FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Indemnity Provision Provides Relief to Contractor; Additional Insured Provision Does Not

January 06, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found that the contractor was entitled to relief under the contractual indemnity provision, but not the policy's additional insured clause. Chatelain v. Fluor Daniel Constr. Co., 2015 La. App. LEXIS 2257 (Ct. App. La. Nov. 10, 2015). Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA retained Fluor Enterprises, Inc. as a contractor to transport and install FEMA trailers. Fluor entered a Blanket Ordering Agreement (BOA) with Bobby Reavis Contracting, Inc. to transport and install the trailers. The BOA provided Reavis would defend and indemnify Fluor from all liability arising from the subcontractor's work. Reavis also agreed to name Fluor as an additional insured under its CGL policy. Reavis installed a FEMA trailer for Connie Chatelain. Ms. Chatelain was injured when she fell exiting her FEMA trailer. She sued Fluor and Reavis. Fluor tendered the suit to Reavis and Reavis' insurer, Guilford Insurance Company. The tender was rejected and Fluor filed a third-party action demanding indemnification, reimbursement of all legal expenses and damages for insurer misconduct. 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

---

CLB Recommends Extensive Hawaii Contractor License Changes

January 27, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In 2013, the Hawaii senate passed a resolution, which asked the Contractors License Board to assess “each of the contractor licensing classifications under chapter 444, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and chapter 77, Hawaii Administrative Rules, and prepare a report that evaluates each classification,” according to Anna Oshiro’s blog, Hawaii Construction Law. The “board completed its task” and “recommends wholesale changes to the scope of work to be performed by licensed contractors in the State of Hawaii.” The report has been filed with the Legislative Reference Bureau. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Blackstone to Buy Chicago’s Willis Tower for $1.3 Billion

March 19, 2015 — Hui-yong Yu – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- Blackstone Group LP agreed to buy Chicago’s Willis Tower, the second-tallest building in the U.S., and plans to upgrade the retail and observatory space in a bet on growth in the city. The price was $1.3 billion, a record for a Chicago office building, according to Blackstone executives. The sellers of the 110-story skyscraper, formerly known as Sears Tower, are a group including New York-based investors Joseph Chetrit and Joseph Moinian, and American Landmark Properties Ltd. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hui-yong Yu, Bloomberg
Ms. Yu may be contacted at hyu@bloomberg.net

---

Court Requires Adherence to “Good Faith and Fair Dealing” in Construction Defect Coverage

September 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Allied Framers, Inc. v. Golden Bear Insurance Company. Allied had been sued in a construction defect case and its primary insurer had become insolvent. Coverage for Allied’s defense was paid for by the California Insurance Guarantee Association through June 8, 2006. When warned that CIGA’s involvement was ending, Allied notified Golden Bear, which declined to provide coverage.

In the matters that followed, Golden Bear claimed that Allied had not exhausted its $1 million in primary insurance. Allied then showed that $1 million had already been paid out in the case. A few months thereafter, Golden Bear offered a $500,000 settlement on behalf of Allied which was rejected. Thereafter, Golden Bear hired new counsel to defend Allied. Golden Bear received, but allegedly did not pay, invoices Allied sent from their former counsel. Golden Bear finally settled the construction defect case for $2 million.

Allied’s original counsel sued Allied for payment. Golden Bear declined coverage. Allied then claimed that Golden Bear liable on several counts, arising from its failure to settle the construction defect action earlier than it did and its failure to pay Allied’s counsel. Golden Bear demurred, arguing that Allied had now exhausted is coverage with the $2 million settlement. The lower court sustained Golden Bear’s demurrer, dismissing Allied’s complaints.

The appeal court reviewed Allied’s seven complaints and sustained most of them. However, the court did reverse the trial court’s order in regard to Allied’s complaint that Golden Bear breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The appeals court was not convinced that Golden Bear properly evaluated the settlement demand in the underlying construction defect case. The court found three other ways in which Golden Bear’s actions might show bad faith, in refusing to pay defense fees “after promising [Allied] such costs would be paid in full,” “failing to advise Allied about ‘actual or potential negative consequences of agreeing to the proposed settlement,’” and that their choice of counsel “failed to protect [Allied’s] interests in the negotiation.”

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

No Duty to Defend Construction Defect Claims under Kentucky Law

March 25, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court determined that the insurer was not obligated to defend construction defect claims under Kentucky law. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Kentuckiana Commercial Concrete, LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222674 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 14, 2023). HRB, the owner of an apartment complex, filed an arbitration demand against the general contractor, Doster Commercial Construction, for allegedly doing faulty concrete work in the construction of the apartments. Doster added its concrete subcontrator Kentuckiana Commercial Concrete - and 16 other subcontractors - to the arbitration. Kentuckiana tendered the claim to its insurer, Westfield. Wesfield defended. Doster claimed it was an additional insured under the Westfield policy and also sought coverage. Westfield refused the defend Doster. Westfield argued there was no "occurrence." Westfield then sued both Doster and Kentuckiana in federal court, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend either. Westfield moved for a judgment on the pleadings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Do Not Forfeit Coverage Under Your Property Insurance Policy

February 22, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you have read prior articles (see here and here as an example), then you know that when it comes to first-party property insurance policies, an insured must comply with post-loss obligations in the policy. Failure to comply with a post-loss obligation gives the insurer the argument that the insured materially breached the policy and, therefore, forfeited rights to coverage. Naturally, this is avoidable by ensuring post-loss obligations are complied with, ideally under the guidance of counsel and qualified public adjusters to ensure your rights are being preserved and maximized.

[W]hen an insurer has alleged, as an affirmative defense to coverage, and thereafter has subsequently established, that an insured has failed to substantially comply with a contractually mandated post-loss obligation, prejudice to the insurer from the insured’s material breach is presumed, and the burden then shifts to the insured to show that any breach of post-loss obligations did not prejudice the insurer. Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Horne, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D201b (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) quoting American Integrity Ins. Co. v. Estrada, 276 So.3d 905, 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

San Francisco International Airport Reaches New Heights in Sustainable Project Delivery

November 21, 2022 — Aileen Cho - Engineering News-Record
Ten years ago, Geoff Neumayr decided he was tired of “doing design and construction by combat.” San Francisco International Airport had completed a master plan for the complex and the front of the airport facilities doing things the traditional way. Reprinted courtesy of Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Finding Plaintiff Intentionally Spoliated Evidence, the Northern District of Indiana Imposes Sanction

March 14, 2018 — Shannon M. Warren – The Subrogation Strategist
On January 23, 2018, the Northern District of Indiana issued a decision that clarifies what constitutes spoliation of evidence under Indiana law. In Arcelormittal Ind. Harbor LLC v. Amex Nooter, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10141 (N.D. Ind.), the defendant filed a motion for sanctions, alleging that the plaintiff intentionally spoliated critical evidence. The defendant sought dismissal of the action, asserting that the plaintiff intentionally discarded and lost important physical evidence within hours of a fire that occurred while the defendant’s employees were performing work at its facility. The decision underscores the importance of taking immediate action to properly identify and secure potentially material evidence in order to satisfy ones duty to preserve pre-suit evidence and avoid any spoliation defenses and associated sanctions. In Arcelormittal, the court initially considered whether to apply state or federal law when analyzing a litigant’s duty to preserve pre-suit evidence and determine if that party committed spoliation. Since the case was brought in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, the court held that Indiana state law governed the spoliation analysis. As noted by the court, under Indiana state law, “the intentional destruction, mutilation, altercation, or concealment of evidence” is considered to be spoliation. Thus, under Indiana law, a party who knew or should have known that litigation was imminent “may not lose, destroy or suppress material facts or evidence.” The plaintiff argued that Indiana law requires a showing of improper purpose or bad faith to establish that a litigant spoliated evidence. The Arcelormittal court rejected the plaintiff’s argument. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Warren may be contacted at warrens@whiteandwilliams.com

---