Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Federal District Court Addresses Material Misrepresentation in First Party Property Damage Claim

August 26, 2024 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In Pittsfield Dev. LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117530 (N.D. Ill. July 3, 2024), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois addressed an alleged material misrepresentation by an insured during the course of the adjustment of a water loss claim at an insured property. Subsequent to a pipe burst event which caused damage to a number of the floors in the insured building, the insured submitted a claim to Travelers and also submitted, with the assistance of a retained public adjuster, a damage estimate of the damages at the property. Included within the estimate submitted by the insured was a line item for "Lead Paint & Asbestos Removal" with a corresponding dollar amount of $1,140,000. It was this line item which formed the basis of Travelers' claim of misrepresentation. At his deposition, the public adjuster testified that the $1,140,000 figure was an oral estimate received over the phone from an asbestos remediation company. Travelers disputed the testimony and contended that no such estimate was ever provided. For support, Travelers pointed to deposition testimony from a remediation company employee that while rough estimates were occasionally given verbally, the largest over the phone estimate she could recall was in the $20,000-$25,000 range. It was also disputed that the company would ever provide an oral quote of that magnitude sight unseen, especially since the largest project the remediation company had ever completed was less than $250,000. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

Steps to Defending against Construction Defect Lawsuits

July 21, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Writing in Claims Journal, Bryan Rendzio notes that the decline in construction has not been matched by a decline in construction defect lawsuits over condominiums. He reviews the ways in which lawyers representing developers can help protect their clients. He identifies four important considerations in defending developers from claims of construction defects.

He advocates a careful review of the contract. “Under a breach of contract claim, the insured’s duties to the party who brought the claim against the insured flow from the contract. Commonly, construction contracts limit the scope of recoverable damages, such as by waiving consequential damages.’

The next step, according to Rendzio is to check of a settlement agreement is already in place, noting that these are “a familiar occurrence in the construction industry, regardless of any lawsuits having been filed.”

He considers the statute of repose “the single-most decisive weapon an insured possesses in its arsenal during a condo defect lawsuit.” He notes that no lawsuits can be brought for construction defects after the end specified by the statute of repose, and if a lawsuit is brought beforehand, no additional parties can be named once the statute has taken effect.

Finally, he warns adjusters to be suspicious when a condo association requests contractual indemnification. He notes that the pitfall in this is that developers and the subsequent condominium association often have similar names, given the theoretical example of a condo project built by “Fake Lakes LLC” and later run by the “Fake Lakes Condominium Association.” Writing in regards to Florida law, he notes that condominium associations do not have successor interest in contracts developers made with contractors.

Read the full story…

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

Residential Construction Rise Expected to Continue

May 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Housingwire reports that Fannie Mae has predicted strong increases in housing starts over the last few years, with an expected return to normal by 2016. If this holds true, residential construction will include 2.5 million jobs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Court of Appeal Clarifies Intent of Faulty Workmanship Exclusions

October 26, 2017 — Tiffany Casanova – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Last month, in Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc., 1 a California Court of Appeal clarified the meaning of the frequently asserted j.(5) and j.(6) exclusions of the standard commercial general liability policy; an issue the court deemed one of “first impression” for the state. The court took a close look at how courts nationwide handle the exclusions and relied on the policy language to come to a policyholder-friendly decision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Casanova may be contacted at tlc@sdvlaw.com

Playing Hot Potato: Indemnity Strikes Again

September 17, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Indemnity can be like playing hot potato (for those of you closer to the Minecraft generation, in the game of hot potato, a metaphoric “hot potato” is tossed between (ahem amongst) players while music is playing, and when the music stops, the player holding the hot potato is out. It’s a barrel of monkeys, trust me.). Anyway, like hot potato, with indemnity an owner typically requires its general contractor to indemnify the owner (sometimes the property owner in TI projects and occasionally design professionals) from and against any and all claims arising out of, related to . . . blah, blah, blah . . . the general contractor’s scope of work . A general contractor in turn will usually require indemnity from its subcontractors. And subcontractors will require indemnity from their sub-subcontractors. And down the line it goes with each party pointing their finger at the next party down the proverbial “food chain.” But it doesn’t always happen that way as the next case, American Title Insurance Company v. Spanish Inn, Case No D067137, California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District (August 14, 2015), illustrates. 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

Rent Increases During the Coronavirus Emergency Part II: Avoiding Violations Under California’s Anti-Price Gouging Statute

April 06, 2020 — Dan Schneider - Newmeyer Dillion
In my earlier article, Profiting From Fear: What You Need to Know About Price Gouging During the Coronavirus Emergency, I discuss price gouging and how the anti-price gouging statute, California Penal Code 396 (“CPC 396”), protects buyers of goods and services deemed vital and necessary for the health, safety and welfare of consumers. Part II of the article provides guidance to landlords on the parameters applicable to acceptable price increases and focuses attention on the application of CPC 396 to rental housing and related issues. California Penal Code 396 As it pertains to housing, defined as “any rental housing with an initial lease term of no longer than one year,” price gouging occurs when a landlord increases the rent of an existing or prospective tenant by more than 10 percent of the previously charged or advertised price following an emergency or disaster declaration for a period of 30 days.2 A residential landlord is only allowed to increase rent in excess of 10 percent if “the increase is directly attributable to additional costs for repairs or additions beyond normal maintenance that were amortized over the rental term that caused the rent to be increased greater than 10 percent or that an increase was contractually agreed to by the tenant prior to the proclamation or declaration” (CPC 396(e).) Further, landlords are prohibited from evicting a tenant and then re-renting the property at a rate that the landlord would have been prohibited from charging the evicted tenant under the statute (CPC 396(f).)3 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dan Schneider, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Schneider may be contacted at daniel.schneider@ndlf.com

While Construction Permits Slowly Rise, Construction Starts and Completions in California Are Stagnant

December 05, 2022 — John Kazanovicz & Jason Feld - Kahana Feld
There is an interesting phenomenon happening in the California construction market since the Summer of 2022. There is a steady but slow rise in the construction building permits being issued throughout California. According to the U.S. Census and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s joint announcement (https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf) of new residential construction statistics for September 2022, privately‐owned housing units authorized by building permits in September were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,564,000. This is 1.4 percent above the revised August rate of 1,542,000. While this is slightly lower than a year ago (3.2 percent below the September 2021 rate of 1,615,000), the trend for obtaining new home permits was reportedly ahead of the projected rates given the market conditions and inflation throughout the country. Interestingly, single‐family authorizations in September were at a rate of 872,000 which was also 3.1 percent below the revised August 2022 figure of 900,000. Authorizations of units in buildings with five units or more were at a rate of 644,000 in September. Overall, while slowly recovering from the record lows during the height of the pandemic, the economic forecast for new home construction in California is positive, but cautious. The flip side of this coin is the construction starts in California, which continue to remain stagnant despite additional building permits being issued. Privately‐owned housing starts in September were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,439,000. This is 8.1 percent (±14.9 percent) below the revised August estimate of 1,566,000 and is 7.7 percent (±11.5 percent) below the September 2021 rate of 1,559,000. Single‐family housing starts in September were at a rate of 892,000; this is 4.7 percent (±10.7 percent) below the revised August figure of 936,000. The September rate for units in buildings with five units or more was 530,000. Reprinted courtesy of John Kazanovicz, Kahana Feld and Jason Feld, Kahana Feld Mr. Kazanovicz may be contacted at jkazanovicz@kahanafeld.com Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurers Reacting to Massachusetts Tornadoes

August 11, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Patriot-Ledger reports that insurers could pay out as much as $200 million to cover homes damaged or destroyed in the tornadoes that hit central and southern Massachusetts in June, 2011. Joseph Murphy, Commissioner of the State Division of Insurance didn?t foresee problems with insurers covering these claims. “At this point, there doesn’t seem to be any one company overexposed in that area,” he told the Patriot-Ledger.

Insurance executives did not think the tornadoes would cause them to raise rates. Steve Chevalier, CEO of NLC Companies, said, “it’s a major event for those impacted by it, but it’s not close to a financial hit to us.”

One insurer noted that the winter weather generated more claims; however the cumulative value of those claims was $15 million.