FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

No Collapse Coverage Where Policy's Collapse Provisions Deleted

July 26, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court found there was no coverage for the homeowners' collapse claim because the collapse provisions were deleted from the policy. Gueng-Ho Kim v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97871 (D. Conn. June 26, 2017). The homeowners purchased their home in 2004. They also purchased a homeowners policy from State Farm. In the policy, State Farm deleted the additional coverage for collapse.Also deleted from the policy was language excluding coverage for "collapse, except as specifically provided in Section I - Additional Coverages, Collapse." The homeowners discovered a problem with the property's foundation when they attempted to sell the house in 2014. The homeowners hired an engineer who found that the interior and exterior foundation had numerous spider-web cracks and the foundation walls in several locations bowed inward by as much as one and a half inches. 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

---

Pennsylvania Superior Court Fires up a Case-By-Case Analysis for Landlord-Tenant, Implied Co-Insured Questions

February 03, 2020 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Joella v. Cole, 2019 PA Super. 313, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently considered whether a tenant, alleged by the landlord’s property insurance carrier to have carelessly caused a fire, was an implied co-insured on the landlord’s policy. The court found that the tenant was an implied co-insured because the lease stated that the landlord would procure insurance for the building, which created a reasonable expectation that the tenant would be a co-insured under the policy. Since the tenant was an implied co-insured on the policy, the insurance carrier could not maintain a subrogation action against the tenant. This case confirms that Pennsylvania follows a case-by-case approach when determining whether a tenant was an implied co-insured on a landlord’s insurance policy. The Joella case stems from a fire at an apartment building in Northampton County, Pennsylvania. The landlord’s property insurance carrier paid the landlord $180,000 to repair the damages resulting from the fire. In March 2018, the insurer brought a subrogation action against Annie Cole, a tenant in the building, alleging that Ms. Cole’s negligent use of an extension cord caused the fire. Ms. Cole raised the affirmative defense that she was an implied co-insured on the landlord’s insurance policy. The subrogating insurer filed a partial motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss Ms. Cole’s defense. In response, Ms. Cole filed a cross motion for partial judgment, arguing that because the lease specified that the landlord would maintain fire insurance for the building, there was a reasonable expectation that she would be a co-insured on that policy. The trial court found in favor of Ms. Cole, holding that the landlord’s insurer could not maintain a subrogation action against her because she was an implied co-insured of the landlord’s insurance policy under the terms of the lease. The landlord’s insurer filed an appeal with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

The Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?

March 17, 2011 — Shaun McParland Baldwin

The Court of Appeals of Indiana recently addressed the “Montrose” language added to the CGL ISO form in 2001 in the context of a construction defect claim where a fractured storm drain caused significant flooding a year after the drain was damaged. The insuring agreement requires that “bodily injury or “property damage” be caused by an occurrence and that the “bodily injury or “property damage” occur during the policy period. The Montrose language adds that the insurance applies only if, prior to the policy period, no insured knew that the “bodily injury or “property damage” had occurred in whole or in part. Significantly, it also states that any “bodily injury” or “property damage” which occurs during the policy period and was not, prior to the policy period known to have occurred, includes a continuation, change or resumption of that “bodily injury” or “property damage” after the end of the policy period.



In Grange Mutual Cas. Co. v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., No. 29D04-0706-PL-1112 (Ct. App. IN March 15, 2011), http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03151109ehf.pdf, Sullivan was the General Contractor for a school construction project. Its subcontractor, McCurdy, installed the storm drain pipes. One of the storm pipes was fractured in 2005 while McCurdy was doing its installation work. More than a year later, the school experienced significant water damage due to flooding. It was later discovered that the flooding was due to the fractured storm drain. Sullivanrsquo;s insurer paid $146,403 for the water damage. That insurer brought a subrogation claim against McCurdy and its two insurers: West Bend and Grange. West Bend had issued CGL coverage to McCurdy while the construction was ongoing, including the date in which the storm pipe was fractured. Grange issued CGL coverage to McCurdy at the time of the flooding. Those two carriers jointly settled the subrogation claim and then litigated which insurer actually owed coverage for the loss. Significantly, the loss that was paid included only damages from the flooding, not any damages for the cost of repairing the pipe.



Read the full story...



Reprinted courtesy of Shaun McParland Baldwin of Tressler LLP. Ms Baldwin can be contacted at sbaldwin@tresslerllp.com

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

---

Hotel Owner Makes Construction Defect Claim

January 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A lawsuit has been filed over the construction of the GrandStay Hotel & Conference Center in Apple Valley Minnesota. Apple Valley GSRS, LLC, who invested in the hotel, has sued Cole Group Architects and Cornerstone Construction, alleging that the architects design was not to industry standards and that the builder used inferior materials and techniques. The lawsuit makes claim of "significant damage." The hotel hired an engineer who subsequently recommended that all the stucco and the roof should be be replaced. The stucco has shown signs of cracking and crumbling. The hotel states that the roof has problems with leaking. Cornerstone has denied the hotel's claims. They have also counter-sued their subcontractors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Houston’s High Housing Demand due to Employment Growth

August 27, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to a Metrostudy survey, as published in Builder, “The quarterly starts rate in Houston rose 16% to 7,977, and was up 3.5% when compared to the second quarter of 2013. The annual starts rate increased 1%, to 28,990 over the previous quarter, and up 10% from the second quarter of 2013.” “Houston’s housing market continues to outperform. We are seeing strong pricing appreciation and low levels of inventory of finished product and vacant developed lots,” Scott Davis, Regional Director for Metrostudy’s Houston Market, told Builder. “After five and half years of strong job growth, the real challenge for builders in Houston’s new housing market is finding affordable lots in desirable locations.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

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

---

Understanding Entitlement to Delays and Proper Support

December 10, 2024 — Andrew G. Vicknair - The Dispute Resolver
In a previous post, we discussed delays on construction projects including (1) critical versus non-critical delays, (2) excusable versus non-excusable delays, and (3) compensable versus non-compensable delays. We also reviewed the common methods of delay analysis include (1) the Total Cost Method, (2) the Modified Total Cost Approach, and (3) the Measured Mile Method. Once you have determined the type of delay and the method to be used to analyze and quantify the delay, it is important to understand the type of documents/evidence needed to support your claim for delay. If a party determines that they are entitled to some type of recovery for the delay, the party making a claim for delay, such as a contractor, must have the proper documentation/evidence to assist in proving entitlement for damages from the delay. Without the proper back-up, contractors are generally unable to recover all of the additional costs and expenses associated with the delays or, at best, recover only an “equitable” amount. Generally, damages must be proved with reasonable certainty and may not be based on speculation or conjecture. Thus, it is crucial for a party asserting a delay to have the proper documentation to support a delay claim, if the goal is to recover the damages associated with the delay. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrew G. Vicknair, D'Arcy Vicknair, LLC
Mr. Vicknair may be contacted at agv@darcyvicknair.com

---

Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Obtains Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss in Favor of Defendant

August 16, 2021 — Lisa M. Rolle - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle obtained a motion to dismiss in favor of an international hotel chain. In the case brought before the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, the Plaintiff sustained a slip and fall injury in a Portuguese hotel (“Hotel”), which was allegedly caused by violations of building codes and New York and Portuguese negligence laws. The Plaintiff notes that the Hotel utilized the branding affiliated with the international hotel chain, and the named corporate entities are subsidiaries of the parent company of the international hotel chain. Further, Plaintiff alleged that the named corporate entities “owned, operated, maintained, and controlled” the Hotel where the accident occurred, as the international hotel had previously acquired the entity which owned the spa branding utilized. In moving for pre-answer dismissal, Traub Lieberman acknowledged purchase of the managing agent of the Hotel, which became a subsidiary of their operations. However, Traub Lieberman asserted that the international hotel chain had not owned, operated, maintained, or managed the Hotel. Under New York law, parent corporations cannot be held liable for the actions of their subsidiaries, except in cases that support piercing the corporate veil. Traub Lieberman argued that the motion should be granted as a parent company cannot be held liable for acts committed by its subsidiary and further claimed that the parent company has never owned or operated the Hotel. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com

---