Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Thank You to Virginia Super Lawyers

July 13, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Thank you to all of my peers and those at Virginia Super Lawyers for nominating and electing me to the Virginia Super Lawyers Rising Stars for 2011. I am particularly honored because this puts me in a group of only 2.5% of lawyers in Virginia. I am truly honored to be a part of this list. Add this honor to my election to the Virginia Business Legal Elite in Construction Law and 2010 has been a great year for my new firm! Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Industrialized Construction News 7/2022

August 15, 2022 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
The AEC Business newsletter’s Industrialized Construction edition in July featured the following news stories: The Pros and Cons of Offsite Construction – A French Research Study The study is titled The current use of industrialized construction techniques in France: Benefits, limits and future expectations. The authors are Emna Attouri, Zoubeir Lafhaj, Laure Ducoulombierb and Bruno Linéatte. Read more Rise of the machines? For Construction, Not Yet Matthew Thibault’s article examines the opportunities and challenges of construction robotics. Robots can improve safety and productivity, but the ROI is still unclear to many contractors. Read more Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 3: Standard Form Policy Exclusions

July 11, 2022 — Scott P. DeVries & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Even when claims are within the scope of coverage, insurers often rely on exclusions in an attempt to avoid coverage for wildfire claims. In this post in the Blog’s Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, we discuss the interplay between coverage grants and exclusions, and the “anti-concurrent cause” provision. Insurers may cite exclusions in an attempt to reduce or avoid liability. The insurance industry has long relied on the Insurance Services Office (ISO) to draft standard form policy language and secure approval as required by state regulatory agencies. ISO Form HO 00 03 10 00 (Section I—Exclusions, Part B) provides the following form exclusionary language: We do not insure for loss to property described in Coverages A and B caused by any of the following. However, any ensuing loss to property described in Coverages A and B not precluded by any other provision in this policy is covered. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Property Damage to Insured's Own Work is Not Covered

May 27, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Michigan Court of Appeals found there was no coverage for a lawsuit filed against the insureds for faulty workmanship. Skanska United States Bldg. v M.A.P. Mech. Contrs., 2019 Mich App. LEXIS 529 (Mich. Ct. App. March 19, 2019). Contractor Skanska United States Building was the construction manager on a renovation project for the medical center. The heating and cooling portion of the project was subcontracted to M.A.P. Mechanical Contractors (MAP). MAP had a CGL policy from Amerisure Insurance Company. Skanska and the medical center were named as additional insureds on the policy. After installation of the steam boiler and related piping, it was discovered that the heating system did not function property. Skanska discovered that MAP had installed some of the expansion joints backward, causing damage to concrete, steel, and heating system. The medical center sent a demand to MAP. Skanska performed the repairs and replaced the damaged property. Skanska then submitted a claim to Amerisure, which was denied. 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

A WARNing for Companies

March 13, 2023 — Abby M. Warren & Sapna Jain - Construction Executive
Since last fall, news of layoffs in the technology sector have set off a ripple effect in a variety of other industries. Companies engaging in layoffs must be thoughtful and prepared when it comes to taking such action. While the construction industry generally has one of the highest layoff rates, and human resource personnel may be very knowledgeable with regard to related risks and exposure, there are a number of additional issues to consider when there are mass layoffs or closings. Further, expensive litigation awaits if companies are not meticulous in complying with state and federal laws regarding such large scale reductions in force. Under federal law, the primary legislation governing mass layoffs and closing is the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act which generally covers employers with 100 or more employees. This law was enacted to protect employees by requiring companies to provide 60 days’ notice to employees in advance of certain plant closings and mass layoffs. In addition, many states, such as California, Connecticut and New York, have enacted similar state laws, referred to as “mini-WARN” laws, which impose additional requirements, including increasing the length of the required advance notice and broadening the scope of employers to which the law applies. Reprinted courtesy of Abby M. Warren and Sapna Jain, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

How Contractors Can Prevent Fraud in Their Workforce

August 13, 2019 — Sarah Hofmann - Construction Executive
The word fraud might conjure up images of Wall Street executives led out to police cars in cuffs, or sleazy conmen with slicked-back hair. While these ideas might be popular in movies and TV, and often in the news, many small and large businesses fall victim to fraud. Whether it’s a trusted site manager who needed a little extra cash to cover an unexpected bill or the accountant who’s been on board for years and has been slowly siphoning an extra paycheck through a ghost employee each month, fraud might be hitting businesses without them even knowing it. The construction industry is hardly immune to such schemes. According to the ACFE’s 2018 Report to the Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abuse, organizations lose an estimated 5% of their revenue each year to fraud. The median amount lost per instance of fraud was $130,000 across all industries, but fraud cases in the construction industry cost almost twice that much at $227,000 per fraud. They also last longer on average: fraud schemes in the construction industry continue for 24 months before being detected versus the overall median average of 16 months. The more time a scheme continues, the more money is lost for organizations. What types of fraud schemes are most common in the construction industry? The construction industry is more susceptible to certain types of fraud than other industries due to the nature of the work. The companies may be smaller in size leading to fewer resources to combat fraud and more trust among employees. Also, construction companies inherently deal with many vendors, subcontractors, bidding organizations and other various third parties, which can all pose fraud risks. Reprinted courtesy of Sarah Hofmann, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Defense Owed to Insured Subcontractor, but not to Additional Insured

December 13, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Affirming the district court, the Eleventh Circuit agreed that the insured subcontractor was entitled to a defense against claims of faulty workmanship, but no defense was owed to the additional insured subcontractor. Cincinnati Spec. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. KNS Group, LLC, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 27949 (11th Cir. Oct. 6. 2022). The general contractor on a project to build a casino and hotel hired GM&P Consulting and Glazing Contractors, Inc. (GM&P) to provide exterior glazing for the building. GM&P enlisted subcontractor KNS to assist it by glazing glass and installing window walls. KNS agreed to provide commercial general liability and other types of insurance, and to indemnify GM&P for liability for damages caused by any of its acts or omissions. KNS acquired a policy from Cincinnati. The casino filed suit against the general contractor and subcontractors, alleging that GM&P installed defective "Glass Facade" and improperly installed windows. GM&P filed a Hird-party complaint against KNS due to KNS's alleged defective construction of the casino. 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

New York Federal Court Enforces Construction Exclusion, Rejects Reimbursement Claim

August 03, 2020 — Eric D. Suben - Traub Lieberman
In Crescent Beach Club, LLC v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2020 WL 3414697 (E.D.N.Y. June 22, 2020), the district court considered application of a CGL policy issued to a property owner containing the following exclusion: "This policy does not apply to any ‘bodily injury’, ‘property damage’, ‘personal and advertising injury’, or any other loss, cost, defense fee, expense, injury, damage, claim, dispute or ‘suit’ either arising out of, or related to, any construction, renovation, rehabilitation, demolition, erection, excavation or remedition [sic] of any building and includes planning, site preparation, surveying or other other [sic] construction or development of real property. This exclusion, however, shall not apply to routine maintenance activities." Plaintiff in the underlying action alleged injury while engaged in construction work at the insured’s premises. The information the insurer received was conflicting as to whether plaintiff was demolishing a pergola (excluded) or merely removing vines (not excluded). The insurer reserved its rights accordingly. At his deposition in the underlying action, the plaintiff testified he was in a manlift performing demolition at the time he was injured. The insured’s property manager also testified that the pergola was being demolished. Approximately one month after the depositions, the insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES