FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

New York Court Rejects Owner’s Bid for Additional Insured Coverage

September 06, 2021 — Eric D. Suben - Traub Lieberman
Tenders for additional insured coverage in construction accidents are frequently litigated in New York courts. Although the past few years have seen changes in the law regarding the causal nexus between the named insured’s work and coverage for the purported additional insured, courts often find there is at least a duty to defend the additional insured where there are allegations of the employer/subcontractor’s presence at the site. An exception is the recent decision in Gemini Insurance Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Index No. 652669/20 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (Lebovits, J.). In that case, Gemini insured the owner and general contractor of a construction project, and Lloyd’s insured the injured claimant’s employer under a policy endorsed to provide additional insured coverage to entities who “have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement” with the named insured that they must be “added as additional insured.” Although the court found that the contracts here satisfied this requirement for additional insured coverage, the court’s analysis did not end there. Noting that even where such contract exists, the Lloyd’s policy would not provide additional insured coverage “in all circumstances” (emphasis in original), the court next considered whether the underlying injury was “caused in whole or in part by: 1. [The named insured’s] acts or omissions, or 2. The acts or omissions of those acting on [the named insured’s] behalf,” as required under the endorsement’s wording. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com

---

Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co.

December 20, 2017 — John Chiocca - Florida Construction Law News
The Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., Case No., SC16-1420, which answered the following certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: Is the notice and repair process set forth in Chapter 558 of the Florida Statutes a “suit'” within the meaning of the CGL policies issued by C&F to ACI? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Chiocca, Cole Scott & Kissane P.A.
Mr. Chiocca may be contacted at john.chiocca@csklegal.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

---

Settlement Payment May Preclude Finding of Policy Exhaustion: Scottsdale v. National Union

December 11, 2013 — Heather Anderson — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
In the last year, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado found that a settlement payment from an excess insurance carrier to another primary insurance carrier precluded a finding of vertical exhaustion sufficient to trigger the primary carrier’s duty to indemnify. See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 2012 WL 6004087 (D. Colo. 2012). The Scottsdale case arose out of the construction of a 507-unit apartment complex in Arapahoe County, Colorado in which a number of defects became apparent during construction. As a result, the owner of the project sued the general contractor and/or the construction manager, seeking to recover more than $22 million for various construction deficiencies. Id. at *1. The general contractor was insured under policies issued by several carriers. Scottsdale Insurance Co. (“Scottsdale”) and National Union Fire Ins. Co. (“National Union) provided umbrella coverage, and CNA and American Zurich Ins. Co. (“Zurich”) provided primary insurance under commercial general liability policies. About five years later, the construction defect case settled for $8.5 million dollars. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heather Anderson
Heather Anderson can be contacted at anderson@hhmrlaw.com

---

Colorado Statutes of Limitations and Repose, A First Step in Construction Defect Litigation

December 20, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
Grund Dagner, a law firm operating in Denver and Boulder, Colorado notes on their blog that when defending a construction defect claim, one of their first steps is to determine if the claims are affected by the statutes of limitations or repose, and that they “have had much success raising these defenses with the court before trial.” Colorado has a two-year statute of limitations, starting from when the homeowner discovers the defect. Further, Colorado’s statute of repose precludes lawsuits beginning “more than six years after the substantial completion of the improvement to the real property.” Grund Dagner notes that they “recently obtained dismissal of claims related to eight of 22 buildings in a condominium project, where the homeowners in those building observed the defects more than two years before the HOA initiated its claims against our client.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Embracing Generative Risk Mitigation in Construction

February 12, 2024 — Georgia Stillwell - Construction Executive
Project delays have long plagued the construction industry, with risk often identified as the primary culprit. However, finding effective solutions to mitigate risk on complex projects has remained daunting. Traditional methods for simulating risk primarily focus on extending project timelines, overlooking the diverse range of opportunities available for risk mitigation. With the construction industry’s digital transformation, generative methodologies have emerged to handle complex decision-making in uncertain situations. This article aims to shed light on the limitations of existing risk modeling and introduce a novel approach known as generative risk mitigation to enhance decision-making under deep uncertainty. According to McKinsey, 98% of megaprojects experience cost overruns exceeding 30%. Project delays have become so pervasive that the industry has grown accustomed to them. For example, in 2022, the UK government issued ‘The Green Book,’ which requires contingency funds in projects, such as a 44% contingency budget for standard civil projects. This implies that for a $100 million project, you should allocate $144 million to manage expected risks. There is no denying significant academic literature on the root cause of these delays: it is ‘risk,’ and there is an entire industry based on it. Conversations with project directors and risk experts reveal the same issue, different project. And that issue is that we cannot easily forecast risk, qualify the impacts or fully understand the opportunities that exist to mitigate risks and make timely decisions. A method that will finally help us overcome this has emerged within the industry. Reprinted courtesy of Georgia Stillwell, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Toolbox Talk Series Recap – Best Practices for Productive Rule 26(f) Conferences on Discovery Plans

May 13, 2024 — Douglas J. Mackin - The Dispute Resolver
In the April 4, 2024 edition of Division 1’s Toolbox Talk Series, Julian Ackert and Steve Swart presented on how to prepare for and structure Rule 26(f) conferences to be more effective. While Swart and Ackert focused on the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) regarding the requisite conference of the parties prior to a scheduling conference or scheduling order, it is worth noting that many states have substantially similar requirements. Rule 26(f) requires the parties to (i) discuss the nature and basis of their claims or defense; (ii) make or arrange for mandatory disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1); (iii) discuss issues about preserving discoverable information (including Electronically Stored Information – “ESI”); and (iv) develop a proposed discovery plan. Swart and Ackert’s presentation focused on the preservation of ESI and the proposed discovery plan. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas J. Mackin, Cozen O’Connor
Mr. Mackin may be contacted at dmackin@cozen.com

---

Pollution Exclusion Prevents Coverage for Injury Caused by Insulation

March 30, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
In a per curiam decision, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's holding that the pollution exclusion barred coverage for bodily injury caused by the insured's insulation. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Lapolla Industries, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22552 (5th Cir. Dec. 23, 2015). The homeowners' contractors installed spray polyurethane foam (SPF) insulation as part of a renovation project in the home. Lapolla manufactured the SPF. Shortly after the insulation was installed, the homeowners smelled strong odors and suffered respiratory distress, causing them to leave the home. The homeowners sued the contractor and various subcontractors for negligence and breach of contract. A third party complaint was filed against Lapolla. The homeowners also amended their complaint to assert a products-liability claim against Lapolla. 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

---