Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

A Survey of Trends and Perspectives in Construction Defect Decisions

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Thomas F. Segella, Ellen H. Greiper, and Matthew S. Lerner, partners at the firm Goldberg Segalia, together with Suzin L. Raso, an associate of the firm, have prepared a wide-ranging survey of cases, in their commentary, “Emerging Trends and Changing Perspectives on Construction Defect Claims. The authors examine 11 coverage cases, representing decisions from eight states, and 15 cases of litigation, here covering 11 states. In each case, they give a one-sentence summary, a further discussion of the case, and they end with a practice note. They start with Alabama, noting that the court found that “faulty workmanship is not an occurrence,” looking at the recent case of Owners Insurance Co. v. Jim Carr Homebuilders, LLC. Here they note that under Alabama law, “there was no damage to personal property or property of others; therefore, there was no ‘occurrence.’” They also note that “the policy involved did not contain a ‘subcontractor exception.’” In Georgia, they noted, the courts concluded that “damage to insured’s completed work is an ‘occurrence.’” Here they cite a recent decision of the Georgia Supreme Court, noting that the court looked at cases from Connecticut, South Carolina, Illinois, Texas, as well as the Fourth and Tenth Circuits. Under litigation, they look at such aspects of construction defect litigation such as the application of the economic loss doctrine in Kansas and Florida, and how the courts view arbitration agreements in states including New Jersey, Louisiana, and Colorado. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion

October 26, 2020 — Philip B. Wilusz & Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Those of us who suffered through law school are familiar with the argument that there are fundamental rules applicable to contract interpretation and that a certain contract language interpretation would “swallow the rule.” However, insurance companies have long advocated for an interpretation of the CGL policy’s pollution exclusion that would “swallow the coverage” that the insureds thought they were purchasing. Insurers have successfully argued in several states that the pollution exclusion’s definition of “pollutant” should be read literally, and be applied to any “solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste.” As anyone with children can attest to, the range of items and substances that can be considered an “irritant” is limitless. The logical extent of the insurer’s interpretation brings to mind the high school student who, for his science fair project, convinced his fellow students to ban “dihydrogen monoxide.”1 Citing evidence such as the fact that everyone who has ever died was found to have consumed “dihydrogen monoxide,” he convinced them of the dangers of . . . water. Similarly, an overly expansive reading of the definition of “pollutant” could lead to the absurd result of even applying it to ubiquitous harmless substances such as water. The pollution exclusion, therefore, has run amok in many states and has allowed insurers to avoid liability for otherwise covered claims. Fortunately, insureds in many states have successfully argued that the pollution exclusion is subject to a more limited interpretation based on several different theories. For example, some courts have agreed that the pollution exclusion, as initially introduced by the insurance industry, should be limited to instances of traditional environmental pollution. Others have held that the exclusion is ambiguous as to its interpretation. The reasonable expectations of the insureds do not support a broad reading of the defined term “pollutant.” Below, this article addresses a number of recent decisions that have adopted a pro policyholder interpretation of the pollution exclusion. As with most insurance coverage issues, choice of law clearly matters. Reprinted courtesy of Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Washington School District Sues Construction Company Over Water Pipe Damage

August 27, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Yakima Herald reported that “[t]he Toppenish School District is suing a local construction company over a breach of contract that allegedly led to defective water pipes at one of its elementary schools, according to a complaint filed with the Yakima County Superior Court earlier this week.” According to the complaint (as reported by the Yakima Herald), Toppenish officials alleged that the Huylar Construction Co. failed to install calcium silicate seals during the pipe installation. Furthermore, the complaint stated that last November, the school district discovered “’[e]xtensive corrosion and deterioration’ of the pipes.” Toppenish argued that failure to install the seals is a breach of contract. Toppenish is suing for about $120,000. The Yakima Herald stated that a Huylar representative “could not be reached for comment.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Walmart Seeks Silicon Valley Vibe for New Arkansas Headquarters

June 18, 2019 — Matthew Boyle - Bloomberg
Walmart Inc. took inspiration from McDonald’s Corp., Apple Inc. and locations like Stanford University when designing the new headquarters that will start taking shape this summer. The 350-acre campus will be located just a few blocks east of Walmart’s current home, a patchwork of more than 20 buildings in Bentonville, Arkansas. It will feature bike paths, food trucks and outdoor meeting areas -- part of an effort to lure younger, digitally-savvy workers to northwestern Arkansas. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Boyle, Bloomberg

Contrasting Expert Opinions Result in Denial of Cross Motions for Summary Judgment

February 27, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Given the opposing experts' contradictory reports, the court denied both the insured and insurer's motions for summary judgment regarding coverage for a pipe leak. Pronti v. Hanover Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222306 (W.D. N. Y. Dec. 9, 2022). The insured had a swimming poll and spa, which functioned using a subsurface plumbing system, covered with concrete decking. A subsurface pipe began to leak, preventing the pool from properly functioning. The insureds gave notice under their homeowners' policy and contended that significant portions of the pool, spa, concrete decking and other landscaping had to be torn out to do repairs. The insurer retained an expert, Sarah G. Byer, a structural engineer, to investigate. The parties agreed that the pipe had a leak, but disputed if the location of the leak was specifically identified. The parties also disputed the cause of the leak. Byer found that the most likely cause was deterioration incurred over the pipe's lifetime based on the age of the plumbing system and Byer's personal observation of the pipe. Byer further stated that the physical qualities of flexible PVC piping made it susceptible to damage from chlorine and water over time. 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

Courts Generally Favor the Enforcement of Arbitration Provisions

May 10, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In recent posts (here and here) I have discussed arbitration provisions and cases dealing with the enforceability of arbitration provisions. The case of Lemos v. Sessa, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D701a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) deals with two noteworthy principles when it comes to arbitration that warrant another post about arbitration provisions. First, courts will and should try to resolve any ambiguity in arbitration provisions in favor of arbitration. Second, when there is an offending arbitration provision or one that includes language that violates public policy, the trial court “should sever the offending provisions from the arbitration clause so long as such severance does not undermine the parties’ intent.” Lemos, supra. This principle is reinforced when the arbitration provision is in an agreement that contains a severability provision. 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

Reporting Requirements for Architects under California Business and Professions Code Section 5588

December 22, 2019 — Jordan Golden - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
Below is an overview of the changes to California Business and Professions Code Section 5588 and its effect on the reporting requirements, for architects, in the construction industry. Section 5588 Prior to 2005 Legislative Changes Section 5588 of the California Business and Professions Code sets forth the reporting requirements for many business professionals including architects. Since 1979, Section 5588 has required architects and their insurers to report to the California Architect Board (the Board) “any settlement or arbitration award in excess of five thousand dollars ($ 5,000) of a claim or action for damages caused by the license holder’s fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice.”1 The language of the code section left open for interpretation the question of what types of settlement claims must be reported to the Board. Thus, in 2004, the Attorney General of the State of California published an opinion stating that a reportable settlement includes “any agreement resolving all or part of a demand for money which is based upon an insured architect’s alleged wrongful conduct.”2 He then went on to conclude that the only qualifications placed on the term “claim” for purposes of Section 5588 is that “(1) the demand be premised on the license holder’s alleged ‘fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice,’ and (2) the value of the claim, as measured by the settlement amount or arbitration award, exceeds $5,000.”3 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jordan Golden, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani

Private Statutory Cause of Action Under Florida’s Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act

July 11, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Florida’s Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act is set forth in Florida Statutes Chapter 556. Any owner or operator of underground infrastructure as well as contractors that perform underground excavation and demolition operations are familiar (or, need to be familiar) with this Act and the requirements it imposes on them. In a nutshell, this Act requires excavators to notify operators of underground facilities (e.g., pipelines, cables, sewers) through a notification system before excavating or demolishing an underground location. Then notification system gives the operator of the underground facility two days’ advance notice that an excavation will be taking place. After receiving this notice, the operator of the underground facility must mark the area where its infrastructure is located which could be affected by the underground excavation or demolition operations. The Act further imposes duties on excavators to use increased caution, supervise mechanized equipment, perform excavation and demolition operations in a careful an prudent manner, and to re-notify the notification system if the operator’s marking is no longer visible so the location of the operator’s underground facility can be re-marked. 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