Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Illinois Supreme Court Holds that Constructions Defects May Constitute “Property Damage” Caused By An “Occurrence” Under Standard CGL Policy, Overruling Prior Appellate Court Precedent

January 08, 2024 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
On November 30, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion that overturned precedent in Illinois regarding whether faulty workmanship that only caused damage to the insured’s own work constituted “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under Illinois law. In Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC, 2023 IL 129087, the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether Acuity, a mutual insurance company, had a duty to defend its additional insured, M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC (M/I Homes), under a subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy in connection with an underlying lawsuit brought by a townhome owners’ association for breach of contract and breach of an implied warranty of habitability. The Cook County Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Acuity finding no duty to defend because the underlying complaint did not allege “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the initial grant of coverage of the insurance policy. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that Acuity owed M/I Homes a duty to defend. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, in part, holding construction defects to the general contractor’s own work may constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the standard CGL Policy. This is significant as it overrules prior Illinois precedent finding that repair or replacement of the insured’s defective work does not satisfy the initial grant of coverage of a CGL Policy. By way of background, the underlying litigation stems from alleged construction defects in a residential townhome development in the village of Hanover Park, Illinois. The townhome owners’ association, through its board of directors (the Association) subsequently filed an action on behalf of the townhome owners for breach of contract and breach of the implied warranty of habitability against M/I Homes as the general contractor and successor developer/seller of the townhomes. The Association alleged that M/I Homes’ subcontractors caused construction defects by using defective materials, conducting faulty workmanship, and failing to comply with applicable building codes. As a result, “[t]he [d]efects caused physical injury to the [t]ownhomes (i.e. altered the exterior’s appearance, shape, color or other material dimension) after construction of the [t]ownhome[ ] was completed from repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions.” The defects included “leakage and/or uncontrolled water and/or moisture in locations in the buildings where it was not intended or expected.” The Association alleged that the “[d]efects have caused substantial damage to the [t]ownhomes and damage to other property.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

Quick Note: Be Careful with Pay if Paid Clauses (Both Subcontractors and General Contractors)

June 17, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Aside from waiver of lien rights (something that will be illegal in Virginia after July 1, 2015), the most troublesome contractual impediment to payment for a subcontractor or supplier on a project often is the “pay if paid” clause. As a general rule, in Virginia, these clauses where drafted in the proper fashion, are enforceable. As I have said many times, in Virginia freedom of contract almost always wins out. While this is the case, I emphasize that such clauses must be very explicit and specific. Furthermore, and in something that should be obvious, these clauses are generally limited by the Courts of Virginia to only be enforceable and to only forgive the need for payment if the upstream contractor on the construction job has not been paid for the work that the sub claiming non payment has done. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Restrictions On Out-Of-State Real Estate Brokers Being Challenged In Nevada

April 10, 2019 — Aaron D. Lovaas - Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
For years, the Nevada Real Estate Division (“NRED”) and its sub-entity, the Nevada Real Estate Commission (“NREC”), have been tasked with administering the licensing procedures applicable to real estate professionals in Nevada, as well as enforcement of the regulations governing business practices, advertising, commissions, license maintenance, and a host of other dayto-day parameters within which the profession operates. Within the past five years, however, the NREC has tasked itself with the publicly stated goal of “protecting” Nevada real estate licensees and the commissions they earn from out-of-state real estate professionals seeking to do business in the Silver State. While efforts to preserve local real estate opportunities for local brokers might seem sound, an international brokerage firm is challenging the foundation of that structure. If they win, the outcome could have huge implications on the real estate industry in Nevada. Businesses, here’s a breakdown of the existing structure and what the challenge is all about. The Existing Regulatory Structure Through amending their own regulations, the NRED and NREC have created a regulatory structure that:

Prohibits any non-Nevada licensed real estate broker from representing any seller (Nevada based or non-Nevada based) of any Nevada real estate;
Prohibits any non-Nevada licensed real estate broker from representing any Nevada resident in the purchase of Nevada real estate; and
Allows non-Nevada licensed real estate brokers to represent non-Nevada purchasers of Nevada real estate only if the out-of-state broker formally affiliates (and therefore shares commissions with) a resident Nevada-licensed broker.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aaron D. Lovaas, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
Mr. Lovaas may be contacted at aaron.lovaas@ndlf.com

Sellers of South Florida Mansion Failed to Disclose Construction Defects

October 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A couple who reportedly sold their custom, beach-front home on Golden Beach for more money than any other home in that town previously, may have failed to disclose construction defects, according to Daily Business Review. The original owners, reported Daily Business Review, claimed (according to court documents) that “they were ‘unable to spend even one night because an overwhelming smell of mold in the home triggered a severe reaction in Mrs. Hochberg.’" They also alleged the new home had “cracked walls, drafty doors, leaky windows, poorly cut marble and peeling stucco.” The owners sued the subcontractors, but lost due to not filing within the four-year statute of limitations. While water leaks were disclosed during the sale with a notation that all leaks had been repaired, “the extent of the home's repair history was not discussed during nearly eight months of haggling over the property, the buyer's broker said.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Oregon Construction Firm Sued for Construction Defects

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Home Forward, the housing authority in Multnomah County, Oregon, is suing Tom Walsh & Company over allegations of construction defects in low-income housing projects the firm built for the county. Walsh’s firm was hired about ten years ago to construct apartments in Portland and adjacent Gresham. But the housing authority claims that the buildings are suffering water damage. The authority requested that Tom Walsh & Company repair the problems. Walsh claimed that the problems were not due to construction defects, but to the agency’s failure to maintain the properties. Home Forward has gone forward with lawsuits of a combined $3.8 million. If the case goes to trial, according to Walsh, it will be only the second time for him in 50 years of business. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion to Reject Claim for Construction Defects Upheld

August 15, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Third Circuit upheld the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the insurer on a claim seeking coverage for construction defects. Lenick Constr. v. Selective Way Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15197 (3d Cir. June 6, 2018). Westrum was the general contractor for a 92 unit development, and it subcontracted with Lenick to perform rough and finish carpentry and to install paneling, windows, and doors provided by the developer. After the project was completed, it was discovered that some units experienced water infiltration, leaks and cracked drywall. The condominium development sued Westrum, alleging contract and warranty claims. Westrum impleaded Lenick, asserting claims for breach of contract and indemnification. Lenick sought a defense from its insurer, Selective. Selective defended under a reservation of rights. 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

A Trio of Environmental Decisions from the Fourth Circuit

August 28, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Within the past few weeks, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has issued some very significant rulings regarding the construction of new natural gas pipelines. These cases are Berkley, et al. v. Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, decided July 25; Sierra Club, Inc., et al., v. U.S. Forest Service, The Wilderness Society, et al., v. U.S. Forest Service, and Sierra Club, Inc. et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, decided July 27, 2018; and Sierra Club v. U.S. Department of the Interior and Defenders of Wildlife, et al., v. U.S. Department of the Interior, decided August 6, 2018. The first two cases involve the Mountain Valley Pipeline, and the last case involves the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

FIFA May Reduce World Cup Stadiums in Russia on Economic Concern

July 16, 2014 — Tariq Panja – Bloomberg
FIFA may reduce the number of stadiums used to host the 2018 World Cup in Russia on concern that their economic viability after the monthlong event ends. FIFA President Sepp Blatter said a day after Germany’s 1-0 win over Argentina in the final that a delegation from soccer’s governing body will meet Russian tournament organizers in September to discuss plans for the next edition. Blatter gave a mark of 9.25 out of 10 to an “exceptional” Brazil World Cup, which cost $11 billion to stage. The tournament is a difficult challenge for organizers, Blatter said, illustrated by construction delays at almost all of the 12 arenas used for the 64 games in Brazil. “The World Cup has taken such a dimension that the organization is hard work for the organizing country and also for FIFA,” Blatter told reporters at Rio de Janeiro’s Maracana stadium, where Germany claimed a fourth title and became the first European country to win the tournament in South America. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tariq Panja, Bloomberg
Mr. Panja may be contacted at tpanja@bloomberg.net

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES