Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

The Rubber Hits the Ramp: A Maryland Personal Injury Case

September 17, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
An elderly woman filed suit against the Town of Ocean City, Maryland, “after allegedly falling from her wheelchair because of a defective rubber warning mat on a resort street corner,” according to The Dispatch. The accident occurred when the woman’s wheelchair “struck one of the hard rubber warning mats on the handicap-accessible street corners.” The plaintiff is seeking “$750,000 in damages on three counts including negligence, strict liability and a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).” However, The Dispatch reported that it is not clear who is liable, since the sidewalk is owned and maintained by the town, but the State Highway Administration installed the rubber warning mats. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Judgment for Insured Upheld After Insurer Rejects Claim for Hurricane Damage

April 15, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's judgment as modified against Lloyds for improperly denying a claim for damage caused by Hurricane Ike. Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 1573 (Tex. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2015). Lewis sued Lloyds, alleging that, although her home and personal property were seriously damaged by Hurricane Ike, her claim was denied. At trial, Lloyds testified that the damage to Lewis' home had been previously caused by Hurricane Rita and Lloyds had already paid for repair of the roof. Nevertheless, Lewis had not used the payment for roof repairs. Lewis admitted that she used some of the payment after Hurricane Rita to purchase a generator and for evacuation expenses, but the majority of the payment was used for roof repairs. Lewis' expert engineer testified that the damage to Lewis' home was caused by wind and water intrusion through a hole caused by a tree limb that fell during Hurricane Ike. The expert further opined that the cost to mitigate the damage to the home and bring it up to livable standard was $156,155. Further, the home was a constructive total loss. 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

Property Insurance Exclusion: Leakage of Water Over 14 Days or More

July 10, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The recent opinion of Whitley v. American Integrity Ins. Co. of Florida, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D1503a (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), as a follow-up to this article on the property insurance exclusion regarding the “constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water…over a period of 14 or more days,” is a beneficial opinion to insureds. In this case, the insured had a vacation home. A plumbing leak occurred that caused water damage to the home. The plumbing leak occurred during a period of time that lasted approximately 30 days. For this reason, the property insurer denied the claim per the exclusion that the policy does not cover loss caused by repeated leakage of water over a period of 14 or more days from a plumbing system. Summary judgment was granted by the trial court in favor of the insurer based on this exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Constructive Change Directives / Directed Changes

June 06, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
rime contracts typically contain a constructive change directive clause. A constructive change directive also goes by the acronym CCD (and for purposes of this article, such changes will be referred to as a CCD), however it can also be known as a Work Change Directive, Interim Directed Change, or Directed Change, depending on the type of contract beign utilized. An owner can order a CCD, versus issuing the contractor a formalized change order, as a mechanism to direct the prime contractor to perform work if there is a dispute as to contract amount, time, or scope. Just because an owner issues a CCD does not mean the owner is conceding that it owes the contractor a change order. Rather, the owner is ordering the CCD as a mechanism to keep the project moving forward notwithstanding a disagreement with the contractor as to the price or time impact. Standard form construction agreements such as the AIA, EJCDC, or ConsensusDocs, will have a standard provision dealing with change directives where the owner can order the contractor to proceed with work in the absence of a change order. In the federal government context, most construction contracts will contain a changes clause that authorizes the government to formally direct changes; and, there is authority for contractors to equitably pursue a constructive change based on certain directives or instructions issued by the government. Naturally, from the contractor’s perspective, this CCD provision is an important consideration as it could likely require the contractor to finance a change to the owner’s project, particularly if there is a scope dispute where the owner does not believe the contractor is entitled to any change order. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Project-Specific Policies and Products-Completed Operations Hazard Extensions

May 31, 2021 — Jeremiah M. Welch - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
1. Understanding the “Products-Completed Operations Hazard” ISO commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies use the term “products-completed operations hazard” (“PCOH”) to define a category of risk which is treated specially by certain exclusions within the policy and often subject to separate limits of insurance. In construction, we think about PCOH as being about coverage for completed work. Bodily injury and property damage arising out of completed work is a significant construction risk. Most construction contracts include warranty and indemnity obligations for completed work. All states allow lawsuits to be brought alleging bodily injury or property damage because of completed work based on common law. Contract and common law claims are subject to statutes of limitation – laws which define the time in which suits must be brought. Most states provide exceptions to their statutes of limitation for common law claims – the most common example is an extension to file a lawsuit based on a latent defect until the defect is discovered. Most states also have “statutes of repose” – laws that set a date after which suit may no longer be brought, no matter what the circumstances are. A construction contractor, therefore, has potential liability until the statute of repose period has expired. Thus, a contractor looks to ensure that it has coverage for the PCOH for its full statute of repose liability period. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremiah M. Welch, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Welch may be contacted at JWelch@sdvlaw.com

Los Angeles Wildfires Rage on, Destroying Structures and Displacing Residents

January 14, 2025 — Aileen Cho - Engineering News-Record
Wildfires in Los Angeles have already destroyed thousands of buildings, but the full extent of the damage will not be known for some time, according to local officials during a media briefing Jan. 9. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com

Policy's Operation Classification Found Ambiguous

May 21, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Property damage caused by a subcontractor's sheet piling was found to be within the policy's operation classification, which included "grading of land." Canal Indemn. Co. v. Margaretville of NSM, Inc., No. 13-13541 (11th Cir. April 15, 2014). Canal issued a CGL policy to the insured. The policy had a classification limitation provision: “This insurance applies to bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, advertising injury or medical expense arising out of only those operations that are classified and shown on the Commercial General Liability Coverage Declarations . . .” The policy's Declarations, in turn, referred to the operation classification as "Grading of Land - INCL. Borrowing, Filling or Back Filling." The policy did not define these terms. 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

Land Planners Not Held to Professional Standard of Care

October 10, 2013 — Heather Anderson — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
Recently, the Colorado Court of Appeals indicated that there is no professional duty of care applicable to land planners. See Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. v. Coleman Brothers Constr., LLC, 297 P.3d 1042 (Colo. App. 2013). Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. (“SCA”) agreed to provide land planning services to Coleman Brothers Construction, LLC (“Coleman”) for property referred to as Crown Mountain in a letter and then verbally agreed to provide a development analysis for another property, located on Emma Road in Basalt, Colorado. Thereafter, SCA sent letters to the defendant concerning the possible subdivision and development of the Emma Road property. Approximately two years later, SCA sued Coleman for breach of the verbal agreement concerning the Emma Road property. Coleman then asserted counterclaims against SCA for negligently providing inaccurate advice about whether the Emma Road property could be subdivided and developed, and that the county had denied the planned unit development sketch plan SCA prepared and submitted on behalf of Coleman. The district court granted SCA’s motion for summary judgment thereby concluding that the economic loss rule barred Coleman’s negligence counterclaims. The Court of Appeals agreed. In its opinion, the Court of Appeals reiterated the economic loss rule espoused in the Colorado Supreme Court in the Town of Alma v. AZCO Constr., Inc., 10 P.3d 1256, 1264 (Colo. 2000) case. “Under the economic loss rule, ‘a party suffering only economic loss from the breach of an express or implied contractual duty may not assert a tort claim for such a breach absent an independent duty of care under tort law.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heather Anderson
Heather Anderson can be contacted at anderson@hhmrlaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES