Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

July 31, 2013 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
An issue that has plagued builders in Colorado construction defect litigation is the difficulty of getting additional insured carriers to fully participate in the builder’s defense, oftentimes leaving the builder to fund its own defense during the course of the litigation. Many additional insurers offer a variety of positions regarding why they will not pay for fees and costs during the course of a lawsuit. Some insurers argue that, until after trial, it is impossible to determine its proper share of the defense, and therefore cannot make any payments until the liability is determined as to all of the potentially contributing policies. (This is often referred to as the “defense follows indemnity” approach.) Others may make an opening contribution to defense fees and costs, but fall silent as fees and costs accumulate. In such an event, the builder may be forced to fund all or part of its own defense, while the uncooperative additional insured carrier waits for the end of the lawsuit or is faced with other legal action before it makes other contributions. Recent orders in two, currently ongoing, U.S. District Court cases provide clarity on the duty to defend in Colorado, holding that multiple insurers’ duty to defend is joint and several. The insured does not have to go without a defense while the various insurers argue amongst themselves as to which insurer pays what share. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Reaffirming the Importance of Appeal Deadlines Under the Contract Disputes Act

January 26, 2017 — Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
A recent United States Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) decision emphasizes the importance of deadlines for appealing a contracting officer’s (“CO”) decision under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”). On July 22, 2016, the COFC granted the consolidation of two naval contract dispute appeals totaling nearly $12.4 million in response to Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba’s (“NTS”) motion to resolve two Requests for Equitable Adjustment (“REA”) in the same forum. See Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba v. United States, No. 15-885C, 2016 WL 4009886, at *5 (Fed. Cl. July 22, 2016). NTS’s motion before the COFC sought to transfer an appeal of a REA before the COFC to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”), where another appeal of a REA arising under the same contract was presently on appeal. The COFC rejected NTS’s appeal to transfer the REA to the ASBCA because NTS did not appeal the REA within the 90-day limit under the CDA. Instead, the COFC allowed NTS to transfer the REA before the ASBCA to the COFC because timeliness was not an issue. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

A Contractual Liability Exclusion Doesn't Preclude Insurer's Duty to Indemnify

November 05, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP's blog, "[I]n Crownover v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20737 (5th Cir. October 29, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior ruling and held that the contractual liability exclusion did not preclude an insurer’s duty to indemnify its insured for an award resulting from the insured’s defective construction." The case involved the Crownovers who were awarded damages for "Arrow's breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction contract." However, Arrow then filed for bankruptcy. Mid-Continent, Arrow's insurer, denied Crownovers' demand for recovery, stating that "the contractual liability exclusion applied because the arbitrator’s award to the Crownovers was based only on Arrow’s breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction agreement." The court agreed with Mid-Continent. Subsequently, the fifth court of appeals "reversed the district court’s ruling and awarded summary judgment in favor of the Crownovers." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

U.S. Construction Spending Rose in 2017 by Least in Six Years

February 07, 2018 — Scott Lanman – Bloomberg
Even with solid U.S. economic growth, construction spending rose in 2017 by the least in six years, as nonresidential building slowed and outlays by governments declined. The value of construction put in place increased 3.8 percent to $1.23 trillion last year, according to Commerce Department figures released Thursday in Washington. That’s the smallest gain since a 2.6 percent drop in 2011. Spending for December was up 0.7 percent from the previous month, exceeding the median estimate of economists for a 0.4 percent increase. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Lanman, Bloomberg

Texas Approves Law Ensuring Fair and Open Competition

August 20, 2019 — Nick Steingart - Construction Executive
Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law Neutrality in State Government Contracting (H.B. 985), which ensures Texas’ entire skilled construction workforce--96% of which does not belong to a labor union--can compete on a level playing field for public works contracts to build projects utilizing state funding or credit. The law, introduced by Rep. Tan Parker and sponsored by Sen. Kelly Hancock, prohibits project labor agreements from being mandated on certain taxpayer-funded construction projects. Based on the latest data available from the Census Bureau, state and local governments in Texas spent more money on public construction projects than any other state in 2017. Reprinted courtesy of Nick Steingart, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Steingart may be contacted at steingart@abc.org

Anatomy of a Data Center

October 28, 2024 — Robert A. James & Matt Olhausen - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Traditional and social media are thick with reports and predictions of the remarkable increase in size, power consumption and significance of data centers. Not only technology companies but real estate and energy developers, investment funds, lenders, and professionals of all stripes are in or determined to enter this sector. Our inboxes are full—it’s data center this, data center that. But what exactly is a data center? What infrastructure, technology and human resources come together to create and sustain one of these localized points of computation? By understanding their components, we can glean some understanding of the business, public policy and (our focus) legal issues that arise before and during their operation. In this article, we cite key characteristics of a reference Blackacre Data Center, with occasional glances at other (real) structures that offer variations on themes. Blackacre is a composite of several centers we have encountered in our law practice. These facilities differ widely in size, location and functions, so your mileage will vary. Reprinted courtesy of Robert A. James, Pillsbury and Matt Olhausen, Pillsbury Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Olhausen may be contacted at matt.olhausen@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New York Court Rejects Owner’s Bid for Additional Insured Coverage

September 06, 2021 — Eric D. Suben - Traub Lieberman
Tenders for additional insured coverage in construction accidents are frequently litigated in New York courts. Although the past few years have seen changes in the law regarding the causal nexus between the named insured’s work and coverage for the purported additional insured, courts often find there is at least a duty to defend the additional insured where there are allegations of the employer/subcontractor’s presence at the site. An exception is the recent decision in Gemini Insurance Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Index No. 652669/20 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (Lebovits, J.). In that case, Gemini insured the owner and general contractor of a construction project, and Lloyd’s insured the injured claimant’s employer under a policy endorsed to provide additional insured coverage to entities who “have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement” with the named insured that they must be “added as additional insured.” Although the court found that the contracts here satisfied this requirement for additional insured coverage, the court’s analysis did not end there. Noting that even where such contract exists, the Lloyd’s policy would not provide additional insured coverage “in all circumstances” (emphasis in original), the court next considered whether the underlying injury was “caused in whole or in part by: 1. [The named insured’s] acts or omissions, or 2. The acts or omissions of those acting on [the named insured’s] behalf,” as required under the endorsement’s wording. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com

No Prejudicial Error in Refusing to Give Jury Instruction on Predominant Cause

November 11, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment after the jury determined there was no coverage for a leaking pipe. Mendoza v. Pacific Spec. Ins. Co., 2024 Cal. App. Unpub. EXIS 5477 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2024). The Mendoza's third amended complaint alleged their home was damaged "by overflow of water from the dwelling's plumbing system resulting from a broken pipe, which overflow undermined the structural integrity of the dwelling." The Mendozas insured their home under a policy issued by Pacific. The policy insured the property against "sudden and accidental direct physical loss" except where expressly excluded. The Mendozas submitted a claim Pacific paid approximately $1800 for the loss and closed the claim. The amount paid did not include payment for any structural damage to the home. The Mendozas alleged that Pacific's failure to conduct a full and fair investigation into the structural damage and its inadequate payment of benefits was a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES