FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Can You Really Be Liable For a Product You Didn’t Make? In New Jersey, the Answer is Yes

December 14, 2020 — James Burger & Robert Devine - White and Williams LLP
New Jersey has recently expanded liability for product distributors and manufacturers to products that the distributor/manufacturer did not make or sell. This alert discusses this new law and steps that distributors and manufacturers may consider to reduce their potential liability. In Whelan v. Armstrong International, Inc., the New Jersey Supreme Court held that distributors and manufacturers can be strictly liable for injuries caused by replacement parts added after the point of sale which had not been manufactured or sold by any of the defendants in the case. In Whelan, the defendants’ products had originally been sold with asbestos-containing parts. Mr. Whelan, the plaintiff, argued that asbestos-containing replacement parts were required to repair and maintain the products. The court found that because the products were designed with asbestos-containing parts, “[d]efendants had a duty to provide warnings given the foreseeability that third parties would be the source of asbestos-containing replacement components.” (Emphasis added). This reasoning, based on “foreseeability,” should give pause to all product distributors and manufacturers—even those who do not make or sell products that contain asbestos. Certainly distributors and manufacturers of products with asbestos-containing parts must take heed that they may now be liable for replacement parts that they neither manufactured nor sold. This alone is a significant holding that expands potential liability. Reprinted courtesy of James Burger, White and Williams LLP and Robert Devine, White and Williams LLP Mr. Burger may be contacted at burgerj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Release Language Extended To Successor Entity But Only Covered “Known” Claims

August 06, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent case contains valuable analysis that has impact on whether a “successor” entity will be bound by a settlement agreement it was not a direct party to. This case contains arguments for contractors that can be raised in a number of different contexts if it is sued by a successor or related entity. The same case discusses the difference between releasing a party for “known” claims without releasing the same party for “unknown” claims. This is an important distinction because unknown claims refer to latent defects so a release that only releases a party for known claims is not releasing that party for latent defects. In MBlock Investors, LLC v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1432d (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), an owner hired a contractor to construct a project. At completion, the owner transferred the project to an affiliated entity (collectively, the “Owner”). The contractor sued the Owner for unpaid work, the Owner claimed construction defects with the work, and a settlement was entered into that released the contractor for KNOWN claims. Thereafter, the Owner defaulted on the construction loan and agreed to convey the property through a deed in lieu of foreclosure to an entity created by the lender (the “Lender Entity”). 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

---

Fatal Boston Garage Demolition Leaves Long Road to Recovery

April 04, 2022 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
Massachusetts' officials are bracing for a lengthy recovery process following the March 26 fatal collapse during demolition of a section of a hulking Brutalist-era parking garage in Boston. JDC Demolition was razing the Government Center structure to make way for a 410,000-sq-ft life-sciences complex, when a multistory portion near the top failed, killing 51-year-old operating engineer Peter Monsini. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Coverage for Construction Defects Barred By Exclusion j (5)

April 15, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Texas Court Appeal reversed a trial court judgment which found coverage in favor of the contractor based upon exclusion j(5). Dallas Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Calitex Corp., 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2002 (Tex. Ct. App. March 3, 2015). Turnkey Residential Group, Inc., was the contractor to construct a twelve-unit townhome complex in Dallas. The owner of the project was Calitex Corporation. Construction began on November 2006. The project was to be completed by Turnkey by October 27, 2007. Calitex filed suit against Turnkey and some of its subcontractors in February 2008. Calitex alleged problems with Turnkey's work included: (1) the stone exterior was not properly treated and leaked, and some areas were left uncovered with stone; and (2) windows leaked. It was further alleged that the quality of materials, labor and craftsmanship did not meet the standards of the contract and resulted in damages. Turnkey submitted a notice of claim to its insurer, Dallas National Insurance Company (DNIC). Coverage was denied. 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

---

The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Finds Wrap-Up Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage of Additional Insureds

February 18, 2020 — Callie E. Waers - Florida Construction Law News
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, recently took a close look at the application of a “controlled insurance program exclusion” (wrap-up exclusion) to additional insureds on a commercial general liability policy. In Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 886 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2018), the Fourth Circuit examined the interplay of an enrolled party’s additional insured status on an unenrolled party’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy with a wrap-up exclusion. The court applied North Carolina law and found that pursuant to the policy’s own language, the exclusion only applied to the original named insured, not the additional insureds. The case arose out of an injury incurred by an employee of a second-tier subcontractor during the construction of a hospital. On this particular project, the owner maintained a “rolling owner controlled insurance program” (wrap-up insurance program) in which all tiers of contractors were required to enroll, but enrollment was not automatic. The general contractor was enrolled in the owner’s wrap-up policy, but neither the steel manufacturer subcontractor nor its sub-subcontractor, the steel installation company, were enrolled. The underlying plaintiff was injured while he was an employee of the steel installation company, but he did not name his employer in his personal injury lawsuit. The Cont’l Cas. Co. case was instituted by Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) after it defended and settled the underlying plaintiff’s claims against its insured and additional insured, the steel manufacturer and general contractor, respectively. Continental sought to be reimbursed for the $1.7 million settlement and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for the defense and indemnity of the underlying lawsuit. Continental alleged that Amerisure Insurance Company (“Amerisure”) breached its duty to defend and Amerisure’s policy provided the primary coverage for both the general contractor and steel manufacturer, who were additional insureds on the Amerisure policy. Amerisure denied a duty to defend the additional insureds based on the presence of the wrap-up exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Mr. Charlson may be contacted at Ryan.Charlson@csklegal.com

---

Court of Appeal Confirms Privette Doctrine as Applied to Passive Conduct of Property Owner

March 22, 2018 — Bruce Cleeland and Frances Ma – Publications & Insights
In Delgadillo v. Television Center, Inc., 2018 No. B270985, the California Court of Appeal examined and refined the Privette doctrine. Mr. Delgadillo worked as a supervisor/window cleaner for a company named Chamberlin Building Services (CBS). Television Center, Inc. (TCI) purchased an existing building and thereafter contracted with CM Cleaning Solutions, Inc. (CMC) to provide cleaning and janitorial services. CMC, on behalf of TCI, solicited a proposal from CBS to wash the building’s windows. CBS and its employees made all decisions about how the window washing would be accomplished. The window washing equipment used on the job was owned, inspected and maintained by CBS. In violation of CBS’ policy, Mr. Delgadillo, attached a safety line to a single connector which was not an acceptable anchor point. The bracket failed and Mr. Delgadillo fell 50 feet to his death. Survivors of Mr. Delgadillo filed suit against TCI for negligence and negligence per se, alleging that Mr. Delgadillo was fatally injured because TCI failed to install structural roof anchors, as required by several statutes. Reprinted courtesy of Bruce Cleeland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Frances Ma, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cleeland may be contacted at bcleeland@hbblaw.com Ms. Ma may be contacted at fma@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Six Inducted into California Homebuilding Hall of Fame

February 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The California Homebuilding Foundation has inducted six industry leaders into their Homebuilding Hall of Fame, in recognition of both their professional accomplishments and their philanthropic and volunteer activities. The six homebuilders to be honored are Sherman S. Haggerty of Lennar Corp., Joe Head of the SummerHill Land Division of SummerHill Homes, Robert B. MacLeod of Newland Real Estate Group, John J. Ryan Jr. of Brookfield Homes Bay Area, Tom Sudberry of Sudberry Properties, and Bill Watt of Baywood Development Group. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Finding of No Coverage Overturned Due to Lack of Actual Policy

March 18, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Appellate Division overturned a verdict for the insurer when the actual policy was never introduced at trial. Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. B&F Land Dev. Corp., 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 264 (N.Y. App. Div. Jan 16, 2018). The decedent was killed when he fell through a skylight while working on a premises owned by B&F Land Development Corporation. The estate sued B&F for wrongful death. B&F tendered to its carrier, Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual (PLM). PLM issued a reservations of rights. It later denied coverage because the location of the loss was not a location listed on the policy, an exclusion barred coverage for bodily injury arising out of B&F's ongoing operations conducted by it or on its behalf, and the loss was not reported to PLM as soon as practicable. PLM sued B&F and the estate for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify. A default judgment was entered against B&F after it failed to answer. Trial proceeded against the estate 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

---