of protections prescribed by the Texas Legislature for Disaster Remediation Contracts. Chapter 58 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code includes several important consumer protections. Consumers should be aware of these protections, and contractors should take care to avoid inadvertent violations. This statute applies to a contractor engaged in “disaster remediation,” in a county subject to a disaster declaration. Those contracts are subject to certain notice provisions and limitations. A violation of Chapter 58 is considered a Deceptive Trade Practice and could subject a violator to both public and private remedies. The full text of Chapter 58 is found here: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/BC/htm/BC.58.htm. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Todd Colvard, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Colvard may be contacted at tcolvard@pecklaw.com

“Unwinnable”: Newark Trial Team Obtains Unanimous “No Cause” Verdict in Challenging Matter on Behalf of NYC Mutual Housing Association

May 15, 2023 — Lewis Brisbois
Newark, N.J. (May 8, 2023) – Newark Partner Afsha Noran and New Jersey Managing Partner Colin P. Hackett recently obtained a “no cause” verdict on behalf of multi-unit apartment owners and managers, notwithstanding that the trial judge initially deemed the matter an “unwinnable case” for the defense. In this matter, Lewis Brisbois represented a large New York City mutual housing association that owned and managed a single multi-unit apartment building in Paterson, New Jersey. The plaintiffs – a mother and her two children – alleged that the housing association failed to maintain the property, which led to defective conditions and mold throughout their apartment. They further contended that the mold caused multiple pulmonary, nasal, and skin injuries. Despite the shortage of trial judges in New Jersey, this case proceeded to trial, with the plaintiffs’ significant six-figure demand in place. Over the course of the four-day trial, the plaintiffs presented five witnesses: the plaintiff mother, the plaintiff 18-year-old child, the liability expert, and two medical experts. The client chose not to retain either liability or damages experts to counter those of the plaintiffs. As such, Lewis Brisbois’ trial team was left to defend the matter with an opening statement, a cross-examination of the plaintiffs and their experts, the testimony of the client’s property manager, and a closing argument. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Punchlist: The News We Didn’t Quite Get To – May 2016

May 12, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
If you’re a solar contractor make sure you don’t get burned. The California Contractors State License Board (“CSLB”) is taking a closer look at solar contractors as the industry grows in the Golden State. Only contractors holding a Class “A” Engineering, Class “B” General Contractor, or Class C-46 Solar license can perform solar construction and installation. The CSLB has clarified that C-39 Roofing contractors can install installation as part of an overall roofing job. The CSLB considers such insulation work as “incidental and supplemental” under Section 831 of the California Code of Regulations and does not require a separate C-2 Insulation and Acoustical contractor license. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Contract Change #8: Direct Communications between Owners and Contractors (law note)

March 28, 2018 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
As the Engineer or Architect of Record, you probably have frequently experienced Owners and Contractors communicating directly, in direct contravention of the language of the contract that requires them to endeavor to route all communications through the design team. With the latest version of the 201, direct communication is now authorized, to recognize both the reality of what was happening on the ground and to recognize that sometimes Owners and Contractors may need to communicate without waiting for the design team. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina

Repairs Commencing on Defect-Ridden House from Failed State Supreme Court Case

October 15, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In the Windmill Harbour area of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, Danielle Smith is repairing her home after “spending almost $25,000 on unsuccessful legal battles and two years to secure a loan,” according to the Beaufort Gazette. The contractor who custom built the home was unlicensed, and “[t]he synthetic stucco used to build the house was faulty, causing water damage throughout that will cost $500,000 and six months to repair.” Back in 2008, Smith’s case reached the state Supreme Court. The court ruled against her, reasoning “that the former owner, who had hired subcontractors to build the house, could not be held liable for the damage because he built it as a private home and had originally intended to never sell it.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES