FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

California Case Is a Reminder That Not All Insurance Policies Are Alike Regarding COVID-19 Losses

April 05, 2021 — Neal I. Sklar & Joshua A. Morehouse - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
A recent case from the Central District of California reminds us that not all insurance policies are alike. Depending on the particular policy, losses from the COVID-19 outbreak could qualify as property damage and therefore could be recoverable under an all-risk insurance policy. COVID-19 has in many cases imposed significant costs on contractors, and in a host of ways. Contractors’ attempts to recover these costs from owners or insurers have at times been frustrated by contractual or policy language written after a lengthy time, during which the risk of a pandemic on the scale of COVID-19 was not as much of a concern as it is now. This has led contractors to explore new, often creative legal theories in their attempts to recover costs flowing from COVID-19. A recent Complaint filed in the Central District of California focuses on all-risk property insurance policies and the potential for contractors who have purchased such policies to classify contamination from COVID-19 as an insurable property loss. In AECOM v. Zurich Insurance Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-00237-JAK-MRW (C.D. Cal), a contractor purchased “all-risk” property insurance from Zurich. This policy covered “economic losses from all risks not expressly excluded.” According to the Complaint, the presence of COVID-19 on its properties “physically alter[ed] air, airspace, and surfaces preventing… (the contractor) from using its properties for their intended purpose and function.” Reprinted courtesy of Neal I. Sklar, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Joshua A. Morehouse, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Sklar may be contacted at nsklar@pecklaw.com Mr. Morehouse may be contacted at jmorehouse@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Design Firm Settles over Construction Defect Claim

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A Pennsylvania township has announced that it has reached a settlement with the architectural firm that designed its administration building. Cee Jay Frederick Associates will be paying than $1.05 million to settle claims of defects in the design of the building. West Whiteland’s administration building was completed in July 2007. The first leaks were noticed in November and December 2008. In response, the township stopped payments to the contractor, Magnum, Inc. Magnum sued, claiming that their work was not to blame for the leaks. Magnum joined the township in suing the design firm. Although Cee Jay Frederick Associates will be paying the township to settle the claim, West Whiteland will be paying $75,000 of that back to the firm to settle outstanding bills that had been withheld during litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York State Legislature Passes Legislation Expanding Wrongful Death Litigation

July 18, 2022 — Lisa M. Rolle & Justyn Verzillo - Traub Lieberman
In early June, New York State Legislature passed legislation, often referred to as “The Grieving Families Act” (A.6770/S.74-A), which expands New York’s Wrongful Death Statute. This legislation is pending approval from Governor Kathy Hochul and has the ability to drastically impact wrongful death litigation by expanding how parties can bring an action, as well as expanding on recoverable compensation. Pursuant to the existing statute (EPTL §5-4.1), the statute of limitations requires commencement of an action within two years after the decedent’s death. The proposed Grieving Families Act expands the statute of limitations for a wrongful death action to three years and six months after the decedent’s death. Further, under the existing statute (EPTL §11-3.3), recovery in a wrongful death action is restricted to distributees (the intended beneficiaries under the will). The proposed legislation expands the parties permitted to bring a wrongful death action, replacing the term distributees with surviving close family members. These may include, but are not limited to, spouse or domestic partner, issue, parents, grandparents, step-parents, and siblings, leaving it to the finder of fact to determine which persons are close family members of the decedent based upon the specific circumstances relating to the person’s relationship with decedent. It remains to be seen what the burden of proof will be for the surviving close family members, as well as what process will be instituted with respect to the finder of fact. Presumably, the finder of fact will be a Judge. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman and Justyn Verzillo, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Mr. Verzillo may be contacted at jverzillo@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

An Oregon School District Files Suit Against Robinson Construction Co.

March 19, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Tigard-Tualatin School District in Tigard, Oregon filed a lawsuit against Robinson Construction for water damage to the Alberta Rider Elementary school, built in 2005, according to The Oregonian. The school district “is seeking $1.4 million in damages.” According to the suit, as quoted by The Oregonian, the school district “holds Robinson responsible for faulty construction of the school’s panel siding, windows, doors, exterior walls and more.” Repairs began in December of 2011, reported The Oregonian, and the cost so far is more than one million: “The district had to replace parts of the ‘exterior wall cladding system’ and remove and reinstall ‘storefront windows and window/door assemblies to ensure watertight performance,’ in addition to other alterations, the lawsuit reads.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Prompt Payment Rollercoaster

February 23, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
This past year we wrote about a case involving California’s prompt payment laws and the current state of confusion with the prompt payment statutes which are scattered throughout the state Code and which are inconsistent in the use of their terminology and, thus importantly, application. In United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., California Court of Appeals for the Second District, Case No. B258860 (December 18, 2015), the Court of Appeals for the Second District addressed whether under one of the prompt payment statutes, Civil Code section 8814, a general contractor may withhold retention without being subject to prompt payment penalties if there is a dispute of any kind between the general contractor and the subcontractor, or only when the dispute relates to the retention itself. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

No Coverage Under Ensuing Loss Provision

September 09, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

The cost of removing and replacing cracked flanges to prevent future leakage was not covered as an ensuing loss under a builder’s risk policy in RK Mechanical, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Casualty Co. of Am., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83958 (D. Colo. Aug. 1, 2011).

The insured, RK Mechanical Inc., was a subcontractor hired to install plumbing for a residential construction project. RK was an additional insured on the general contractor’s policy with Travelers. RK installed approximately 170 CPVC flanges on the project. Subsequently, two of the flanges cracked, allowing water to overflow and causing water damage to the project. Travelers was notified of the flange failure and resulting water damage.

RK subsequently removed and replaced the two cracked flanges and began water remediation. Travelers paid for the cost of the water damage due to the cracked flanges.

RK then examined all of the flanges installed in the project and discovered many were cracked and/or showed signs of potential failure. RK removed and replaced the cracked flanges. RK tendered a claim and demand for indemnity to Travelers for these repair costs. Travelers denied the claim. RK then sued for breach of contract and declaratory relief. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Contractor’s Contingency: What Contractors and Construction Managers Need to Know and Be Wary Of

December 04, 2023 — Skyler L. Santomartino - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Contractors and construction managers who enter into cost reimbursable contracts subject to a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) are responsible for all project costs exceeding the GMP. For this reason, it is imperative that contractors negotiate and incorporate into the GMP a financial buffer that accounts for the unanticipated project costs that are not reimbursable as change orders or costs of the work. This is where the contractor’s contingency comes into play.[1] The contractor’s contingency is a vehicle that allows contractors to mitigate some of the risks inherent in GMP contracts. When drafted properly, a contingency clause allows the contractor and only the contractor to access funds set aside by the owner to address unpredictable or unknown project costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Skyler L. Santomartino, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Santomartino may be contacted at ssantomartino@pecklaw.com

---

Cross-Motions for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings for COVID-19 Claim Denied

May 24, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied both parties' motions for partial judgment on the pleadings seeking clarification of the policy's contamination exclusion. Thor Equities, LLC v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62967 (S.D. N.Y. March 31, 2021). Thor was a commercial landlord, renting properties across the country to hundreds of tenants, for use in a variety of businesses, including office space, retail stores, restaurants, and bars. When state governments began shutting down businesses and issuing stay-at-home orders in March 2020, many of Thor's tenants had to close shop and sought abatements or other accommodations. Thor alleged it suffered significant business interruption as a result of the pandemic. 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

---