FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Disjointed Proof of Loss Sufficient

June 11, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found that when considered as a whole, separately filed proofs of loss and estimates of damage were sufficient to meet the requirements of a flood policy. Young v. Imperial Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51863 (April 15, 2014). On August 29, 2012, plaintiffs' property sustained flood damage due to Hurricane Isaac. After Imperial's adjustor inspected the property, advance payments were made for $5000 under the building coverage and $5000 under the contents coverage. On October 26, 2012, the plaintiffs' adjustor submitted a proof of loss for building damages, stating the amount of loss was $175,100, which was the policy limit minus the deductible. The insured wife signed the proof of loss. The actual case value, full cost of replacement or repair, and applicable depreciation were listed "undetermined." 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

---

South Carolina Legislature Redefining Occurrences to Include Construction Defects in CGL Policies

April 01, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFF

The question of what circumstances must be in place for construction defects to be covered in a general commercial liability (CGL) policies is being raised by the courts and the legislature in South Carolina. The Insurance Journal reports that the American Insurance Association as well as the Property and Casualty Insurers Association of America are speaking out on the issue.

The problem seems to be centered on what defines an “occurrence.” CGL policies were not meant to cover faulty workmanship, according to the filing by the South Carolina Supreme Court. In January of this year, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the ruling in Crossmann Communities v Harleysville Mutual declaring that “Respondents cannot show the damage here was the result of an occurrence. Rather, the damage was a direct result and the natural and expected consequence of faulty workmanship; faulty workmanship did not cause an occurrence resulting in damage.” They focused their attention on the word “accident,” stating that there is a fortuity element that is not diminished.



The South Carolina legislature reacted by producing a bill that would add new language directly negating the ruling by the Supreme Court. The South Carolina bill S-431 would change the definition of an occurrence in regards to construction defects as follows: “For a liability insurance policy issued to a construction professional, an ‘occurrence’ means, at a minimum: (1) an accident; or (2) continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful condition or substance. No additional requirement of a fortuitous event is needed to constitute an ‘occurrence.’”



S-431 is currently residing in the House Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.



Read the full story...

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

---

Infrared Photography Illuminates Construction Defects and Patent Trolling

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Reuben Saltzman, a home inspector in the Minneapolis area wrote a piece for the Star Tribune in which he discussed the use of infrared photography in home inspections. Lack of insulation and water intrusion show up clearly on infrared photography where there is not yet any visible damage. Moist or cold areas show up as darker than their surroundings. Mr. Saltzman included one photo with his article in which the problem shows up as a hot spot: a carpet installer had covered over a floor register. Mr. Saltzman’s use of infrared photography may be in danger, as he recently learned that a Mississippi firm has actually taken out a patent on using infrared photography for home inspections. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Possible Real Estate and Use and Occupancy Tax Relief for Philadelphia Commercial and Industrial Property Owners

September 07, 2017 — James Vandermark & Kevin Koscil - White and Williams LLP
A recent decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court puts in jeopardy all of the recent real estate tax reassessments completed by the City of Philadelphia for tax year 2018 as well as appeals initiated by the School District of Philadelphia in 2016 for tax year 2017. The City’s current practice is to certify the market values of any reassessed properties to the Board of Revision of Taxes on March 31st prior to the year that the assessment would be implemented. The City then relies on those certified values to determine the applicable tax rate when it creates its budget each summer. Accordingly, the Office of Property Assessment (OPA) submitted the values applicable for the 2018 tax year to the BRT on March 31, 2017. The City set the applicable tax rates during its summer budget sessions. However, unlike prior years, this year the City only reassessed commercial and industrial properties and excluded residential properties. The result was reported to be an increase of over $118 million in new real estate taxes. Shortly after the City finished its budget, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided the case of Valley Forge Towers Apartments N, LP, et al. v. Upper Merion Area School District. The case involved a challenge by property owners to the Upper Merion School District’s practice of only appealing assessments on commercial properties. As with the recent reassessments by the City, Upper Merion was only seeking to increase the real estate tax assessments for high value commercial properties. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the school district’s practice violated the Uniformity Clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution. The court reaffirmed the principle that real estate within a jurisdiction should be treated as a single class and that tax authorities are not permitted to discriminate against commercial and industrial properties in favor of residential properties for purposes of real estate taxation. Reprinted courtesy of James Vandermark, White and Williams LLP and Kevin Koscil, White and Williams LLP Mr. Vandermark may be contacted at vandermarkj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Koscil may be contacted at koscilk@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Battle of Experts Cannot Be Decided on Summary Judgment

June 13, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
When two competing experts disagreed on the cause of the loss, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the insurer. Garcia v. Firs Community Ins. Co., Fla. App. LEXIS 4237 (Fla. Ct. App. March 28, 2018). Garcia, the homeowner, discovered water damage in his home, allegedly due to a roof leak. Garcia notified his insurer, First Community Insurance Company. A forensic engineer, Ivette Acosta, was retained by First Community to inspect the property. After the inspection, coverage was denied. The homeowner's policy covered direct loss to property only if the loss was a physical loss. Loss caused by ""rain snow, sleet, sand or dust to the interior of a building was excluded unless a covered peril first damaged the building causing an opening in a roof or wall and the rain, snow, sleet, sand or dust enters through this opening." Loss caused by wear and tear, marring, or deterioration was also excluded. 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

---

Claim for Collapse After Demolition of Building Fails

January 09, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
After several city citations and the eventual demolition of the insureds' apartment building, their claim for coverage based on collapse was unsuccessful. Barker v. AmGuard Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202069 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 7, 2022). The plaintiffs purchased a three-story multi-family apartment building on March 9, 2009. Prior to the purchase, steel beams were installed in the basement along the east and south walls. By 2013, the south and east walls were leaning.  On March 13, 2017, the city building inspector observed "the foundation failing in several areas and deflection in the south wall." The building inspector issued a citation for a pubic nuisance in violation of the City Code. This was followed by several more citations against plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' inspector reported the basement walls were experiencing "extensive lateral deflections primarily due to the inadequate design of the basement walls."  Plaintiffs understood the issues to be "cosmetic.'" They had no work done on the property besides aesthetic upgrades. After additional citations were entered, the building was ordered demolished. 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

---

General Contractor’s Excess Insurer Denied Equitable Contribution From Subcontractor’s Excess Insurer

December 15, 2016 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Advent v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., etc. (No. H041934 filed 12/6/16), a California appeals court refused to order a subcontractor’s excess insurer to contribute to a general contractor’s excess insurer because the general contractor did not qualify as an additional insured of the subcontractor’s insurer, and the policy wording made the subcontractor’s excess insurer second level excess above the general contractor’s own excess insurance. Advent was the general contractor on a housing development and Johnson was a sub-subcontractor providing concrete on perimeter walls. A Johnson employee dispatched to retrieve plywood dumped between some of the buildings somehow fell down an open stairwell inside one of the unfinished buildings and suffered serious injury. He sued Advent and others for negligence, but could not remember how he fell. 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

---

S&P Near $1 Billion Mortgage Ratings Settlement With U.S.

January 14, 2015 — Tom Schoenberg and Edvard Pettersson – Bloomberg
Standard & Poor’s is close to a settlement of about $1 billion with the U.S. for allegedly misleading investors about its ratings of mortgage-backed securities before the subprime crisis, a person familiar with the matter said. The McGraw Hill Financial Inc. (MHFI) unit and the Justice Department may agree to settle the case as early as this quarter, according to the person, who asked not to be identified because the negotiations are confidential. The Justice Department has secured settlements worth tens of billions of dollars during the past two years from mortgage lenders and banks it blamed for the 2008 financial crisis. Those companies generated unprecedented amounts of shoddy mortgages that were packaged and sold to investors as securities, many of which turned out to be worthless despite their investment-grade ratings. Mr. Schoenberg may be contacted at tschoenberg@bloomberg.net; Mr. Pettersson may be contacted at epettersson@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Schoenberg and Edvard Pettersson, Bloomberg

---