FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Pennsylvania Court Finds that Two Possible Causes Can Prove a Product Malfunction Theory of Liability

September 29, 2021 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Allstate Ins. Co. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., No. 19-3529, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered whether plaintiff’s expert engineer’s opinion that there were two possible causes of a fire—both related to alleged product defects within a refrigerator manufactured by the defendant—was sufficient to support the malfunction theory of products liability. The court found that because both potential causes imposed liability on the product manufacturer and the expert ruled out misuse of the product, as well as all external causes of the fire, it was not necessary for the engineer to identify a specific cause under the malfunction theory. The court also found that the expert’s investigation and opinions met the criteria set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and the Federal Rules of Evidence and, thus, were admissible. LG Electronics arose from a fire at the home of Thomas and Lisa Ellis. The public sector fire investigator identified the area of fire origin as the top of a refrigerator manufactured by LG Electronics USA, Inc. (LG). The Ellises filed a claim with their homeowner’s insurance carrier, Allstate Insurance Company (Insurer). Insurer retained a fire investigator and an electrical engineer to investigate the origin and cause of the fire. The fire investigator agreed with the public sector investigator that the fire originated at the top of the refrigerator. The engineer conducted a forensic inspection of the scene and ruled out all potential external ignition sources. He then examined the internal components of the refrigerator. He found arcing activity on a wire at the front top of the refrigerator. He opined that there were two possible causes of the fire: either the heater circuit insulation failed over time due to mechanical damage, or the heat from the internal light fixture ignited combustible components of the refrigerator. Since the engineer ruled out improper use of the refrigerator, he opined that the damage was caused by a manufacturing defect. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

NYC Condo Skyscraper's Builder Wins a Round -- With a Catch

November 15, 2017 — Oshrat Carmiel - Bloomberg
The battle over whether an 800-foot condo tower planned for Manhattan’s East Side can be built to its full height took a step forward Wednesday -- with city officials saying both yes, and no. A years-long neighborhood lobbying effort to cap the height of new towers near the East 50s riverfront won an endorsement Wednesday from the planning commission, which agreed to rezone the area in a way that would make skyscraping condo towers impossible to build. But commissioners also voted to allow Sutton 58, the under-construction project that inspired the rezoning push, to be grandfathered in under the new law, and proceed as is. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg

---

NY State Appellate Court Holds That Pollution Exclusions Bar Duty to Defend Under Liability Policies for Claims Alleging Exposure to PFAS

February 01, 2022 — Robert F. Walsh & Paul A. Briganti - White and Williams LLP
On January 6, 2022, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, held that the “sudden and accidental” pollution exclusion (SAPE) and “absolute” pollution exclusion (APE) in liability policies relieved two insurers of a duty to defend the insured-manufacturer in connection with claims alleging damages as a result of exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), which are man-made chemicals within the group of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). See Tonoga, Incorporated v. New Hampshire Insurance Company, No. 532546, 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 105 (App. Div. 3rd Dep’t Jan. 6, 2022). In Tonoga, starting in 1961, the insured and its predecessors owned and operated a manufacturing facility in Petersburg, New York that produced materials coated with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). Until 2013, the manufacturing process involved the use of PFOA and/or PFOS. In early 2016, excessive PFOA and/or PFOS concentrations were detected in Petersburg’s municipal water supply. Later that year, the New York Department of Environmental Conversation designated the insured’s facility a Superfund site, and the insured entered into a consent agreement that required it to assist in remedial measures. 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 105, at *1-2. Reprinted courtesy of Robert F. Walsh, White and Williams LLP and Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP Mr. Walsh may be contacted at walshr@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Delaware Court Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

May 07, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
A Delaware trial court found that the carrier properly denied coverage to a contractor who allegedly caused property damage due to faulty workmanship. Westfield Ins. Co., Inc. v. Miranda & Hardt Contracting and Building Serv., L.L.C., 2015 Del. Super. LEXIS 160 (Del. Super. Ct. March 30, 2015). In 2004 and 2005, Miranda built a home pursuant to a contract with Fenwick Ventures, LLC. The homeowners purchased the home from Fenwick in 2006. In 2012, the homeowners contacted Fenwick to complain about defects in the home's construction. In 2014, the homeowners filed a complaint against Fenwick and Miranda. The lawsuit alleged that during the construction of the home, Miranda used inadequate building materials, improperly installed building materials, violated building codes, and fraudulently represented that the home was properly constructed. 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

---

Does a Contractor (or Subcontractor) Have to Complete its Work to File a Mechanics Lien

January 10, 2018 — Wally Zimolong - Zimolong LLC
Yes. There seems to be common misconception that a contractor, subcontractor, or supplier, has six months from its last day of work on the project to file a mechanics lien. I frequently see mechanics liens whereby the claimant states “Claimants last day of work on the project was X.” However, Section 1502 (49 P.S. Section 1502) of the Pennsylvania Mechanics Lien is clear that a lien must be filed within six month of “the completion of his work.” Under the Lien Law, “completion of the work” is a defined term and means “means performance of the last of the labor or delivery of the last of the materials required by the terms of the claimant’s contract or agreement, whichever last occurs.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

Are Proprietary Specifications Illegal?

April 11, 2018 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
A friend came to me with a question regarding a case he was working: “can a public owner require that bidders use a specific brand name product?” “Of course not,” I said “proprietary specifications are illegal.” Or, at least that’s what I assumed. To my surprise, the law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is not as clear as it is in other jurisdictions. What is a proprietary specification? A proprietary specification lists a product by brand name, make, model and/model that a contractor must (shall) utilize in construction. A basic example of a proprietary specification would state:

“Air Handlers shall be “Turbo Max” as manufactured by Chiller Corp.”

There are two problems with a proprietary specification (other than potentially being illegal): (a) they limit competition, and (b) invite steered contract awards. They limit competition because it limits the type of material that can be used on the project. In the example above, there could be equivalent air handlers available at a better price but the contractor could not use that lower priced product in its bid. Thus, the taxpayers end up paying more for tile. Also, contractors may not be able to secure a certain brand name product because of exclusive distribution agreements. Again, using the example above, contractor A’s competitor may have the exclusive distribution agreement with Chiller Corp. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

Construction Law Alert: Builder’s Alternative Pre-litigation Procedures Upheld Over Strong Opposition

April 01, 2014 — Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefko - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
Last week, the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, was tasked with evaluating the enforceability of provisions in home purchase contracts containing alternative pre-litigation procedures which differ from the standard Right to Repair Act procedures. The Court of Appeal, in McCaffrey v. Superior Court of Fresno, et al. ultimately upheld the contractual provisions, and in overturning the trial court's decision, preserved the rights of builders to contract around certain requirements set forth in the Right to Repair Act. The McCaffrey Group, Inc. constructed single-family homes in a Fresno development. Plaintiffs consisted of 24 homeowners within the development who brought suit against McCaffrey for construction defects in their homes. The homeowners were comprised of three categories: (1) the original purchasers who bought their homes from McCaffrey before January 1, 2003 and had a 2001 version of McCaffrey's contract; (2) the original purchasers who bought their homes from McCaffrey on or after January 1, 2003 and signed a 2003 version of McCaffrey's contract; and (3) the subsequent purchasers who did not buy their homes directly from McCaffrey, but purchased their homes subject to either the 2001 or 2003 version of McCaffrey's home purchase agreement. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Rihanna Gained an Edge in Construction Defect Case

January 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In depositions taken last week, the former owner of Rihanna’s “dream home” in Los Angeles, California, alleged “that he’d told brokers Prudential California Realty of the house’s issues,” according to Inquisitr. However, Rihanna, the singer and recent Grammy Award winner, claims that Prudential “didn’t inform” her “of these problems before she moved in, in 2009.” Rihanna has claimed that roof leaks “ruined a sound system that she’d had custom-fitted into her new abode, which cost her $6.9 million, and it also lead to mold growing on some of her designer garments too.” The singer claims to have been “tricked” into purchasing the property: “’the actual value of the property at the time of purchase, taking into consideration the extensive construction defects… was millions of dollars less’” than what she ultimately paid for it.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---