Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

"Damage to Your Product" Exclusion Bars Coverage

February 02, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of coverage for the insured based upon the exclusion for "damage to your product." S.E. Arnold & Co. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2016 Ark. App. LEXIS 625 (Ark. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2016). The homeowners paid the insured, S.E. Arnold & Company, over $78,000 to supply and install wood flooring in their residence. The homeowners eventually sued Arnold, alleging that the products and services as provided by Arnold had breached its contract, Arnold was negligent, and it violated applicable rules, regulations, and laws. Specifically, the homeowners alleged that the flooring as sold and installed had splinters, cupping occurred across the width of the individual pieces of flooring, and installation was in contradiction to industry standards and applicable building codes. 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

New York Court Finds No Coverage Owed for Asbestos Losses Because Insured Failed to Prove Material Terms

February 15, 2021 — Gregory S. Capps & Marianne E. Bradley - White and Williams LLP
In the long-tail insurance context, it is not unusual to have issues arise addressing “lost” or “missing” policies. In an opinion issued on January 22, 2021, a New York court ruled that an insurer did not owe coverage to its insured for underlying asbestos claims because the insured had failed to establish the material terms of a “lost” policy under which it sought coverage for the underlying claims. The lawsuit, Cosmopolitan Shipping Company, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Company,[1] arose out of a coverage dispute between Plaintiff Cosmopolitan Shipping Co., Inc. (Cosmopolitan) and its insurance carrier, Continental Insurance Company (CIC), in connection with bodily injury claims arising out of asbestos exposure. The case provides a good analysis of what an insured must do to establish coverage under a “lost” or “missing” policy. During and after World War II, Cosmopolitan chartered and operated a number of shipping vessels on behalf of United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA). In the 1980s, seamen who had worked on board Cosmopolitan’s vessels between 1946 and 1948 filed lawsuits against Cosmopolitan seeking damages for injuries arising out of alleged exposure to asbestos on Cosmopolitan’s vessels. Cosmopolitan sought coverage from CIC for the claims, alleging that CIC had insured Cosmopolitan’s vessels during the relevant time period under a protection and indemnity policy issued to the UNRAA (the P&I Policy). Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Marianne E. Bradley, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Bradley may be contacted at bradleym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Massachusetts Federal Court Holds No Coverage for Mold and Water Damage Claim

February 11, 2019 — Brian Margolies - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In its recent decision in Clarendon National Ins. Co. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., 2019 WL 134614 (D. Mass. Jan. 8, 2019), the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts had occasion to consider the application of a prior knowledge provision in the context of a claim for mold and water-related bodily injury and property damage. Philadelphia insured a condominium property management company under a general liability insurance policy for the period September 1, 2007 through September 1, 2008. In 2009, the insured was sued by a unit owner alleging bodily injury and property damage resulting from toxic mold conditions resulting from leaks that had been identified in her unit as early as 2004. Notably, the complaint alleged that mold was identified in 2006 and that repair efforts were undertaken, but that these efforts all proved unsuccessful. Plaintiff alleged that she was forced to vacate her apartment in 2008 as a result of the conditions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

Voluntary Payments Affirmative Defense Does Not Apply in Contract Cases

July 16, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In certain matters, there is an affirmative defense referred to as the “voluntary payments” defense. This defense states, “where one makes a payment of any sum under a claim of right with knowledge of the facts such a payment is voluntary and cannot be recovered.” Avatar Properties, Inc. v. Gundel, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D1272c (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) quoting City of Miami v. Keton, 115 So.2d 547, 551 (Fla. 1959). This voluntary payments defense could be construed as a “gotcha” defense, right? Unfair! You voluntarily made the payment with knowledge of the facts; therefore, you are s**t out of luck when it comes to recovering the potentially wrongful payment. Well, guess what? This voluntary payments affirmative defense does NOT apply in contract disputes. This is codified by Florida Statute s. 725.04 which states: “When a suit is instituted by a party to a contract to recover a payment made pursuant to the contract and by the terms of the contract there was no enforceable obligation to make the payment or the making of the payment was excused, the defense of voluntary payment may not be interposed by the person receiving payment to defeat recovery of the payment.” Fla.Stat. s. 725.04. See also Avatar Properties, supra (explaining voluntary payment defense does not apply in contract cases and even in non-contract cases it doesn’t apply if payment made under coercion or compulsion). 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

Architect Responds to Defect Lawsuit over Defects at Texas Courthouse

October 08, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Lee County, Texas has sued the architect responsible for designing the drainage system at its historic courthouse. The suit seeks $1.7 million in damages to pay for replacing the defective system and repairing the building from damage sustained due to soil saturation. Dale A. Rabe responds that the county commissioners were more concerned with “beautifying the building” than on needed foundation repairs. Further, Mr. Rabe notes that “Lee County contracted directly with a civil engineering firm to design a drainage system.” But according to Mr. Rabe what they used instead was “a cheaper pump-based design to save money.” And even there, “Lee County failed to maintain the drainage system properly. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Summary Judgment in Favor of General Contractor Under Privette Doctrine Overturned: Lessons Learned

March 27, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It seems like we’ve been seeing a lot of Privette doctrine cases recently. Here’s another, Brown v. Beach House Design & Development, 85 Cal.App.5th 516 (2002), which provides a cautionary tale for general contractors to watch what they include in their scope of work and how they manage projects. The Beach House Case Kyle Brown was a carpenter employed by subcontractor O’Rourke Construction, Inc. who contracted with general contractor Beach House Design and Development to provide finish carpentry on a construction project. A&D Plastering Co., another subcontractor on the project, had erected scaffolding on the project. On June 16, 2017, while using A&D’s scaffolding, Brown fell onto a concrete walkway where he suffered severe injuries. Following the accident, Beach House and A&D inspected the scaffolding and found that some of the scaffolding was not properly secured to the building and that planks, crossbars, ties and guardrails had been cut or were missing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Firm Offers Tips on Construction Defects in Colorado

February 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Although the Tenth Circuit Court determined that construction defects are occurrences under a general liability policy and the passage of CRS Section 13-20-808, in which the Colorado Legislature addressed the definition of occurrences as they relate to construction defects, the insurance industry “will continue to challenge the very concept of coverage for construction defects,” according to five attorneys at the law firm Sherman & Howard. They suggest that there are lessons to be learned from two recent cases that were recently decided by the Colorado Court of Appeals, TCD, Inc. v. American Family and Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company. They suggest that construction professionals to be certain that their insurers are “firmly rooted in insuring the construction industry.” Their broker should also have “specific expertise in insuring the construction industry.” And don’t buy on price alone. Finally, they suggest that construction professionals should “engage an experienced coverage attorney to assess pursuing coverage when an insurance company denies coverage for a construction defect claim.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Demonstrating A Fraudulent Inducement Claim Or Defense

May 18, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a recent case, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s denial of a motion for a temporary injunction sought by an employer due to an independent contractor’s violation of a non-compete and non-solicitation provision in an employment / independent contractor agreement (“employment agreement”). You can find more on this case and the enforcement of the non-compete and non-solicitation clause here. A worthy discussion in this case centers on the independent contractor’s fraudulent inducement defense. Specifically, the independent contractor, as a defense to the injunction, claimed that he was fraudulently induced into entering into the employment agreement because the employer promised he would make a certain amount of money and he would work predominantly in one geographic location. The employment agreement contained NO such representations. Instead, the employment agreement contained a fee and services schedule and the independent contractor would be compensated based on that schedule. It stated nothing as to the independent contractor only having to work, or predominantly working, in one geographic location, or that the independent contractor would be guaranteed “X” amount of money working in that location. Why is this important? 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES