FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Insurer Has Duty to Defend Sub-Contractor

July 25, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Interpreting Connecticut law, the federal district court had that the insured sub-contractor was entitled to a defense. County Wide Mech. Servs. LLC v. Regent Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86726 (D. Conn. May 13, 2022). The underlying plaintiff, The Saybrook at Haddam, entered a contract with PAC Group to serve as general contractor for construction of an addition to The Saybrook's facility. PAC Group sub-contracted with County Wide Mechanical Services to install the HVAC system. The HVAC system was put into service on November 14, 2014. In October 2019, The Saybrook filed the underlying action against PAC group, County Wide, and others. The underlying complaint alleged that there had been at least seven "critical failures" of the HVAC system. As a result, The Seabrook had to replace multiple compressors and several circuit boards, valves, and other components. Further, the entire system had to be replaced. The underlying complaint alleged breach of contract against PAC Group and County Wide. In addition to the alleged breach of contract between The Saybrook and County Wide, the Saybrook also alleged it was a third-party beneficiary of PAC Group's contract with County Wide regarding installation of the HVAC system. PAC Group cross-claimed against County Wide, asserting one count of contractual indemnification and one count of breach of contract under the PAC Group's contract with County Wide. 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

---

Additional Insured Not Entitled to Reimbursement of Defense Costs Paid by Other Insurers

October 21, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Con Edison ("Con Ed") was unsuccessful in arguing for defense costs that had already been paid by other insurers. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121573 (S.D. N.Y. Sept. 9, 2015). Team, Inc. was under contract with Con Ed to provide repairs to the steam system running below the streets of New York City. The contract required Team to indemnify Con Ed for all claims resulting from personal injury or property damage connected to Team's work. Team also obtained a CGL policy naming Con Ed as an additional insured. The policy was to provide primary coverage. Any insured was responsible for the first $250,000 of costs for investigation and/or defense. On July 1, 2007, a steam distribution main, on which Team had finished working, ruptured, creating a huge crater and sending steam and debris, including asbestos insulation, into the surrounding area. The rupture caused substantial damage to nearby buildings, vehicles and underground infrastructure. It also caused personal injury, including two individuals in a tow truck that fell into the crater and a woman who suffered a fatal heart attack while running from the explosion. 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

---

Insurance Company Prevails in “Chinese Drywall” Case

June 17, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Louisiana Court of Appeals rejected an appeal to reverse a summary judgment granted to Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company. Terrence and Rhonda Ross contracted for a remodel of their home in which Chinese-made drywall was used. When the drywall emitted harmful gasses, the Rosses filed a claim under their insurance policy. This claim was rejected under four exclusions: for faulty materials, latent defect, loss by corrosion, and loss by pollution. After the claim was denied, the Rosses sued Louisiana Citizens.

In April 2010, the lower court granted a summary judgment, followed by a May, 2010 order dismissing the Rosses’ claims against Louisiana Citizens. The Rosses appealed this decision. In the court’s review, they agreed with Louisiana Citizens and the lower court on all counts. Although the Rosses maintained that the drywall was not defective (as it still functioned as drywall), the court ruled that its emission of sulfuric gases was a defect. Further, as it was in place for two years before this became evident, it was also a latent defect. Damage to the Rosses’ home consisted of corrosion damage caused by the pollutants in the drywall.

The Rosses made an additional claim that since their policy covered smoke damage, this should be covered, as the harm was done by sulfuric gases. The court noted that the contract specifies “fumes or vapors from a boiler, furnace, or related equipment,” none of which apply in this case.

Read the court’s decision

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

---

One More Statutory Tweak of Interest to VA Construction Pros

April 25, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
While I have focused on the recent “pay if paid” legislation in recent posts, the Virginia General Assembly has taken other action that is of interest to those of us that represent construction professionals in Virginia. One such action is yet another tweak to the so-called “wage theft” statute that essentially made a general contractor the guarantor of all wage payments of its downstream construction partners. The first of the tweaks to the statute passed in 2020 was to create a defense for a general contractor if it obtained a written certification of wage payment from its immediate downstream subcontractor. This year, the General Assembly expanded the protection provided by such certification to all subcontractors. In other words, any contractor or subcontractor can now protect itself from wage theft claims by the use of a certification that all wages were paid from its immediate downstream partner. The text of the changes can be found here. [note that the Governor has sent suggested grammatical amendments that did not affect the substance] 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

---

Where-Forum Art Thou? Is the Chosen Forum Akin to No Forum at All?

May 30, 2022 — William Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
Many courts enforce forum selection clauses in contracts between parties. In W. Bay Plaza Condo. Ass’n v. Sika Corp., No. 3D21-1834, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 1637 (W. Bay Plaza), the Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District (Court of Appeal) answered the question of whether a mandatory forum selection clause in a manufacturer’s warranty was enforceable as to a condominium association, who was a non-signatory. The trial court enforced the forum selection clause – calling for litigation in New Jersey rather than Florida – and the Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling. As stated in W. Bay Plaza, in late 2013 and early 2014, West Bay Plaza Condominium Association (W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n) contracted with Built Right Installers International Corporation, R.J. Miranda Consultants, Inc. and UCI Engineering Inc. (collectively, the Construction Defendants) to have repairs done to the exterior of the property. In 2016, Sika Corporation (Sika), a New Jersey corporation, gave a five-year warranty to W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n for three sealant products used to repair the garage at the property. In 2019, W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n sued the Construction Defendants for breach of contract and professional negligence. Subsequently, W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n amended its complaint and filed a claim against Sika, alleging that Sika breached its warranty because its products failed to provide a watertight barrier. Sika filed a motion to dismiss the action, alleging that Florida was an improper venue because its’ warranty contained a mandatory forum selection clause. W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n argued that it was not bound by the forum selection clause because it was a non-signatory to the warranty and, even if it was bound by the clause, there were compelling reasons not to enforce it. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Building and Landscape Standards Enacted in Response to the Governor's Mandatory Water Restrictions Dealing with the Drought and Possible Effects of El Niño

January 06, 2016 — Clayton T. Tanaka – Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
Earlier this year, with California facing one of the most severe droughts on record, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. issued Executive Order B-29-15 (the “Executive Order”) aimed at conserving water supplies and reducing water waste throughout the State of California. For the first time in California’s history, this Executive Order directed state agencies to implement immediate measures to save water, increase enforcement against water waste, invest in new technologies, and streamline government response to ongoing drought conditions. In response, various state agencies proposed emergency changes to existing building and landscape standards in the California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, title 24, part 11) (“CALGreen”) and the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (California Code of Regulations, title 23, part 11) (“Model Ordinance”) pertaining to the use of potable water. In July, the California Building Standards Commission and the California Water Commission adopted the proposed changes after public review and comment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Clayton T. Tanaka, Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
Mr. Tanaka may be contacted at clay.tanaka@ndlf.com

---

Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Supports Coverage

January 06, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

Relying on the efficient proximate cause doctrine, the court determined coverage potentially existed for damage caused by water. Union Sav. Bank v. Allstate Indem. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134398 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 21, 2011).

The Tods purchased property that was mortgaged by Union Savings. The Tods obtained a Landlords Policy for the property from Allstate. When the Tods were in default on their loan, Union Savings notified them that foreclosure proceedings would commence. Union Savings sent an appraiser to the property who discovered water in the basement. Water and electricity to the building were off. Union Savings notified Allstate and later filed a formal claim under the mortgagee clause in the Landlords Policy. This clause stated, "A covered loss will be payable to the mortgagees named on the policy declaration. . . ."

Allstate denied coverage, citing exclusions for water damage.

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

---

Submitting Claims on Government Projects Can Be Tricky

March 19, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in K-Con Building Systems, Inc. v. United States illustrates the difficulties a contractor may face when pursuing a claim before a Contracting Officer. After nearly 10 years of litigation, the court found that the contractor’s claim to the Contracting Officer did not contain enough detail to allow the claim to proceed. That’s a lot of time and resources wasted on a claim that was dead from the start. K-Con was awarded a $582,000 job to design and build a Coast Guard support building in Michigan. K-Con was unable to complete the project by the finish date and the Coast Guard assessed liquidated damages of $109,554. K-Con contested the assessment of liquidated damages by submitting a one paragraph letter asserting that it was not the sole cause of the alleged delays; that the government was at fault for the delay; and the liquidated damages were an impermissible penalty. The Contracting Officer ultimately denied K-Con’s claim and K-Con appealed to the Court of Claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---