FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Duty to Defend Sorted Between Two Insurers Based Upon Lease and Policies

November 02, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Two insurers disagreed on which was responsible for defense costs in the underlying personal injury suit against the insured. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158480 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2017). Knerr Group, Inc. lease property to Podcon, Inc. pursuant to a written lease. A man named Anthony Postell suffered an injury in an accident on the premises during the term of the lease. Postell filed a personal injury action against Knerr and Podcon, among others. Nautilus provided a defense to Knerr in the Postell case pursuant to a policy Nautilus issued to Knerr. Podcon was insured by Westfield. 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

---

Taking the Stairs to Human Wellness and Greener Buildings

June 22, 2016 — Rob Finch – Construction Informer Blog
If taking the stairs catches on, buildings with elevators could automatically get greener. The people working in them also stand a good chance of getting healthier. However, designers and builders working for owners who want to reap these advantages, will need to learn a few new tricks when it comes to how stairs get placed and promoted. They also get a chance to unleash creativity in how they are finished. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rob Finch, Construction Informer Blog

---

#2 CDJ Topic: Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools

December 30, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In July of this year, Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP analyzed the results of the Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools case, in which “a California appeals court held that equities favor an insurer seeking equitable subrogation over a subcontractor that agreed to defend and indemnify claims arising out of its performance of work under the subcontract.” Read the full story... In the article, “General Liability Insurer Entitled to Subrogate Against its Insured’s Indemnitor,” Matthew S. Foy and Michael A. Pursell of Gordon & Rees LLP also discussed the details of the Valley Crest v. Mission Pools case that involved installing a swimming pool on a St. Regis hotel property: “In Valley Crest Landscape Development, Inc. v. Mission Pools of Escondido, Inc., the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that an insurer was entitled to equitably subrogate a breach of express indemnity claim against its insured’s indemnitor.” Read the full story... This month, Graham C. Mills of Newmeyer & Dillion reported on the decision by the Court of Appeals regarding the Valley Crest case, which “reinforces the right of a general contractor to defense and indemnity by a subcontractor when the parties have contractually allocated risk to the subcontractor. To ensure compliance with that right, the Valley Crest court imposed a strong penalty against a subcontractor that defaulted on its obligation.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Time to Update Your Virginia Mechanic’s Lien Forms (July 1, 2019)

May 01, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In a few of my recent posts here at Construction Law Musings, I’ve discussed a few bills that were considered and/or passed in the General Assembly this year. One of the bills is one close to my heart and a subject much discussed here, namely mechanic’s liens. HB2409 passed both houses of the General Assembly and has been signed by the Governor. This bill reconciled the language found in Virginia Code Sec. 43-4 with the various forms for general contractor, subcontractor and sub-subcontractor/supplier forms found in later sections of the code. As you will see if you download the .pdf of the bill as signed, this involved some tweaks to 43-4 and some updates to the mechanic’s lien forms that are in the code. The recent Desai case from the Virginia Supreme Court made it clear that such action was necessary. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrissghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Not So Fast, My Friend: Pacing and Concurrent Delay

April 25, 2022 — William E. Underwood - ConsensusDocs
When critical path activities are delayed by the owner (or another party), contractors will sometimes “pace,” or slow down, other activities to match the owner-caused delay. After all, why should the contractor hurry up and wait? But paced activities can often appear as concurrent delays on a project’s overall schedule. And all too often, contractors fail to contemporaneously document their efforts to pace work. Not only can this create avoidable disputes with owners and other contractors, but it can also create future roadblocks to the recovery of delay damages. This article examines the interplay between pacing and concurrent delay[1] and what contractors should do to minimize risk and preserve their rights to obtain more than a simple time extension for project delays. Pacing versus Concurrent Delay As a basic matter, most contracts allocate responsibility/liability for a schedule delay to the party that caused the delay. For example, if an owner is contractually required to provide equipment for a contractor to install, then the owner likely bears responsibility for any delays caused if the equipment is delivered late. If, however, the contractor was also behind schedule on other activities during this time and the project would have been delayed regardless of the owner’s late deliveries, then the delay is probably concurrent. And the contractor will generally be entitled to only an extension of time, and no other monetary relief. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William E. Underwood, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Underwood may be contacted at wunderwood@joneswalker.com

---

Loan Modifications Due to COVID-19 Pandemic: FDIC Answers CARES Act FAQs

May 11, 2020 — Nancy Sabol Frantz, Marissa Levy, Timothy E. Davis & Kristen E. Andreoli - White and Williams
In support of financial institutions and borrowers during the COVID-19 pandemic, the newly enacted Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) includes a number of provisions permitting lenders to suspend, during a covered period, requirements under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) with respect to categorizing certain loan modifications as a troubled debt restructuring (TDR) due to COVID-19. In light of the CARES Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a series of answers to FAQs for financial institutions with respect to loan modifications. The FAQs help guide lenders as well as borrowers as they address pending defaults under existing credit facilities. The FAQs encourage financial institutions to work with borrowers who may be unable to meet their payment obligations due to COVID-19 in several ways: Payment Accommodations Short-term accommodations which modify, extend, suspend or defer repayment terms should be intended to facilitate the borrower’s ability to work through the immediate impact of the virus. According to the FAQs, all loan accommodation programs should ultimately be targeted towards repayment. To that end, the FDIC recommends that financial institutions address deferred or skipped payments by either extending the original maturity date or by making those payments due in a balloon payment at the maturity date of the loan. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys Nancy Sabol Frantz, Marissa Levy, Timothy E. Davis and Kristen E. Andreoli Ms. Frantz may be contacted at frantzn@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Levy may be contacted at levymp@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Davis may be contacted at davist@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Andreoli may be contacted at andreolik@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Structural Problems May Cause Year-Long Delay Opening New Orleans School

January 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the Uptown Messenger, structural issues found at Audubon Charter School’s Broadway campus in New Orleans, Louisiana, will require “selective demolition” and “could delay students’ return by as much as a full year.” Late September of last year, “officials discovered that some of the steel supports around the stair towers were not level—some of the steel beams lean out several inches, so that the floors are not parallel.” Discovering the problem will require some demolition, according to Chris Young of Blitch Knevel architects as quoted in the Uptown Messenger: “…we’re going to have to tear down a lot of this construction to expose that steel frame to make sure that every steel beam is straight and true and not deformed.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Washington Supreme Court Rules that a Holder of a Certificate of Insurance Is Entitled to Coverage

March 09, 2020 — Sally Kim & Kyle Silk-Eglit - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law Blog
The Washington courts have historically found that the purpose of a certificate of insurance is to advise others as to the existence of insurance, but that a certificate is not the equivalent of an insurance policy. However, the Washington State Supreme Court recently held that, under certain circumstances, an insurer may be bound by the representations that its insurance agent makes in a certificate of insurance as to the additional insured (“AI”) status of a third party. Specifically, in T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, the Supreme Court found that where an insurance agent had erroneously indicated in a certificate of insurance that an entity was an AI under a liability policy, that entity would be considered as an AI based upon the agent’s apparent authority, despite boilerplate disclaimer language contained in the certificate. T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, Slip. Op. No. 96500-5, 2019 WL 5076647 (Wash. Oct. 10, 2019). In this case, Selective Insurance Company of America (“Selective”) issued a liability policy to a contractor who had been retained by T-Mobile Northeast (“T-Mobile NE”) to construct a cell tower. The policy conferred AI status to a third party if the insured-contractor had agreed in a written contract to add the third party as an AI to the policy. Under the terms of the subject construction contract, the contractor was required to name T-Mobile NE as an AI under the policy. T-Mobile NE was therefore properly considered as an AI because the contractor was required to provide AI coverage to T-Mobile NE under the terms of their contract. However, over the course of approximately seven years, Selective’s own insurance agent issued a series of certificates of insurance that erroneously identified a different company, “T-Mobile USA”, as an AI under the policy. This was in error because there was no contractual requirement that T-Mobile USA be added as an AI. Nonetheless, the certificates stated that T-Mobile USA was an AI, and they were signed by the agent as Selective’s “authorized representative.” Reprinted courtesy of Sally S. Kim, Gordon & Rees and Kyle J. Silk-Eglit, Gordon & Rees Ms. Kim may be contacted at sallykim@grsm.com Mr. Silk-Eglit may be contacted at ksilkeglit@grsm.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---