Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Indictments Issued in Las Vegas HOA Scam

January 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A federal grand jury has indicted eleven individuals involved in the Las Vegas homeowners association scam. Leon Benzer, Keith Gregory, and Barry Levinson were all indicted for their roles in the scam, where conspirators took over homeowners associations in order to profit from construction defect suits. According to the Las Vegas Review Journal, all eleven were charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. Mr. Levinson's license to practice law has been suspended due to an investigation that he misappropriated client funds. Mr. Benzer has been described as the "mastermind" of the scam. Twenty-eight defendants have plead guilty, with all but one agreeing to cooperate with investigators. The report quotes William C. Woerner, the acting special agent in charge of the FBI in Las Vegas, as saying that "today's indictment demonstrates the continued commitment of the FBI and its law enforcement partners to identify and root out public corruption at all levels." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The “Up” House is “Up” for Sale

May 07, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
You might remember the 2009 Pixar/Disney 3-D animated movie “Up,” about an aging widower, Carl Frederickson, who learns to let go of his past and live his dream of moving he and his beloved late wife’s “clubhouse” to a cliff overlooking Paradise Falls in Venezuela where the once young couple’s hero, Charles Muntz, a famous but now disgraced explorer, was said to have discovered the skeleton of a rare bird which skeptics alleged was fabricated. In the movie, the “clubhouse” is integral to the plot. In the opening scenes of the movie the audience learns that the clubhouse, which had been Mr. Frederickson’s deceased wife’s clubhouse that the couple later turned into their home, is sitting in the middle of a construction zone because old Mr. Frederickson has refused to sell his house to a developer who has proceeded to build around his house anyway. When a large loader knocks over his mailbox and a construction worker tries to fix it, Mr. Frederickson struggles with the worker not wanting him to touch any of his memories, and in the process inadvertently strikes the man with his cane. Later, in court, Mr. Frederickson learns that he has to leave the house and go to a retirement home. Apparently, justice is quick and decisive in their town. However, instead of going to a retirement home peaceably, codgy Mr. Frederickson rigs the clubhouse with thousands of balloons and proceeds to fly away, home and all. And, so the movie begins. Soon, however, what some have called the real life “Up house” will be sold. And the story behind the house is about as a interesting as its movie counterpart. And, because we lawyers are into disclosures, I will disclose that “counterpart” is more accurate than “adaption,” since the movie Up was in production before the events giving rise to the real life Up house took place. 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

Court Finds That Limitation on Conditional Use Permit Results in Covered Property Damage Due to Loss of Use

November 06, 2018 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Thee Sombrero, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. (No. E067505, filed 10/25/18), a California appeals court held that a property owner’s loss of the ability to use his property as a nightclub, based on revocation of a city’s conditional use permit (“CUP”), constituted covered property damage. In Sombrero, lessees operated a nightclub under the property owner’s conditional use permit from the City of Colton. A company hired to provide security negligently allowed admission to an armed patron, who shot and killed another patron. The City revoked the owner’s permit, and the owner was only able to negotiate the reinstatement of a limited permit, for use as a banquet hall only. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

BHA has a Nice Swing Donates to CDCCF

May 21, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Bert L. Howe & Associates (BHA) would like to congratulate the winners of the BHA Has a Nice Swing golf game for charity. With the help of the participants, BHA was able to donate $1800 to the Construction Defect Community Charitable Foundation (CDCCF). CDCCF was established to provide financial assistance for active members of the construction defect community who have uninsured expenses because of a disability, sickness, and/or the death of a community member or their immediate family member. BHA would also like to congratulate their booth’s raffle winners. Prizes included an iPad Air, four sets of Dodger tickets, a Day at the Del Mar Races, and Best Buy gift cards. Read how the CDCCF assists the construction defect community... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Federal Court Finds a Breach of Contract Exclusion in a CGL Policy Bars All Coverage for a Construction Defect Action

July 19, 2021 — Robert Dennison - Traub Lieberman
The Southern District of California published a decision in May 2021 in Associated Industries Ins. Co. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2021 WL 1921016 (S.D. Cal. 5/12/21) concerning the scope of a breach of contract exclusion in a general liability insurance policy as applied to a construction defect action. The suit was filed by Associated Industries Insurance Company against Mt. Hawley Insurance Company for equitable contribution for amounts spent to defend and indemnify the parties co-insured, referred to as JGCI in the decision. JGCI agreed to build a building for a third party pursuant to a written construction contract. The City of Davis issued a certificate of occupancy for the building on May 6, 2005. The City’s permits stated the building was final on that date. Mt. Hawley issued the first of several annual general liability insurance policies in September 2005. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert Dennison, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Dennison may be contacted at rdennison@tlsslaw.com

Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

January 05, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
One of the many items of construction law that has always been about as clear as mud has been the interaction between a contractual pay if paid clause and payment bond claims either under the Federal Miller Act or Virginia’s “Little Miller Act.” While properly drafted contractual “pay if paid” clauses are enforceable by their terms in Virginia, what has always been less clear is whether a bonding company can take advantage of such a clause when defending a payment bond claim. As always, these questions are very fact specific both under the Federal Act and the state statute. I wish that this post would answer this question, but alas, it will not. A recent case from the City of Roanoke, Virginia looked at the interaction between a payment bond and a “condition precedent” pay if paid clause as it relates to a private project that is not subject to the Little Miller Act. In the case of IES Commercial, Inc v The Hanover Insurance Company, the Court examined a contractual clause between Thor Construction and IES Commercial in tandem with the bond language between Hanover Insurance Company and Thor as it related to a surprisingly familiar scenario. The general facts are these: IES performed, Thor demanded payment from the owner for the work that IES performed and the owner, for reasons that are left unstated in the opinion, refused to pay. IES sues Hanover pursuant to the payment bond and Hanover moves to dismiss the suit because Thor hadn’t been paid by the owner and therefore Hanover could take advantage of the pay if paid language. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

The (Jurisdictional) Rebranding of The CDA’s Sum Certain Requirement

April 15, 2024 — Jordan A. Hutcheson and Stephanie Rolfsness - Watt Tieder
The Contract Disputes Act (the “CDA”), 41 U.S.C.A. §§ 7101 et seq., which has provided the statutory framework for resolution of most contract disputes between the federal government and its contractors since 1978, has recently been the subject of changes in judicial interpretation, despite no corresponding statutory changes. The CDA’s implementing provisions in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), require that contractors submit a claim to the government in the form of written demand to a contracting officer requesting a final decision and seeking the payment of money in a sum certain prior to pursuing resolution via board or court. However, with respect to the sum certain requirement, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in late 2023 determining that this requirement “should not be given the jurisdictional brand” as it has categorically received in the past. Rather, the court concluded that the sum certain requirement is merely an element of a claim for relief under the CDA that a contractor must satisfy to recover. This rebranding does not debase the sum certain requirement, but it does indicate a renewed focus on what constitutes “jurisdictional” in government contracts litigation. Reprinted courtesy of Jordan A. Hutcheson, Watt Tieder and Stephanie Rolfsness, Watt Tieder Ms. Hutcheson may be contacted at jhutcheson@watttieder.com Ms. Rolfsness may be contacted at srolfsness@watttieder.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Top Developments March 2024

April 22, 2024 — Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter
CLAIMS-MADE COVERAGE Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Syngenta Crop Prot. LLC, 2024 Del. LEXIS 68 (Del. Feb. 26, 2024) Delaware Supreme Court concludes that a letter from a lawyer informing an insured of possible lawsuits without identifying potential plaintiffs or demanding payment is not a “claim for damages” within the meaning of claims-made CGL and umbrella liability policies. Citing case law from Delaware and other jurisdictions, it reasoned that, in the ordinary sense, a “claim for damages” (which the policies did not define) is “a demand or request for monetary relief by or on behalf of an identifiable claimant.” According to the court, the letter in question did not meet this definition because it did not identify any claimants “except in the vaguest terms” or request monetary relief on any claimant’s behalf, but rather communicated only a threat of future litigation. As a result, the letter was not a claim made before the policy periods at issue. POLLUTION EXCLUSION Wesco Ins. Co. v. Brad Ingram Constr., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1488 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2024) A divided Ninth Circuit panel, applying California law, holds that a pollution exclusion* in a CGL policy does not preclude a duty to defend an underlying suit alleging physical injury from exposure to “clouds of toxic dust” deposited in the environment by a wildfire and released during clean up efforts. Citing MacKinnon v. Truck Ins. Exch., 73 P.3d 1205 (Cal. 2003), the majority explained that determining whether a “pollution event” (i.e., “environmental pollution”) resulting in excluded injury has occurred involves consideration of “the character of the injurious substance” and whether the exposure resulted from a “mechanism specified in the policy.” It concluded that a potential for coverage (and, therefore, a defense obligation) existed because, although wildfire debris may be considered a “pollutant” in certain circumstances, the mechanism alleged in the underlying complaint – “expos[ure] . . . to clouds of toxic dust during the loading and unloading of [the underlying plaintiff’s] truck” – did not clearly constitute an “event commonly thought of as pollution.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES