FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

New Notary Language For Mechanics Lien Releases and Stop Payment Notice Releases

January 21, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Thanks to Scott Wolfe, Jr. over at ZLien for bringing this to my attention: Effective January 1, 2015, the notary language required for Certificates of Acknowledgment – used by notaries for mechanics lien releases and stop payment notice releases in California – now require the following new wording to appear at the top of the notary certificate in a box:

A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

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

---

California Supreme Court Addresses “Good Faith” Construction Disputes Under Prompt Payment Laws

June 06, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s been a rollercoaster. But the ride appears to be over. In United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., Case No. S231549 (May 14, 2018), the California Supreme Court addressed whether a direct contractor can withhold payment from a subcontractor based on the “good faith dispute” exception of the state’s prompt payment laws if the “dispute” concerns any dispute between the parties or whether the dispute must be directly relevant to the specific payment that would otherwise be due. California’s Prompt Payment Laws California has a number of construction-related prompt payment laws scattered throughout the state’s Civil Code, Public Contracts Code and Business and Professions Code. Their application depends on the type of construction involved, whether public or private; the type of payment involved, whether a progress payment or retention; and who is paying, whether it’s a private owner, public entity, direct contractor, or subcontractor. 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

---

Tenants Who Negligently Cause Fires in Florida Beware: You May Be Liable to the Landlord’s Insurer

May 13, 2019 — Rahul Gogineni - The Subrogation Strategist
In Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Puccini, LLC, 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 1487, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D 383, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals considered whether a landlord’s carrier, Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), was precluded from pursuing a subrogation claim against the landlord’s tenant, Puccini, LLC (Puccini), for fire-related damages. After the fire, Zurich paid its insured, Lincoln-Drexel Waserstein, Ltd. (Lincoln), over $2.1 million. Zurich then proceeded with an action against Puccini. Puccini filed for summary judgment arguing that it was an additional insured under the Zurich policy. The trial court agreed with Puccini and dismissed the action. Zurich then appealed the case to Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals. Finding that the lease contemplated both liability on the part of the tenant and indemnification in favor of the landlord, the court held that the tenant was not an implied co-insured under Zurich’s policy. Thus, the court allowed Zurich’s subrogation action. The Sutton Doctrine Extension of the Anti-Subrogation Rule In the United States, most states have adopted an anti-subrogation rule either by statute or through common law. Under an anti-subrogation rule, an insurer may not pursue its insured for monies paid to the insured. While some states limit their anti-subrogation rule to apply only to the named insured, other states have expanded the rule to include parties listed as additional insureds, and even, in some instances, implied insureds (those parties not specifically listed, but still considered an insured under the applicable policy). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Alabama Court Determines No Coverage For Insured's Faulty Workmanship

June 28, 2013 — Tred Eyerly
The Alabama Supreme Court found there was no coverage for the insured cabinet maker for claims arising from alleged faulty workmanship. Shane Traylor Cabinetmaker, L.L.C. v. Am. Resources Ins. Co., Inc., 2013 Ala. LEXIS 42 (May 3, 2013). The insured was sued by a homeowner for property damage caused by faulty workmanship. The insurer refused to defend, contending there was no "occurrence." The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Montana Federal Court Upholds Application of Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

November 08, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Interpreting Montana law, the federal district court found that the policy's anti-concurrent causation clause prevented coverage for the insured's damaged home. Ward v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149051 (D. Mont. Aug. 9, 2021). Plaintiff was advised by her tenants that water was bubbling up from the ground. It was determined that water was leaking from a main pipe serving the property. Subsequently, this old pipe was abandoned, left in the ground, and replaced with a new pipe in a new path with new excavation. Nevertheless, the insured reported the incident to her agent under her Landlord Protection Policy issued by Safeco, but reported there was no damage to the property. Two months later, it was discovered a pipe burst again. The insured called her agent, who maintained the loss would not be covered, but agreed to submit a claim to Safeco. Safeco hired an inspector. A report stated that a portion of cracks found in the concrete perimeter of the home were not new and that the shape of the structure on which the house sat could explain their presence. The report noted that new cracks in the foundation could have been caused by a lack of care to make sure that the foundation was sufficient supported by consolidated soil during the excavation of the new water line. Based upon this report, Safeco denied coverage based upon the earth movement and water damage exclusions. 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

---

Back to Basics – Differing Site Conditions

December 19, 2018 — Tracey W. Pruiett - Smith Currie
Encountering an unexpected site condition is one of the more common risks on a construction project. A “differing site condition”, or it is sometimes called a “changed condition”, is generally understood to be a physical condition that is discovered while performing work and that was not visible or otherwise expected at the time of bidding. Often, the condition could not have been discovered by a reasonable site investigation. Examples of common differing site conditions include: soil with inadequate bearing capacity to support the building being constructed, soil that cannot be reused as structural fill, unanticipated groundwater, quicksand, mud, rock formations, or other artificial subsurface obstructions. Differing site conditions may also occur within the walls or ceilings of a renovation project such as the renovation of a hospital or historic building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tracey W. Pruiett, Smith Currie
Ms. Pruiett may be contacted at twpruiett@smithcurrie.com

---

Florida’s New Civil Remedies Act – Bulletpoints As to How It Impacts Construction

April 10, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There has been much talk about Florida’s new Civil Remedies Act (House Bill 837) that Governor DeSantis approved on March 24, 2023. As it pertains to construction, here is how I see it with key bulletpoints on the impact this new Act has on the construction industry:

• New Florida Statute s. 86.121 – This is an attorney’s fees statute for declaratory relief actions to the prevailing insured to determine insurance coverage after TOTAL COVERAGE DENIAL. (Note: A defense offered pursuant to a reservation of rights is not a total coverage denial.) This right only belongs to the insured and cannot be transferred or assigned. And the parties are entitled to the summary procedure set forth in Florida Statute s. 51.011 requiring the court to advance the cause on the calendar. The new statute does say it does NOT apply to any action arising under a residential or commercial property insurance policy. (Thus, since builder’s risk coverage is a form of property insurance, the strong presumption is this new statute would not apply to it.) Rather, the recent changes to Florida Statute s. 626.9373 would apply which provides, “In any suit arising under a residential or commercial property insurance policy, there is no right to attorney fees under this section.”
• Florida Statute s. 95.11 – The statute of limitations for negligence causes of action are two years instead of four years. This applies to “causes of action accruing after the effective date of this act.”

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

---

Acord Certificates of Liability Insurance: What They Don’t Tell You Can Hurt You

June 28, 2013 — David McLain
As anyone involved in construction knows, one of the most heavily used forms for tracking insurance information during the subcontracting phase of a project is the Acord Certificate of Liability Insurance. General contractors often require subcontractors to provide these ubiquitous forms as evidence that the subcontractor maintains adequate insurance or insurance which complies with the requirements of the subcontract. Unfortunately, experience has shown that the Acord forms being used today are insufficient sources of the information needed by the developer and general contractor. Historically, developers and GCs would require Acord forms to ensure that a subcontractor had a CGL insurance policy, with sufficient limits, and which named them as additional insureds. More recently, developers and GCs took the additional step of requiring a confirmation on the Acord forms that they were named as additional insureds for both ongoing and completed operations. This is important because coverage for ongoing operations only provides coverage during the construction process. Once the homes are put to their intended use, developers and GCs must be named as additional insureds for completed operations also in order to avail themselves of the benefits of the policy. Unfortunately, this is where the evolution of the use of the Acord forms ended, resulting in a failure to provide sufficient information to protect developers and GCs from the unknown. My firm has had a rash of recent experience where our clients have not obtained the benefit of additional insured coverage for which they bargained because they relied on Acord forms which failed to provide sufficient information to allow them to protect themselves from insufficient insurance coverage on the part of the subcontractors with which they did business. For example, in one recent case a homeowners association alleged insufficient grading and drainage away from the homes within a development built by one of our clients. In reviewing the insurance information from the construction files, we found the Acord forms from the excavating company that performed all of the grading work around the homes. To our delight, the Acord form listed our client as an additional insured for both ongoing and completed operations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain
David M. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---