Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Deadly Fire in Older Hawaii High-Rise Causes Sprinkler Law Discussion

July 19, 2017 — David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
Last Friday, at least three people died and twelve were injured during a fire at a Honolulu high-rise that did not have sprinklers, according to CBS News. The fire began on the 26th floor and spread to at least the 28th floor and several units, the Honolulu Fire Department spokesman, Captain David Jenkins, stated. “Without a doubt if there were sprinklers in this apartment, the fire would be contained to the unit of origin,” Captain Jenkins concluded, as reported by CBS News. The Marco Polo development “was built four years before Honolulu required fire sprinkler systems in new residential high-rises,” the LA Times reported. “In 2005, the Honolulu City Council created a task force to estimate the cost of retrofitting and installing fire sprinkler systems in about 300 residential condominium buildings. A report estimated that retrofitting the Marco Polo would cost $4,305.55 for each unit.” A separate report estimated the cost would be $4.5 million to retrofit the entire building. According to Samuel Dannway, chief fire protection engineer for Coffman Engineers in Honoloulu, stated that the owners “lobbied strongly against any retrofitting” due to cost. Retrofitting sprinklers is more challenging in residential high-rises than office buildings, Glenn Corbett, associate professor of fire science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York told the LA Times. “Wall after wall, you have to penetrate with piping, and that means moving people around in apartments,” Corbett said. “They can’t live there while workers are drilling holes in their walls.” Mayor Kirk Caldwell stated that Honolulu “needs to look at passing a new law requiring sprinklers in older high-rises.” Read the full story, CBS News... Read the full story, LA Times... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Unlicensed Contractors Caught in a Sting Operation

March 19, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Seven suspects were cited for contracting without a license after being caught by the Contractors State License Board (CSLB), reported CBS local news, and eighty-five people may face criminal charges. The undercover sting operations occurred over a two day period in Rancho Mirage, California. A hearing is scheduled for June 3rd at Riverside County Superior Court. CSLB Registrar Cindi A. Christenson told CBS, “Several of the suspects we targeted turned out to be repeat offenders and individuals with a criminal history and drug violations. If you knew their backgrounds, you'd never allow them near your home or family." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Fungi, Wet Rot, Dry Rot and "Virus": One of These Things is Not Like the Other

November 02, 2020 — Hugh D. Hughes - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
The Hartford’s so-called virus exclusion in its commercial property forms is getting a workout, and policyholders now have an argument that may help their cases move past the pleadings stage. A U.S. District Court in Florida has deemed the exclusion ambiguous and denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss.1 The exclusion applies to “presence, growth, proliferation, spread, or any activity of ’fungi’, wet rot, dry rot, bacteria or virus.”2 The Court held that the parties did not necessarily intend to exclude a pandemic. In Urogynecology, the plaintiff sought coverage for the loss of the usefulness and functionality of its business location due to the Florida Governor’s shutdown order. The policy contained a 'fungi', wet rot, dry rot, bacteria, or virus” exclusion.3 The carrier moved to dismiss, and the plaintiff argued that the exclusion only applied if COVID-19 was present on-site, which was not the case. The Court addressed none of the issues regarding direct physical loss and instead decided the motion on the fungi exclusion. The Court held the exclusion ambiguous because the exclusion of virus “does not logically align with the grouping of the virus exclusion with other pollutants such that the Policy necessarily anticipated and intended to deny coverage for these kinds of business losses.”5 In addition, the Court stated that pollution case law was not on point because “none of the cases dealt with the unique circumstances of the effect COVID-19 has had on our society – a distinction this Court considers significant.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hugh D. Hughes, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at hdh@sdvlaw.com

Insurer Obligated to Cover Preventative Remediation of Construction Defects

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A recent Texas construction defect case gets covered on a blog post on the web site of Manatt, Phelphs & Phillps, LLC. In the case, the home builder built homes using EIFS which later had problems with mold, mildew, and structural damage. The home builder remediated all of the homes in the project, not just those that had experienced problems with the EIFS.The home builder’s insurers refused to cooperate. Various insurers settled with the home builder, leaving only Markel America Insurance Company. Markel refused coverage on the grounds that proactively replacing the EIFS to preclude damage meant that there was no damage for their policy to cover. The policy also read that “no insured, except at their own cost, [may] voluntary make any payment, assume any obligation, or incur any expense,” unless Markel agreed to it. But the Texas Supreme Court ruled that “Markel failed to prove that it was prejudiced in any way by the home builder’s settlements,” which was a necessary condition for the cited clause. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that Markel was obligated to indemnify the home builder. The court also concluded that the damage occurred during the coverage period and that “all 465 houses at issue suffered property damage during the policy period.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

When is Construction Put to Its “Intended Use”?

October 10, 2013 — Brady Iandiorio — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
Defining words and phrases in the law can be a tricky proposition. In everyday life one would presume to know what the phrase “intended use” would mean, but when it comes to litigation, oftentimes the definitions become much more nuanced. On March 12, 2013, in the Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., WL 950800 (D. Colo. 2013) case, Senior District Court Judge Wiley Y. Daniel denied Third-Party Defendant Canal Insurance Company’s (“Canal”) motion to dismiss Third-Party Plaintiff Hartford Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Hartford”) third-party complaint. The case arose out of a liability insurance coverage dispute related to an underlying construction defect lawsuit. In the construction defect suit, a plaintiff homeowner’s association brought a suit against a developer and a general contractor (“GC”) among others. While the underlying action was settled, a dispute remained between Bituminous Casualty Corporation, which insured the GC, and Hartford, which insured the developer. Hartford asserted third-party claims against Canal seeking a declaration of Canal’s obligations and contribution in the event Hartford owed any defense or indemnity obligations to the GC. Hartford’s claims are based on the premise that Canal owed a duty to defend and/or indemnify the GC in the underlying action. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
Brady Iandiorio can be contacted at Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

California Supreme Court Rules Developers can be Required to Include Affordable Housing

June 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Los Angeles Times reported that in a unanimous decision, the California Supreme court justices declared that “cities and counties” can “require developers to sell some housing at below-market rates.” Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote, “It will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with California’s current housing market that the significant problems arising from a scarcity of affordable housing have not been solved over the past three decades,” as quoted in the Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti applauded the decision: “This gives Los Angeles and other local governments another possible tool to use as we tackle our affordable housing crisis.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- An Alternative

February 05, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Over the past three weeks, I’ve discussed three “stages” of a construction dispute from the claim, to how to increase the pressure for payment, to the litigation. While these three steps are all too often necessary tools in your construction collection arsenal, they are expensive and time consuming. No well run construction business can or should budget for litigation. The better practice would be to engage a construction attorney early in the process and avoid the dispute altogether if possible. Unfortunately, even the best of planning can lead to the need to hire a construction lawyer for the less pleasant task of assisting you in getting paid. This post is about an alternative to the scorched earth of stage 3 of the process that can and should be at least considered either before or after the complaint or demand for arbitration has been filed. I am of course speaking about voluntary mediation. Why did I emphasize “voluntary?” Because to me mandatory mediation (as required in many construction contracts) is a bit like forced volunteerism, it is something that the parties will go through to “check a box” but will not have their hearts in it. Remember, by the time the mandatory mediation clause kicks in, the parties are likely at an impasse in their construction dispute and are ready to fight. Being forced to mediate, especially from the party seeking payment, can (and in my experience often does) make the parties just go through the motions at best and be hostile to the process at worst. Neither of these attitudes are conducive to resolving a dispute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Cogently Written Opinion Finds Coverage for Loss Caused By Defective Concrete

November 07, 2012 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
If ever in need of a concise, well-reasoned opinion on “occurrence,” “property damage” and applicability of the business risk exclusions, turn to Pamperin Rentals II, LLC v. R.G. Hendricks & Sons Construction, Inc., 2012 Wis Ct. App. LEXIS 698 (Wis. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2012). A contractor was hired to install concrete during construction of seven gas stations. Red-D-Mix provided the concrete. The contractor and Red-D-Mix were eventually sued by the gas stations, based upon allegations that the concrete was defectively manufactured and installed. The gas stations alleged that Red-D-Mix supplied concrete that was defective and resulted in damages, including the need to repair nearby asphalt. Red-D-Mix tendered to its insurers, who denied coverage. Suit was filed and the insurers moved for summary judgment. The trial court determined there were no allegations of either “property damage” or an “occurrence.” Therefore, there was no duty to defend or indemnify Red-D-Mix. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES