Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Illinois Court Addresses Rip-And-Tear Coverage And Existence Of An “Occurrence” In Defective Product Suit

September 04, 2018 — Brian Bassett - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In Lexington Ins. Co. v. Chi. Flameproof & Wood Specialties Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135871, 2018 WL 3819109 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 10, 2018), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found that rip-and-tear costs could qualify as covered “property damage,” but the court rejected coverage for claims that the insured intentionally sold a noncompliant product as the suit did not allege an “occurrence.” Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”) issued a CGL policy to Chicago Flameproof & Wood Specialties Corp. (“Flameproof”). During the policy period, a third party ordered fire-retardant-treated lumber from Flameproof for construction in Minnesota. Flameproof instead sent materials that were not tested, certified, or labeled as compliant. The third party installed the materials, discovered the non-compliance, and then removed the materials. Removing the materials allegedly damaged other portions of the building on the project. The third party then sued Flameproof, alleging costs associated with replacing the lumber as well as property damage to the other materials from the removal of the lumber. Flameproof tendered the claim to Lexington seeking a defense. Lexington filed a declaratory action in the Northern District of Illinois. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Bassett, Traub Lieberman Strauss & Shrewsberry LLP
Mr. Bassett may be contacted at bbassett@tlsslaw.com

Implementation of CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards Delayed

February 25, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In his California Construction Law blog, Garret Murai published the recent Industry Bulletin released by the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) regarding the delayed implementation of the California Building Energy Standards. CSLB has delayed implementation from January 1st, 2014 to July 1, 2014 due to “unanticipated delays in developing complete performance compliance software for 2013 Public Domain Residential and Nonresidential California Building Energy Code Compliance guidelines, necessitating the CEC action to change the effective date of energy related provisions.” The Industry Bulletin summarized changes regarding various codes including 2013 California Energy Code, Part 6; 2013 California Administrative Code, Chapter 10, Part 1; and, 2013 CALGreen, Part 11. According to the bulletin, as reported by the California Construction Law blog, “Contractors are encouraged to contact their local building enforcement agencies for assistance and/or clarification.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Mediation Fails In Federal Lawsuit Seeking Damages From Sureties for Alleged Contract Fraud

August 17, 2020 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
After mediation failed, a federal whistle blower lawsuit over alleged fraud against two contractors, which also targets sureties and a surety bond producer, is moving forward. The parties have asked a U.S. district court judge in Washington, D.C. to rule on outstanding motions in preparation for a possible trial. Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Denies Insurers' Motions for Summary Judgment Under All Risk Policies

June 05, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court found that the insurers could not escape coverage by summary judgment under their all risk policies. Eagle Harbour Condo Assoc'n v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54761 (W.D. Wash. April 10, 2017). Eagle Harbour Condominium Association sued several of its insurers who denied coverage for hidden water damage. Various insurers provided coverage from 1988 to 2015. The Association asserted that wind-driven rain and inadequate construction allowed water to penetrate the buildings' sheathing and framing, causing decades of deterioration and decay, until the damage was exposed to view in August 2014. The insurers claimed that the loss resulted from poor decisions in constructing and inadequately maintaining a stucco building in the wet and windy Pacific Northwest. The Association argued that the policies did not explicitly exclude damage caused by wind-driven rain, so there was coverage. 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

Creeping Incrementalism in Downstream Insurance: Carriers are Stretching Standard CGL Concepts to Untenable Limits

October 17, 2023 — Eric M. Clarkson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
In the construction sector, the importance of closely vetting downstream parties’ insurance has never been more critical. The markets have been hardening with no seeming end in sight and carriers are looking for any way to get an edge. Owners and general contractors need to be on the lookout for ever broader carrier-specific expansions of standard insurance provisions that are perilous for risk transfer. We are seeing more and more terms that go against the intent of ISO standard which is what is almost universally required in construction contracts. One area where carriers are deviating from standard concepts is within pre-existing injury or damage exclusions in Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policies. It is almost a universal requirement that downstream parties provide additional insured coverage to owners and general contractors on ISO form CG 00 01. Generally, ISO standard language provides coverage for sums the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage. One of the few main requirements to trigger coverage is that the injury or damage must occur during the policy period. Over the years, ISO standard language has evolved to exclude injury or damage if an insured or certain persons knew that it had occurred before the policy period. Additionally, injury or damage is deemed to have been known to have occurred under certain circumstances. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric M. Clarkson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at EClarkson@sdvlaw.com

Mediation Confidentiality Bars Malpractice Claim but for How Long?

April 01, 2015 — Jennifer K. Saunders – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The California Court of Appeal yesterday upheld application of the mediation confidentiality statutes to bar a malpractice action which was based on the attorneys’ actions during mediation. John Amis vs. Greenberg Traurig LLP, et al. (3/18/15) Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, No. B248447. Inferences about the attorneys’ conduct during mediation were also determined to be unusable in an attempt to circumvent the privilege. Plaintiff, John Amis, filed an action against his former attorneys, Greenberg Traurig, alleging they were negligent by “causing” him to execute a settlement agreement during a two-day mediation which converted a corporate obligation into a personal obligation. The causes of action included breach of fiduciary duty, malpractice and breach of a conflict waiver, in support of which Amis alleged that the attorneys failed to advise him of the risk involved in entering into the settlement agreement, “drafted, structured and caused it to be executed” during mediation and breached a conflict waiver by failing to negotiate a settlement that provided him with financial security. During plaintiff’s deposition he admitted that all of the advice he had received in connection with the settlement agreement occurred during mediation and that all the damages incurred were from his execution of that agreement during mediation. Greenberg Traurig filed a motion for summary judgment based upon plaintiff’s deposition admissions and argued that since the mediation confidentiality statutes barred each side from presenting testimony as to what occurred during mediation, the plaintiff could not establish the elements of his claims and they could not defend against those allegations. The trial court agreed with the defense, granting summary judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer K. Saunders, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Saunders may be contacted at jsaunders@hbblaw.com

You’ve Been Suspended – Were You Ready?

April 20, 2020 — Curtis W. Martin, Patrick J. Greene, Jr. & Levi W. Barrett - Peckar & Abramson
“Effective tomorrow … the City is suspending all regular activity at construction sites in Boston.” This was just one of the surprises that greeted contractors last week. Contractors and owners with projects across the country are scrambling to comply with mandated governmental suspensions. Project participants should begin contingency planning for possible project shutdowns. Reacting to Suspension Your legal rights and remedies will be largely determined by your contract and the laws applicable to it. But some basic principles will be applicable depending on the source of the suspension. Suspension by the Owner: An owner work suspension suggests review of the contract’s suspension of work clause. Federal contractors would look to the FAR Suspension of Work clause, FAR 52.242-14, but that is applicable if the suspension is by the Contracting Officer; the US would argue that a systemic suspension was a sovereign act and outside the FAR clause. Contractors for private work and state or municipal work may have contractual suspension of work clauses. At least some suspension clauses provide relief for time and money. Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson attorneys Curtis W. Martin, Patrick J. Greene and Levi W. Barrett Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com Mr. Greene may be contacted at pgreene@pecklaw.com Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Key Takeaways For Employers in the Aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Halt to OSHA’s Vax/Testing Mandate

January 24, 2022 — Laura H. Corvo - White and Williams LLP
Political pundits and legal scholars have been engaged in frenzied debate trying to decipher the fallout of the United States Supreme Court’s decision that stopped stopped the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration (OSHA) from enforcing its Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) which mandated that employers with 100 or more employees require workers to show proof of vaccination against COVID-19 or submit to weekly testing. The Court’s decision prevents OSHA from enforcing its ETS until all legal challenges have been heard. Because the Court concluded that those legal challenges are “likely to succeed on the merits” of their argument that OSHA does not have the statutory authority to issue its vaccine and testing mandates, there is significant doubt that they will ever come to fruition. While the pundits and scholars have now had their say, employers, who are struggling to manage a highly contagious variant, a tight labor market, and employees with divergent and staunch views on vaccination, are also left wondering what the Court’s decision means for them and what they should be doing. Here are some key takeaways for employers in the aftermath of the Court’s decision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Laura H. Corvo, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Corvo may be contacted at corvol@whiteandwilliams.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES