Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Association Insurance Company v. Carbondale Glen Lot E-8, LLC: Federal Court Reaffirms That There Is No Duty to Defend or Indemnify A Builder For Defective Construction Work

December 20, 2017 — David M McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
In a case that squarely confronts the juxtaposition of an insurer’s duty to defend or indemnify its insured for construction related defects, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado recently granted an insurer’s motion for summary judgment on both matters against a construction subrogee, in Ass’n Ins. Co. v. Carbondale Glen Lot E-8, LLC, No. 15-cv-02025-RPM, 2016 WL 9735743, at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 10. 2017). Mountainview Construction Services, LLC (“MCS”) served as the general contractor for the construction of a residence on a lot owned by Glen Lot E-8, LLC (“E-8”). MCS took out a Commercial General Liability Policy (“Policy”) with Association Insurance Company (“AIC”) that provided coverage to MCS for the relevant time period for the construction of the residence. E-8 then asserted a series of claims against MCS, based on the allegation that MCS and its subcontractors defectively constructed the home by, among other things, building the residence two feet too high in violation of applicable codes. E-8 also argued that MCS and its subcontractors made significant alterations and/or deviations from the original project specifications without obtaining E-8’s consent or approval from relevant authorities. MCS tendered the claim to AIC for defense and indemnity. In turn, AIC declined coverage on the argument that the Policy precluded any coverage for defective work MCS may have performed on the project, absent damage to person or other property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

A Tuesday With Lisa Colon

July 02, 2024 — Lisa Colon - The Dispute Resolver
As a seasoned construction lawyer, I've always prided myself on being independent and tough. However, my toughness was tested when my life took an unexpected turn. In 2013, I was diagnosed with a genetic cardiomyopathy, a condition which made it harder for my heart to pump blood. That diagnosis in itself was devasting since I had to change many things about the way I lived, including having to abandon running, my favorite hobby. After living 10 years in this new normal, in May 2023, I was told my right ventricle was no longer working and there were no further therapies available. I needed a heart transplant. The journey was long, arduous, and filled with both physical and emotional challenges. This life-altering experience not only gave me a new lease on life but also profoundly changed my perspective on practicing law. In this post, I will share three key lessons I learned from my heart transplant journey that have significantly impacted how I approach my legal practice. Lesson 1: The Importance of Patience and Persistence The journey to receiving a heart transplant is often fraught with uncertainty and long waiting periods. My new heart came quickly. I waited 22 days on the transplant list, but for me, the wait seemed interminable, filled with numerous hospital visits, medical tests, and moments of despair. Then came the recovery. The early days were filled with weekly biopsies, unimaginable nerve pain, and days of wondering if things would ever get better. During this time, I learned the true meaning of patience. Each day was a test of my resolve, and giving up was never an option. I had to persist through the toughest days, believing that a positive outcome was possible. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lisa Colon, Saul Ewing
Ms. Colon may be contacted at lisa.colon@saul.com

Client Alert: Court of Appeal Applies Common Interest Privilege Doctrine to HOA Litigation Meetings

March 19, 2014 — David W. Evans, Steven M. Cvitanovic, and Michael C. Parme - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assoc. v. Superior Court (No. D064567, March 12, 2014), the California Court of Appeal held a homeowners association’s (“HOA”) litigation meetings related to the HOA’s construction defect lawsuit were subject to protection under the attorney-client privilege. Specifically, the court concluded the common interest doctrine applied to the subject litigation meetings, thereby barring the defendants in the HOA’s lawsuit from seeking discovery related to the content and disclosures made during those meetings. The plaintiff HOA initiated a construction defect lawsuit against a residential developer and builder, seeking damages for construction defects related to common areas. The defendants took the depositions of individual homeowners and inquired regarding the communications and disclosures made at informational litigation update meetings. The meetings were conducted by the HOA’s counsel with groups of homeowners, some of whom had filed their own, separate lawsuits against the same defendants. Motions to compel were filed after attorney-client privilege objections were asserted by counsel for the HOA. After the court-appointed discovery referee opined that the common interest doctrine applied and that the communications presented at the meetings were subject to the attorney-client privilege, the trial court rejected this recommendation and overruled the HOA’s privilege objections. The HOA filed a petition for a writ of mandate. The defendants argued the privilege had been waived based on the presence of persons who were not the clients of the HOA’s attorney, that the subject communications were not “confidential communications” and that the individual homeowners and the HOA did not share common interests at the time. After setting forth a comprehensive discussion of the statutory principles underlying the attorney-client privilege and the bases for waiver, as provided in California Evidence Code §§ 912 and 952, and summarizing applicable decisional law, the court specifically analyzed the question of whether the common interest doctrine applied in the context of the disputed HOA litigation meetings. The common interest doctrine protects confidential communications made by counsel to third parties if the third parties are present to further the interest of the client or are those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which the lawyer was consulted. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Steven M. Cvitanovic, and Michael C. Parme of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com, and Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Understanding the Miller Act

February 26, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
John P. Ahlers of Ahlers & Cressman PLLC, explained who is covered by the Miller Act in regards to Federal public works projects on the firm’s blog. Ahlers stated that “[t]he Miller Act requires that all general contractors post payment bonds on contracts in excess of $25,000.00.” In his blog post, Ahlers goes over coverage and the distinction between subcontractor and supplier. Ahlers commented, “While, at first glance, it may seem fairly simple to sort out who is and who is not covered by the Miller Act payment bond, the analysis can at times be factually and legally complex. This is an area that, if faced, the contractor should seek legal advice of an experienced construction lawyer before jumping to conclusions.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Kiewit Selected for Rebuild of Collapsed Baltimore Bridge

September 02, 2024 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
Kiewit Infrastructure Co. has been tapped to rebuild Baltimore’s I-695/Francis Scott Key Bridge under a progressive design-build procurement announced Aug. 29 by the Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA). Work on the expected four-year reconstruction effort is scheduled to begin next year. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New EPA Regulation for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

January 27, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The EPA recently amended the “’All Appropriate Inquiries Rule’ concerning environmental site assessments of potentially contaminated sites,” reports the Schinnerer Risk Management Blog. Engineers will need to be aware that “Phase I assessments should now reference ASTM International’s E1527-13 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process” in order to comply with the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees on Attorney’s Fees

June 13, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a recent case, the appellate court held that the attorney’s fees provision in the contract was NOT broad enough to entitle the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees for litigating the amount of attorney’s fees. This is known as “fees on fees” which is when you can recover your prevailing party attorney’s fees when you are fighting over the quantum that should be awarded to you as the prevailing party. The attorney’s fees provision at-issue stated: “In any lawsuit to enforce the Lease or under applicable law, the party in whose favor a judgment or decree has been rendered may recover its reasonable court costs including attorney’s fees from the non-prevailing party.” Language similar to this language can be found in many contracts as a prevailing party attorney’s fees provision. However, this provision was NOT broad enough to recover “fees on fees.” As explained in this article, if this is a consideration, you can negotiate or include this provision into your construction contract by expanding the scope of the prevailing party attorney’s fees provision to clarify that it entitles the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees in litigating the amount of attorney’s fees. 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

Doctrine of Merger Not a Good Blend for Seller of Sonoma Winery Property

April 15, 2015 — Kristen Lee Price and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Ram’s Gate Winery, LLC v. Joseph G. Roche, et al. (No. A139189 & A141090, filed 4/9/15) (Ram’s Gate), the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held the doctrine of merger did not extinguish a seller’s contractual duty to disclose potentially hazardous seismic conditions on a Sonoma winery property. In Ram’s Gate, the buyer of the property filed a lawsuit alleging the seller failed to disclose information relating to earthquake issues prior to the close of escrow. In the parties’ “Purchase and Sales Agreement” (Purchase Agreement) the seller agreed to disclose any information known to it regarding “known geological hazards . . . soil reports . . . geotechnical reports” and other facts “having effect on the value of the ownership or use of the property.” The seller, however, argued this disclosure warranty did not survive the escrow period because it did not expressly provide for survival while other provisions in the Purchase Agreement did. Reprinted courtesy of Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES