FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

General Indemnity Agreement Can Come Back to Bite You

October 21, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I talk about payment bonds often here at Construction Law Musings. I talk a bit less about performance bonds and even less about the General Indemnity Agreements (GIA) that are signed by companies and their principals as part of the agreement between a construction company and its bonding company for the provision of these bonds. However, this does not mean that these GIA’s are not important. In fact, these are the agreements that allow a bonding provider to recoup any money paid out pursuant to either a payment or performance bond. A 2018 case illustrates their importance. In Allegheny Cas. Co. v. River City Roofing, LLC, the Court considered a claim by Allegheny seeking both specific performance of the collateral agreement and reimbursement of certain expenses and investigative costs expended by Allegheny pursuant to its performance bond. Allegheny sought to be reimbursed for certain payments for siding work, investigative costs, and costs spent enforcing the GIA. Allegheny further sought to force the defendants to post sufficient collateral. To do so, Allegheny sued in the Eastern District of Virginia and then moved for summary judgment stating that the GAI uneuivocally required such a result due to the good faith payment for the siding work and the plain language of the GIA. In response, the Defendants, River City Roofing and its principals that had personally guaranteed the indemnity, argued that the GIA did not apply to the siding work because only the roofing contract was subject to the performance bond and that any bond claims for which collateral was demanded were inchoate and therefore not proper for specific performance. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity

December 20, 2012 — TRED EYERLY, INSURANCE LAW HAWAII
In Pioneer Tower Owners Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 12 NY3d 302 (2009), the New York Court of Appeals found an "earth movement" exclusion was ambiguous when applied to an excavation. The court now considered whether a similar exclusion, expressly made applicable to "man made" movement of earth, eliminated the ambiguity when loss was created by excavation. Bentoria Holdings, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2012 N.Y. LEXIS 3087 (N.Y. Oct. 25, 2012). Plaintiff's building suffered cracks due to an excavation being conducted on the lot next door. A claim was submitted to Travelers, plaintiff's insurer. Travelers rejected the claim, relying on the earth movement exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii.
Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

What Lies Beneath

April 10, 2023 — Grace Austin - Construction Executive
Industry experts call it the “Wild Wild West,” and it certainly could be considered a new frontier: private utility locating. While public utility locating is familiar territory, private utility locating is decidedly newer—and already changing rapidly. Public or private, utility location is imperative to safe and cost-effective construction. Hidden utilities can lead to damage, driving up costs and causing unexpected project delays. They can also be dangerous to both workers and the public, causing injuries and even deaths. The Common Ground Alliance’s 2021 DIRT Report—which compiles information from CGA’s Damage Information Reporting Tool program—found that natural gas and telecommunications were the leading utilities damaged. DIRT received more than 230,000 reports on damages and near-misses in 2021. Clearly, the industry can do better. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG Utility location mapping in the United States began in earnest in the mid-20th century, according to GPRS, a private utility-mapping company that was founded in 2001. As postwar development shifted into high gear, the utility industries realized that power, water, gas, phone and other utilities were now being installed in the ground—and there needed to be a better system to prevent service disruptions and accidents. Reprinted courtesy of Grace Austin, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

April 10, 2019 — Parker A. Lewton - Smith Currie
A contractor who has encountered unforeseen conditions will typically rely on the contract’s differing site conditions clause as a means to recovery. Most construction contracts address those issues directly. In ConsensusDocs Standard Agreement and General Conditions between Owner and Constructor, the starting point is § 3.16.2. But what if the contract does not contain a differing site conditions clause? Or, what if the contract does contain such a clause, but the contractor failed to provide adequate notice or satisfy other conditions or requirements of the contract? When reliance on a differing site conditions clause is impractical, a contractor still may seek recovery in certain instances under one or more of the following legal theories: misrepresentation; fraud; duty to disclose; breach of implied warranty; and mutual mistake. Misrepresentation Misrepresentation occurs when an owner “misleads a contractor by a negligently untrue representation of fact[.]” John Massman Contracting Co. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 24, 31 (1991) (citing Morrison–Knudsen Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 712, 718–19, 345 F.2d 535, 539 (1965)). A contractor may be able to recover extra costs incurred, under a theory of misrepresentation, if it can show that (1) the owner made an erroneous representation, (2) the erroneous representation went to a material fact, (3) the contractor honestly and reasonably relied on that representation, and (4) the contractor’s reliance on the erroneous representation was to the contractor’s detriment. See T. Brown Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 132 F.3d 724, 728–29 (Fed. Cir. 1997). These four requirements can be satisfied, for example, through the use of deposition testimony detailing the owner’s representations and the contractor’s reliance thereon. See, e.g., C & H Commercial Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 246, 256–57 (1996). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Parker A. Lewton, Smith Currie
Mr. Parker may be contacted at palewton@smithcurrie.com

---

Coverage Rejected Under Owned Property and Alienated Property Exclusions

June 06, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly

The insured’s request for a defense when sued in a construction defect action was denied under the owned property exclusion and the alienated property exclusion in1777 Lafayette Partners v. Golden Gate Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48562 (N.D. Cal. April 29, 2011).



In 1999, Lafayette Partners purchased an abandoned walnut processing factory to convert into living and working units. The property was developed into a rental property from 2000-2001, and thereafter rented. In May 2003, Lafayette Partners entered into a sales agreement with Wolff Enterprises LLC. The sale closed in February 2005. Wolff then converted the rental units into condominiums.



In December 2007, the Walnut Factory Owners Association sued Wolff for construction defects. In Lafayette Partners was added to the suit in 2009. The suit alleged a variety of defective conditions, including the roofs, exteriors, windows, electrical , plumbing, and mechanical components and systems.



Read the full story…

  

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

---

Millennium’s Englander Buys $71.3 Million Manhattan Co-Op

September 03, 2014 — Oshrat Carmiel – Bloomberg
Israel Englander, the founder and chief executive officer of hedge-fund firm Millennium Management LLC, bought a duplex apartment on New York’s Park Avenue for $71.3 million, a record price for a Manhattan co-op. The seller was the government of France, New York City property records filed on Aug. 30 show. The six-bedroom unit at 740 Park Ave. was listed for $48 million in April, according to real estate website StreetEasy.com. The Park Avenue tower, completed in 1931 and designed by Rosario Candela and Arthur Loomis Harmon, has been home to John D. Rockefeller Jr. and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, according to StreetEasy. Its 31 units include duplexes and triplexes of as much as 20,000 square feet (1,900 square meters). The 18-room co-op bought by Englander includes a private elevator, 35-foot (10.6-meter) marble gallery and five fireplaces, said the listing by John Burger of Brown Harris Stevens. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg
Ms. Carmiel may be contacted at ocarmiel1@bloomberg.net

---

Texas “Loser Pays” Law May Benefit Construction Insurers

June 07, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Under a new law, Texas HB 274, the Texas Supreme Court will be making rules for motions to dismiss and to expedite suits of less than $100,000. The law also contains two “loser pays” provisions. If a lawsuit is found dismissed for having “no basis in fact or law,” the losing side must pay attorney costs. The other provision caps award of attorney fees if plaintiffs reject settlement offers. Texas Lawyer quotes Houston attorney Mike Gallagher as saying this will affect “the practice of everyone who handles significant lawsuits.”



Gregory Marcum, whose practice includes construction defect litigation, plans to contact insurance companies, as the new law may save them money. “It will definitely be a factor in the defense strategy for handling a case.” He notes that “any insurance carrier would want that done.”



Marcum notes that the offer-of-settlement rules only apply when cases go to trial. “Almost all cases settle.”



Read HB 274



Read the full story…

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

---

Statutes of Limitations May be the Colorado Contractors’ Friend

April 18, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFF

Albert Wolf, a principal in Wolf Slatkin & Madison P. C., has written an interesting article on statutes of limitations in construction defect claims in Colorado. While Wolf states that in most cases, “construction defect claims against construction industry participants (contractors, subcontractors, architects, engineers, etc.) requires that suits be started within two years after construction defects have been or should have been—in the exercise of reasonable diligence (care)—discovered,” if a project used the AIA General Conditions (AIA Document A2010) before the 2007 edition, the “statutes of limitations begin to run (accrue) at either substantial completion or breach by the contractor (installation of defective work), depending on the circumstances.”



“That’s a huge difference,” Wolf writes in his article. “For example, if the structural defect caused by faulty foundation work is not discovered or discoverable until walls begin to exhibit cracking more than two years after the building is completed, the owner’s claim against the contractor may be barred if the AIA provision is applied.”



Read the full story...

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

---