COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Third Circuit Limits Pennsylvania’s Kvaerner Decision; Unexpected and Unintended Injury May Constitute an “Occurrence” Under Pennsylvania Law

December 22, 2019 — Michael S. Levine & Michelle M. Spatz - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The Third Circuit ruled on Friday that differing “occurrence” definitions can have materially different meanings in the context of whether product defect claims constitute an “occurrence” triggering coverage under general liability insurance policies. The Court held in Sapa Extrusions, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, that product claims against Sapa may be covered under policies that define an “occurrence” as an accident resulting in bodily injury or property damage “neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.” However, the Court affirmed that coverage was not triggered under policies lacking the “expected” or “intended” limitation, reasoning that, under those policies, there was no question that the intentional manufacturing of Sapa’s product was too foreseeable to amount to an “accident.” The coverage dispute arose from an underlying action in which Marvin, a window manufacturer, alleged that, between 2000 and 2010, Sapa sold it roughly 28 million defective aluminum window extrusions. Marvin alleged that the extrusions, which are metal frames that hold glass window panes in place, began to oxidize and break down shortly after they were installed, causing Marvin to incur substantial costs to fix and replace them. Marvin sued Sapa in 2010 in Minnesota federal court, and the parties settled in 2013. Sapa sought coverage for the settlement from its eight general liability insurers for the period implicated by Marvin’s allegations. The insurers denied coverage and Sapa brought suit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Motion for Summary Judgment Gets Pooped Upon

December 16, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
I’ve read some crappy motions over the years, some of which opposing counsel might even attribute to me, but I don’t think I’ve ever written about poop and motions. In Beebe v. Wonderful Pistachio & Almonds LLC, a summary judgment motion filed by a project owner sued by a construction worker for personal injuries caused by bird poop, which in turn caused a nasty fungal infection which spread to his brain, resulted in a not-so-wonderful ending for Wonderful. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Federal Court Again Confirms No Coverage For Construction Defects in Hawaii

July 28, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Hawaii federal district court confirmed its prior holdings that there is no duty to defend or indemnify for property damage caused by faulty workmanship. State Farm Fire & Cas Co. v. GP West, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74240 (D. Haw. Jun 7, 2016). (Full disclosure - our office represents GP West in this matter). GP West, the contractor, and Air Conditioning of Maui, Inc. (AC Maui), the subcontractor, were sued by the owner of a veterinary clinic for installation of an alleged defective HVAC system. GP West contracted with the owner to build the clinic. AC Maui was the HVAC subcontractor and designed, sized and priced a HVAC system for the clinic. The underlying complaint alleged that after the building was substantially complete, the HVAC system experienced multiple equipment defects and mechanical breakdowns, and did not properly dehumidify the building. 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

---

Insurer Must Defend Claims of Negligence and Private Nuisance

July 10, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined there was a duty to defend negligence and private nuisance claims for dumping materials on the plaintiffs' property. Peters Heavy Construction, Inc. v. X-Pert One Tracking Corp., 2018 Wisc. App. LEXIS 358 (Wis. Ct. App. March 29, 2018). Peters Heavy Construction sued X-Pert One for negligently depositing shingle materials, tires, and other solid materials on Peters' property, causing damage to Peters, including loss of use of portions of the property. Peters also alleged that X-Pert One's actions negligently created a private nuisance causing harm to Peters' property. X-Pert One's insurer, Northfield Insurance Company, was also sued. 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

---

Seeking the Urban Lifestyle in the Suburbs

March 05, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
As the ‘burbs become more urbanized, the definition of city is changing. Builder Magazine reported that while builders have responded to buyers who wanted an urban lifestyle, “what nearly all of them have learned in the process is that ‘city’ doesn’t mean what it used to. Neither does ‘suburb.’ In fact, nearly every builder that added a post-recession ‘urban’ division has found that home buyers in search of an urban lifestyle aren’t married to living downtown. For many, it seems it’s not ‘the city’ they want at all—it’s the lifestyle.” Leigh Gallagher, assistant managing editor of Fortune and author of The End of the Suburbs: Where the American Dream is Moving, told Builder, “People don’t necessarily want to live in Manhattan. They want a little bit of Manhattan sprinkled right near them.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Shuts Down Majority of Construction

March 30, 2020 — Laura Bourgeois LoBue & Matthew D. Stockwell - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Due to pressure from construction workers, officials, and some construction workers having tested positive for COVID-19, the Empire State Development Corp. (acting on behalf of Governor Cuomo) has frozen all construction in New York today, with the exception of work on hospitals and health care facilities, transit facilities, roads and bridges, affordable housing and homeless shelters. As a result, commercial construction and condominium projects are on hold, with the exception of work that must be completed to prevent unsafe conditions. Until now, construction has been considered “essential” in New York. Reprinted courtesy of Laura Bourgeois LoBue, Pillsbury and Matthew D. Stockwell, Pillsbury Ms. LoBue may be contacted at laura.lobue@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Stockwell may be contacted at matthew.stockwell@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

A New Perspective on Mapping Construction Sites with the Crane Camera System

November 10, 2016 — Aarni Heiskanen – AEC Business
In this interview, Julian Norton, Business Development Manager of Pix4D, talks about the company’s innovative mapping system for construction sites. Pix4D has just launched an early adopter program and is looking for test users. Can you say a few words about your company’s background and mission? Pix4D was founded in 2011 as a spinoff of EPFL, a leading Swiss tech university. The years of leading scientific research in photogrammetry and computer vision done by our founders was applied to drones long before drone mapping became a “thing.” Fast forward through more years of hard work to now, and you’ll see Pix4D specialized in professional drone mapping software to produce orthomosaics, 3D models, digital surface models, point clouds and more, all from images. Our solutions are purposed towards four main industries: surveying, agriculture, real estate and construction. We want our professional clients to benefit from our unique hybrid approach, which combines mobile data capture with cloud and desktop hardware, to conduct mapping in a way that fits them best. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aarni@aepartners.fi

---

Late Filing Contractor Barred from Involving Subcontractors in Construction Defect Claim

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Colorado Court of Appeals looked at that state’s Construction Defect Action Reform Act in determining if a general contractor could add subcontractors as third-party defendants to a construction defect lawsuit. Shaw Construction, LLC was the general contraction of the Roslyn Court condominium complex, and was sued by the homeowners’ association in a construction defect case. United Builder Services was the drywall subcontractor on the project. MB Roofing had installed roofs, gutters, and downspouts. The certificate of occupancy for the last building was issued on March 10, 2004. The project architect certified completion of all known remaining architectural items in June, 2004.



The HOA filed a claim against the developers of the property on January, 21, 2009. A week later, the HOA amended its complaint to add Shaw, the general contractor. Shaw did not file its answer and third-party complaint until March 29, 2010, sending its notice of claim under the CDARA on March 30.



The subcontractors claimed that the six-year statute of limitations had ended twenty days prior. Shaw claimed that the statute of limitations ran until six years after the architect’s certification, or that the HOA’s suit had tolled all claims.



The trial court granted summary judgment to the subcontractors, determining that “substantial completion occurs ‘when an improvement to real property achieves a degree of completion at which the owner can conveniently utilize the improvement of the purpose it was intended.’”



The appeals court noted that “Shaw correctly points out that the CDARA does not define ‘substantial completion.’” The court argued that Shaw’s interpretation went against the history and intent of the measure. “Historically, a construction professional who received a complaint responded by ‘cross-nam[ing] or add[ing] everybody and anybody who had a part to play in the construction chain.’” The court concluded that the intent of the act was to prevent unnamed subcontractors from being tolled.



The court further rejected Shaw’s reliance on the date of the architect’s certification as the time of “substantial completion,” instead agreeing with the trial court that “the architect’s letter on which Shaw relies certified total completion.”



The appeals court upheld the trial court’s determination that the statute of limitation began to run no later than March 10, 2004 and that Shaw’s complaint of March 29, 2010 was therefore barred. The summary judgment was upheld.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---