FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss

March 19, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In North Counties Engineering v. State Farm (No. A133713, filed 3/13/14), State Farm insured an engineering company under CGL insurance that had a professional services exclusion and included products-completed operations (PCO) coverage. The owner of the engineering company, NCE, contracted with a winery to construct a dam and associated works. Also on the project was the owner's son, who had his own construction company, NCD. There were multiple contracts, both oral and written, variously naming one company or the other. The evidence later showed that the father performed hands-on work for the project. After completion, the winery was sued over sediment and erosion caused by the dam. State Farm denied coverage on the ground that the professional services exclusion applied, as well as a mistaken belief that the policy had no PCO coverage. State Farm then changed its position and agreed to defend, but only going forward. The insured sued State Farm over past defense fees, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. The case went to trial and after testimony detailing State Farm's claim handling, the trial judge granted a nonsuit, finding that the professional services exclusion barred all coverage: "[I]f you look at the pleadings, the legal pleadings and the contracts, the NCE role is, as the engineering company, the support company, and that company was overseeing the [sic] NCD to make sure that whatever they did was done right.... NCE is the expert on the job, the professional providing professional services, design and construction, and also overseeing the work of NCD, the son’s business, which is doing more of the physical activity.... That takes professional expertise and I think all of what Mr. Akerstrom did was professional.... It was this professional work, and not 'something incidental to their professional involvement' that gave rise to the underlying actions. In this situation, it’s not a malpractice or E and O policy. It’s a business policy, which has good benefits, but is subject to the professional services exclusion." Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Fourth Circuit Rejects Application of Wrap-Up Exclusion to Additional Insured

December 11, 2018 — K. Alexandra Byrd & Samantha M. Oliveira - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Utilizing an owner-controlled or contractor-controlled insurance program (collectively known as “wrap-ups”) can reduce claims, save costs, and give owners and general contractors comfort in knowing their project is adequately insured. However, problems often arise when a subcontractor doesn’t enroll in the wrap-up and, instead, agrees to provide additional insured coverage to the owner and general contractor on the subcontractor’s own general liability policy. One of those problems is the prevalence of wrap-up exclusions on subcontractors’ general liability policies. If the wrap-up exclusion is too broadly drafted, the exclusion can eliminate coverage for the general contractor and owner even when the subcontractor is not enrolled in the wrap-up. Reprinted courtesy of K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Samantha M. Oliveira, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Byrd may be contacted at kab@sdvlaw.com Mr. Oliveira may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Unpaid Hurricane Maria Insurance Claims, New Laws in Puerto Rico, and the Lesson for all Policyholders

January 09, 2019 — Walter J. Andrews & Cary D. Steklof - Hunton Andrews Kurth
Puerto Rico’s dire insurance situation more than a year after Hurricane Maria remains a constant reminder of why policyholders must diligently pursue their property and business interruption claims in the immediate aftermath of a storm. The numbers are staggering. On an island the approximate size of Connecticut, Hurricane Maria caused an estimated $100 billion in damage. According to the Office of the Insurance Commissioner of Puerto Rico, the hurricane resulted in more than 287,000 insurance claims. Roughly 11,000 of those claims, representing an estimated $2 billion in losses, remain unresolved. Reprinted courtesy of Walter J. Andrews , Hunton Andrews Kurth and Cary D. Steklof , Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Andrews may be contacted at wandrews@HuntonAK.com Mr. Steklof may be contacted at csteklof@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Real Protection for Real Estate Assets: Court Ruling Reinforces Importance of D&O Insurance

October 01, 2024 — Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Earlier this month, an Illinois federal district court held that a liability insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify a property management company or its owner in lawsuits that included allegations of intentional conduct. The suits accused the owner of concealing financial information from and engaging in a scheme to increase tax liability and decrease profit distributions to a minority owner. This case reinforces the importance of maintaining D&O insurance as part of a comprehensive liability insurance program to protect against potential gaps in coverage that could result from allegations of intentional or knowing acts. Background The court in Old Guard Insurance Company v. Riverway Property Management, LLC et al., No. 1:23-cv-01098 (C.D. Ill. Sep. 6, 2024) was asked to determine whether Old Guard Insurance Co. was required to defend or indemnify Riverway Property Management LLC or its owner under two commercial general liability policies in relation to state court lawsuits. The lawsuits alleged that Riverway’s owner intentionally and improperly misappropriated funds and that the property management company knowingly and substantially assisted with this wrongful scheme. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

---

Hawaii Federal District Court Compels Appraisal

December 03, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Hawaii federal district court denied the insurers' motion to dismiss on forum non convenient grounds and granted the insured's motion to compel arbitration. BRE Hotels and Resorts LCC, et al. v. Ace Am Ins. Co., et al., 2024 U,.S. Dist. LEXIS 163852 (D. Haw. Sept. 11, 2024). BRE Hotels & Resorts LLC (BRE) owned the Grand Wailea Resort on Maui and the Turtle Bay Resort on Oahu. Both hotels were damaged by a rainstorm on March 9, 2021. Estimated losses exceeded $55 million. BRE filed a claim with its sixteen insurers. BRE sought $46 million in four categories: business interruption losses at the Grand Wailea ($29.6 million); damaged tiles at the Grand Wailea ($8.3 million); furniture, fixtures, and equipment at Turtel Bay ($6.2 million); and an assortment of ancillary issues at both properties ($1.9 million). The insurers investigated and took issued with BRE's estimates. The insurers contended that most of the tiles suffered from an independent defect and were not damaged by the storm, that the insurance policies did not cover the replacement of undamaged furniture, and that the claimed business interruption losses were too high. The insurers paid $4 million. 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

---

House Approves $715B Transportation and Water Infrastructure Bill

July 11, 2021 — Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-Record
Another building block for infrastructure legislation has moved into place with the House’s approval of a five-year $715-billion surface transportation and water infrastructure package. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court of Appeals Issues Decision Regarding Second-Tier Subcontractors and Pre-Lien Notice

February 06, 2023 — Travis Colburn - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Velazquez Framing, LLC (“Velazquez”) v. Cascadia Homes, Inc. (“Cascadia”) is a Court of Appeals, Division 2 case where the primary issue on appeal was whether a second tier subcontractor was required to provide pre-lien notice under RCW 60.04 for its labor. The defendant, Cascadia, was the general contractor that planned to build a home on property it owned in Lakewood, Washington.[1] High End Construction, LLC (“High End”), submitted a bid to Cascadia for framing work on the home. High End began work on Cascadia’s home, but later subcontracted with Velazquez to complete the framing work.[2] Velazquez did not submit a prelien notice for its work on Cascadia’s home, and Cascadia claimed it was unaware that High End subcontracted with Velazquez for framing at the project. High End invoiced Cascadia and was paid for its work, but High End never paid Velazquez. Subsequently, Velazquez recorded a lien for both labor and materials, and later filed a complaint to foreclose its lien. Cascadia, due to the fact Velazquez did not provide it with prelien notice, moved for summary judgment, arguing prelien notice was required under RCW 60.04.031(1)[3] and the labor portion of a lien cannot be segregated where a subcontractor’s lien includes both labor and materials. Velazquez argued that no prelien notice was required under RCW 60.04.021[4] and RCW 60.04.031 and claimed that subcontractors can segregate the labor portion from the materials portion. The trial court granted Cascadia’s motion and ruled Velazquez did not fall within one of the exceptions for prelien notice in RCW 60.04.031(2), and therefore, could not enforce the lien. Velazquez appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Travis Colburn, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Mr. Colburn may be contacted at travis.colburn@acslawyers.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

---