FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Care, Custody or Control Exclusion Requires Complete and Exclusive Control by Insured Claiming Coverage

July 30, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In McMillin Homes Construction v. Natl. Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (No. D074219, filed 6/5/19) a California appeals court held that a “care, custody or control” exclusion did not bar coverage for defense of a general contractor as an additional insured under a subcontractor’s policy, because the exclusion requires exclusive control, but the facts and allegations posed a possibility of shared control with the subcontractor. McMillin was the general contractor on a housing project and was added as an additional insured to the roofing subcontractor’s policy pursuant to the construction subcontract. The homeowners sued, including allegations of water intrusion from roof defects. McMillin tendered to the roofing subcontractor’s insurer, which denied a defense based on the CGL exclusion for damage to property within McMillin’s care, custody or control. In the ensuing bad faith lawsuit, McMillin argued that the exclusion required complete or exclusive care, custody or control by the insured claiming coverage, which was not the case for McMillin. The insurer argued that the exclusion said nothing about complete or exclusive care, custody or control. Further, the intent to exclude coverage for damage to any and all property in McMillin’s care, custody or control, to whatever degree, was demonstrated by the fact that the additional insured endorsement in question was not an ISO CG2010 form, but a CG2009 form, which expressly adds a care, custody or control exclusion to the additional insured coverage not found in the CG2010 form. The argument was that the CG2009 form evidences an intent to conclusively eliminate coverage for property in the additional insured’s care, custody or control. In addition, the insurer argued that this result was also reinforced by its inclusion of an ISO CG2139 endorsement in the roofer’s policy, which eliminated that part of the “insured contract” language of the CGL form, defining an “insured contract” as “[t]hat part of any other contract or agreement pertaining to your business . . . under which you assume the tort liability of another party to pay for ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to a third person or organization.” The insurer’s argument was that by having eliminated coverage for contractual indemnity or hold harmless agreements, it had “closed the loop” of eliminating additional insured coverage for construction defect claims. 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

---

Governor Bob Ferguson’s Recent Executive Orders – A Positive Sign for Washington’s Construction Industry

January 21, 2025 — Ryan Sternoff & Trygve Groh - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
On January 15th, in his first act as Washington’s Governor, Bob Ferguson signed three executive orders, two of which may have a direct impact by removing some of the “red tape” that stifles Washington’s construction industry. This appears to be a positive sign that the Governor’s office is focused on pragmatic action, rather than partisan politics. Executive Order 25-02 is entitled “Assessing Regulatory Efficiency and Addressing Washington’s Affordable Housing Crisis” and directs all executive and small cabinet agencies (collectively, “State Agencies”) to review their rules and regulations and prepare a report for the Governor’s Office that identifies rules or regulations that impact the construction of new housing. The reports will also identify rules or regulations that are no longer necessary and can be rescinded, rules or regulations that can be amended to speed up housing construction. The reports will include descriptions of proposed amendments to such rules and regulations. The reports must be provided to the Governor’s Office within sixty days. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan Sternoff, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Mr. Sternoff may be contacted at ryan.sternoff@acslawyers.com

---

Be Sure to Dot All of the “I’s” and Cross the “T’s” in Virginia

August 02, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As a construction company from outside of Virginia that wants to work here in the Commonwealth, there are numerous “hoops” that you need to jump through to be able to perform work and most importantly get paid. Among these are obtaining a Virginia contractors license, find a registered agent here in Virginia, hopefully find a local construction lawyer to help with your contracts, and (the subject of this post), register with the Virginia State Corporation Commission for the authority to do business in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Aside from it being a requirement of state law, the real world consequence of failing to register to do business is that, while you could file a lawsuit to enforce a claim (such as a mechanic’s lien), failure to register could cost you the ability to enforce or obtain any judgment on that lien. In other words, you could go through the costly litigation process, “win” and then be barred from any recovery simply because you did not follow this step. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Ownership is Not a Conclusive Factor for Ongoing Operations Additional Insured Coverage

November 15, 2017 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In McMillin Management Services v. Financial Pacific Ins. Co. (No. D069814, filed 11/14/17), a California appeals court held that an insurer had a duty to defend a general contractor under an “ongoing operations” additional insured (AI) endorsement for damage occurring after the named insured subcontractor completed its work, because the endorsement did not limit coverage solely to liability during the subcontractors’ ongoing operations, but rather, broadly provided coverage for liability “arising out of” such operations. 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

---

Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Action Violation

October 26, 2017 — Michael C. Zisa & Susan Elliot – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Two recent decisions from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Federal Claims highlight that sureties and bond producers are not immune to the potentially severe consequences of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) and related federal fraud statutes. In each case, the Court determined that sureties and bond producers can face potential liability under these fraud statutes for direct and indirect submission of false claims to the federal government Reprinted courtesy of Michael C. Zisa, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Susan Elliott, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Zisa may be contacted at mzisa@pecklaw.com Ms. Elliott may be contacted at selliott@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Defects in Home a Breach of Contract

September 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Supreme Court of North Dakota has ruled in Leno v. K & L Homes, affirming the verdict of the lower court. K & L Homes argued that district court had erred in several ways, including by refusing to instruct the jury on comparative fault, denying a request for inspection, and not allowing a defendant to testify on his observations during jury viewing.

The Lenos purchased a home constructed by K & L Homes, after which they alleged they found cracks, unevenness, and shifting, which they attributed to improper construction. They claimed negligence on the part of K & L Homes. K & L Homes responded that the Lenos were responsible for damage to the home. The Lenos dropped their negligence claim, arguing breach of contract and implied warranties.

Before the trial, after the discovery period had passed, K & L Homes requested to inspect the home. This was rejected by the court. Kelly Moldenhauer, the owner of K & L Homes sought to testify about his observations during the jury’s viewing of the house. The court denied this too. The jury found that K & L was in breach of contract and awarded damages to the Lenos.

The North Dakota Supreme Court noted that K & L Homes gave “warranties that the home had been built according to local building codes and laws, and that the house was fit for its particular purpose as a residence.” The court found that a defective home breached this warranty. Further, the home violated an implied warranty of fitness.

The district court had denied K & L’s request to inspect the home, as the discovery period had ended and it would not give the Lenos time to do further discovery of their own. At the time of the request, there was only twenty-two days before the trial. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not an abuse of discretion of the part of the district court.

The Lenos had requested that Moldenhauer’s testimony not be permitted, as it would “have the same effect as if the court had granted K & L Homes’ pretrial request for inspection.” K & L Homes agreed to this in court, replying, “okay.”

The decision affirms the judgment of the district court and the damages awarded to the Lenos by the jury.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

LEED Certified Courthouse Square Negotiating With Insurers, Mulling Over Demolition

June 06, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

Apparently, Courthouse Square is still unresolved. The County hasnow hired an attorney to handle its insurance claim against Affiliated FM. Is there a lawsuit coming?



Right now, no lawsuit is expected. According to officials, the insurer has been acting in good faith. But, its been quite a while since Salem officials learned that the Courthouse Square building had significant concrete issues that would result in probable demolition of the LEED certified building.



If you have yet to hear about Courthouse Square, let me fill you in briefly. The Salem building was substantially completed in 2000 and LEED certified by the US Green Building Council in 2002. The project cost more than $30 Million to complete and the building was revered for its innovation as a crowning achievement for city leaders.



But, structural problems in the building’s core were discovered as early as 2002, writes Chris Cheatham of Green Building Law Update. Final tests earlier in the year, determined that the building had to be vacated. The building has been clear since July 2010.



Read the full story…

 

Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com

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

---

District Court Allows DBE False Claims Act Case to Proceed

February 23, 2017 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
Last week, I posted about how whistleblowers continue to receive large settlements related to DBE fraud. A somewhat recent case from the federal court in Maryland shows how whistleblowers are ferreting out DBE fraud on construction projects receiving any form of federal funding. The Case The case involves a bridge painting project in Maryland that was let by the Maryland State Highway Administration. The contract required the prime contractor to meet a 15% DBE participation goal. The prime contractor submitted a bid stating it would have 15.12% DBE participation. After it was awarded the contract, the prime contractor – as is typical – submitted additional forms certifying to the MSHA that 15.12% of its contract price would be performed by a DBE firm. The prime contractor indicated that one DBE subcontractor, Northeast Work and Safety Boats, LLC (“NWSB”), would perform the 15.12% of the work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---