Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

COVID-19 and Mutual Responsibility Clauses

June 01, 2020 — Joseph M. Leone - ConsensusDocs
As everyone knows, there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty in the construction industry due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Schedules, productivity, safety processes, and seemingly everything else are being affected. In these difficult times, most contractors are making every effort to work together to solve the problems caused by COVID-19. But what happens when differences arise between project owners, contractors, and subcontractors as to the effect of COVID-19 on a project? One party may want to continue pushing the schedule, others may want to slow down, or, more likely, not be able to keep up with the original schedule because of some reason related to COVID-19. As between a prime contractor and a subcontractor, a mutual responsibility clause can provide some clarity or, unfortunately, depending on how the subcontract is written, confusion. Almost all subcontracts have a clause which flows down the prime contractor’s obligations on a project to the subcontractor as applicable to the subcontractor’s work. Known as “flow-down” clauses, this clause works in one direction; obligations of the prime contractor “flow-down” to the Subcontractor. A mutual responsibility clause, in essence, works in both directions. The subcontractor is required to perform its obligations consistent with the prime contractor’s obligations to the owner and the subcontractor is granted the same rights against the prime contractor which the prime contractor has against the owner. Obligations flow down and rights flow up. The rights and obligations flowing through the prime contractor include, the obligation to perform the work in accordance with the plans and specifications, the obligation to meet the schedule constraints in the prime agreement, and the right to extensions of time and change orders to the extent the prime contractor obtains the same. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joseph M. Leone, Drewry Simmons Vornehm, LLP
Mr. Leone may be contacted at jleone@dsvlaw.com

Additional Insured Secures Defense Under Subcontractor's Policy

October 14, 2013 — Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined there were sufficient allegations in the underlying complaint and third party complaints to raise a duty to defend for the additional insured. Ill. Emcasco Ins. Co. v. Waukegan Steel Sales, 2013 Ill. App. LEXIS 624 (Ill. Ct. App. Sept. 13, 2013). Waukegan was named as an additional insured under subcontractor I-MAXX Metalworks, Inc.'s policy with Emcasco. An employee of I-MAXX, John Walls, was injured on the job site and sued Waukegan. The complaint alleged Waukegan was negligent in failing to property manage, operate and maintain the premises. I-MAXX had a policy with Emcasco which named Waukegan as an additional insured. The coverage was limited, however, to the additional insured's vicarious liability as a result of the insured's conduct. Emcasco refused to defend Waukegan because the allegations of direct negligence against Waukegan were excluded by the vicariously liability provision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Like Water For Chocolate: Insurer Prevails Over Chocolatier In Hurricane Sandy Claim

November 08, 2017 — Afua S. Akoto - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Recently, a New Jersey Magistrate ruled that an insurer did not have to provide coverage for a chocolatier’s property damage and business interruption losses due to Hurricane Sandy. Madeline Chocolate Novelties Inc. (Madeline), a family-owned chocolatier in Queens Rockaway Beach, held a one-year all-risk policy with Great Northern Insurance (Great Northern). The policy contained a flood exclusion and a windstorm endorsement. When Hurricane Sandy hit in October 2012, Madeline suffered extensive damage and ceased operations during the ensuing holiday season. The chocolatier claimed $40 million in property damage and $13.5 million in business interruption losses and sought coverage under its policy. Great Northern paid just under $4 million and denied the remainder of the claim, citing the policy’s flood exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Afua S. Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com

#10 CDJ Topic: Carithers v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company

December 30, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Craig Martin of Lamson Dugan and Murray, LLP on his Construction Contractor Advisor blog used the Carithers case to demonstrate how “[w]hen you are involved in construction litigation, you have battles on several fronts, including those against subcontractors, owners, insurers and the court. Shoring up your defenses on each of these fronts is imperative, or you may lose the battle or, worse yet, the war.” Martin discusses the various “battle fronts” including the “Claim Against Contractor,” “Where Are You Litigating,” “Claim Against Insurance Company,” and “Damages.” Read the full story... In the article, “Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case Affirmed, Duty to Indemnify Reversed In Part,” attorney Tred R. Eyerly also covered the Carithers case. Eyerly explained, “Determining whether there was coverage for the damages awarded required the court to decide which trigger applied. Examining the policy language, the court determined that property damage occurred when the damage happened, not when the damage was discovered or discoverable. Therefore, the district court did not err in applying the injury in fact trigger.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

What Rich Millennials Want in a Luxury Home: 20,000 Square Feet

February 15, 2018 — Patrick Clark – Bloomberg
A new generation of affluent homebuyers powered by a surge in inherited wealth is driving the luxury-home market, demanding larger spaces and fancier finishes, according to a report heralding “the rise of the new aristocracy.” Prospective homebuyers under 50 account for most of those shopping for homes priced at $1 million or more, according to the report. Nearly a quarter of high-net-worth consumers between 25 and 49 said they would look for at least 20,000 square feet when they made their next home purchase; it was just 6 percent for respondents 50 or older. The report is based on a survey of more than 500 consumers with at least $1 million in investable assets, conducted last month on behalf of Luxury Portfolio International, a network of real estate brokerages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Clark, Bloomberg

Mississippi Supreme Court Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion

December 09, 2019 — Anthony Hatzilabrou - Traub Lieberman
Recently, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that structural damages to the foundation of an insured’s home came within the earth movement exclusion in a homeowner’s policy, notwithstanding a provision in the policy which provided coverage for water damage resulting “from accidental discharge or overflow of water … from within … [p]lumbing, heating, air condition or household appliance.” In Mississippi Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 264 So. 3d 737 (Miss. 2019), the appellee, Smith, filed a lawsuit against her homeowner's insurance company, Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company (“Farm Bureau”) for its refusal to pay for repairs to the foundation of Smith’s home. Smith alleged that the refusal to pay for repairs amounted to breach of contract and asserted claims for bad faith and tortious breach of contract. In response, Farm Bureau filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of the policy’s earth-movement exclusion, which provided that Farm Bureau “did not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by…Earth Movement…[which] means…[a]ny other earth movement including earth sinking, rising or shifting... caused by or resulting from human or animal forces.” Smith filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the basis that the earth-movement exclusion did not preclude coverage because her insurance policy also contained a clause expressly covering water damage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony Hatzilabrou, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Hatzilabrou may be contacted at thatzilabrou@tlsslaw.com

Second Circuit Clarifies What Must Be Alleged to Establish “Joint Employer” Liability in the Context of Federal Employment Discrimination Claims

March 14, 2022 — Kevin J. O’Connor, Aaron C. Schlesinger & Lauren Rayner Davis - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
The “joint employer” doctrine has been used with increasing frequency by the plaintiffs’ bar to broaden the scope of target defendants in discrimination cases beyond those who would be traditionally regarded as the employer. This is true even in the construction industry, which has seen a rise in cases where general contractors or construction managers are being targeted when discrimination is alleged on a construction project, even when the GC or CM is far removed from the underlying events and had no control over the employees in question. Until now, the Courts in the federal circuit which includes New York City (the Second Circuit) have been left to decipher a patchwork of case law to ascertain the scope and extent of joint employer liability in discrimination cases. This week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Felder v. United States Tennis Association, et al., 19-1094, issued a comprehensive decision which provides a helpful summary of what must be pled and proven to broaden liability under the joint employer theory in discrimination cases. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. O’Connor, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Lauren Rayner Davis, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at koconnor@pecklaw.com Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Ms. Davis may be contacted at ldavis@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

How Many Homes have Energy-Efficient Appliances?

October 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The National Association of Home Builders’ Eye on Housing analyzed data from the Census Bureau’s 2011 American Housing Survey to “reveal the share of owner-occupied homes that contain various Energy Star related appliances.” Eye on Housing reported that in “new homes, the leading shares of Energy Star rated appliances were refrigerators (70%), washing machines (69%), dishwashers (65%), and central air conditioning (52%).” In “owner-occupied homes,” the survey demonstrated that “refrigerators are the most common Energy Star appliance.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES