Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Appeals Court Affirms Civil Engineer Owes No Duty of Care to General Contractor

August 20, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Shareholder Karen Holmes and Law Clerk Justin Reid of Balestreri Potocki & Holmes, in Atlas-Allied v. SD Community College District, the California Court of Appeal “confirmed that a civil engineer owes no duty of care to the General Contractor absent privity of contract.” The Appellate court considered Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP to reach that conclusion. Holmes and Reid commented that the Atlas-Allied decision “can assist in clarifying the extent liability is owed when no contract exists. Here, while unpublished, the 4th District clearly refused to extend a duty by the civil engineer to the general contractor on a public works project, giving counsel guidance on the application of Beacon and prior decisions on design professionals’ liability.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability Cannot Be Disclaimed or Waived Under Any Circumstance

May 01, 2023 — Jason Feld & Stephanie Wilson - Kahana & Feld LLP
Arizona residential construction and single-family home production is growing at a rapid pace. And just as fast as the homes are sold, homeowners are constantly seeking warranty repairs from their homebuilders. Despite having strong purchase documents with express warranty language, the Arizona Supreme Court in Zambrano v. M & RC, II LLC, 254 Ariz. 53 (2022) adopted a bright line rule that regardless of the contract, the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability (“implied warranty”) cannot be disclaimed or waived under any circumstance. The Arizona Supreme Court opinion provides clear guidance of the law in this area on the scope of the implied warranty in contracts between homebuyers and builder/vendors, specifically on the issue of whether an express warranty can negate and effectively waive the common law implied warranty – which is a definitive violation of public policy. The Zambrano decision involved a licensed real estate broker who bought a new single family home for herself in a newly constructed master planned community in Surprise, AZ. Zambrano entered into a valid sales contract with Scott Homes (homebuilder) which contained a stand-alone 45-page pre-printed form express warranty. The express warranty was to be the “only warranty applicable to the home.” The contract further clarified that the buyer was expressly disclaiming (and, thus, waiving) the implied warranty. The sales documents and express warranty were signed and authorized by Zambrano. A short time later, the home developed alleged “design and construction defects” that were “either time barred or outside the coverage” of the express warranty. Zambrano filed suit for the alleged defects based on the implied warranty. Scott Homes filed summary judgment based on the Zambrano’s waiver and disclaimer of the implied warranty in the purchase agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment and the matter was appealed up to the Arizona Supreme Court. Reprinted courtesy of Jason Feld, Kahana & Feld LLP and Stephanie Wilson, Kahana & Feld LLP Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanafeld.com Ms. Wilson may be contacted at swilson@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Federal Court Reiterates Broad Duty to Defend in Additional Insured Cases

April 22, 2024 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
In the recent case of Travelers Indem. Co. of Am. v. Accredited Sur. & Cas. Co., No. 21-CV-7189 (FB) (JRC), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44634 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2024), the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York had occasion to consider an additional insured tender on behalf of a prime contractor, Archstone, to a subcontractor, Topline, who was named as a direct defendant in a New York labor law case. Even though Topline’s carrier put forth evidence that Topline was not negligent, the court held, under New York’s broad duty to defend, that Topline’s carrier owed a duty to defend the prime contractor. Initially, the court was satisfied that a purchase order, signed only by Topline and not Archstone, was binding on Topline. That purchase order specified that Topline agreed to name Archstone as an additional insured. With respect to the duty to defend, the court found that it was enough that the underlying plaintiff alleged that all defendants, including Topline, were negligent in permitting a ladder that plaintiff was on to remain in a defective condition and in failing to foresee the existence of a hazard from the condition of the subject ladder. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

Hartford Stadium Controversy Still Unresolved

September 22, 2016 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
The Hartford Yard Goats and the city of Hartford, Conn., say Arch Insurance—the surety for the dual developer/prime contractor of the minor-league baseball team’s new, unfinished stadium—has committed to helping complete the project now that the team and its developer have acrimoniously split. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr.com@bnpmedia.com

After Fatal House Explosion, Colorado Seeks New Pipeline Regulations

May 10, 2017 — Mark Shaw - Engineering News-Record
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) has ordered comprehensive inspections, along with new monitoring and testing procedures, for all oil and gas pipelines located near houses and other buildings across the state. The action follows an April gas explosion in a northern Colorado home that killed two people. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mark Shaw, ENR
Mr. Shaw may be contacted at shawm@enr.com

Ex-Engineered Products Firm Executive Convicted of Bid Rigging

March 06, 2022 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
A federal jury convicted a former executive at an engineered construction products firm Feb. 1 for his role in a bid-rigging scheme that targeted the North Carolina Dept. of Transportation. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Florida “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence” and “Your Work” Exclusion

July 23, 2014 — Scott Patterson - CD Coverage
In J.B.D. Construction, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., * Fed.Appx. *, 2014 WL 3377690 (11th Cir. 2014), claimant property owner Sun City contracted with insured general contractor J.B.D. for the construction of a fitness center. The fitness center was to be physically connected to an existing Sun City building. J.B.D. utilized subcontractors for some of the work. Shortly after completion, leaks developed in the fitness center’s roof, windows and doors which J.B.D. attempted to fix. After Sun City refused to make the final contract payment, J.B.D. sued Sun City for contract amounts owed. Sun City counterclaimed for the construction defects, alleged damage to the fitness center and other property. J.B.D. tendered defense of the counterclaim to its CGL insurer Mid-Continent. After Mid-Continent failed to agree to defend, J.B.D. settled with Sun City, paying Sun City $182K. Following several demands from J.B.D. for reimbursement of defense costs and the settlement amount, Mid-Continent tendered the defense costs minus a deductible. J.B.D. then sued Mid-Continent for breach of duties to defend and indemnify. On cross motions for summary judgment, the federal district trial court entered judgment for Mid-Continent, finding no duties to defend or indemnify. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed on the duty to defend while affirming on the duty to indemnify. Applying Florida law, the court first held that the defective work, including the defective installation of the fitness center’s windows, doors, and roof, did not constitute “property damage.” Thus, the costs to repair or replace the defective work did not constitute damages because of “property damage.” The court next held that, while damage to other portions of the fitness center would constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence,” all such “property damage” fell within the “your work” exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Patterson, CD Coverage

Slip and Fall Claim from Standing Water in Parking Garage

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In Metairie, Louisiana, Paul Unkauf filed a lawsuit after he allegedly “slipped and fell on standing water in the parking garage,” located at Heritage Plaza, according to the Louisiana Record. The defendants, Stewart Development LLC, Stirling Properties LLC, Platinum Parking LLC and First Financial Company, are “accused of permitting standing water to dampen the pathway leading to the elevator bank, failing to dry the pathway, failing to warn of the hazard, failing to properly inspect the area in question, failing to provide a safe means of exit and entrance, being careless and negligent under the circumstances, failing to properly identify and correct defects in design and failing to properly supervise and train employees,” reports the Louisiana Record. Unkauf is seeking an “unspecified amount in damages” for “medical expenses, physical pain, loss of function, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life and permanent partial disability.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES