Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Insurer's Judgment on the Pleadings Based Upon Expected Injury Exclusion Reversed

October 30, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The appellate court reversed the trial court's granting of a judgment on the pleadings based upon the expected injury exclusion in a homeowner's policy. Allstate Indemn. Co. v. Contreras, 2018 Ill. App. LEXIS 170964 (Ill. Ct. App. July 20, 2018). Alejandra Contreras owned Jasmine's Day Care. Her husband, Adan Contreras, was not an employee of the Day Care. Alejandra and Adan had a homeowner's policy which provided day care liability coverage through an endorsement. 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

Direct Contractors In California Should Take Steps Now To Reduce Exposure For Unpaid Wages By Subcontractors

February 07, 2018 — Nora Stilestein, Candace Matson , and Mercedes Cook - Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
As of January 1, 2018, direct contractors in California who make or take a contract “for the erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other private work” are jointly and severally liable with their subcontractors for any unpaid wages, fringe benefits and other benefit payments or contributions owed to wage claimants. Governor Brown approved AB 1701 on October 14, 2017. The new law puts the onus on direct contractors to not only monitor their own payroll practices, but to ensure that their subcontractors and lower tier subcontractors are engaging in proper payroll practices. Reprinted courtesy of Sheppard Mullin attorneys Nora Stilestein, Candace Matson and Mercedes Cook Ms. Stilestein may be contacted at nstilestein@sheppardmullin.com Ms. Matson may be contacted at cmatson@sheppardmullin.com Ms. Cook may be contacted at mcook@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

DOD Contractors Receive Reprieve on Implementation of Chinese Telecommunications Ban

September 14, 2020 — Lori Ann Lange & Sabah Petrov - Peckar & Abramson
In our previous alert, we discussed the expansion on the Section 889(a)(1)(B) ban on certain Chinese telecommunications equipment and services to contractors and subcontractors who use the equipment and services in their internal operations. Effective August 13, 2020, federal agencies were prohibited from procuring, obtaining, extending, or renewing a contract with a contractor that uses equipment, systems, or services that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component or as critical technology, unless an exception applies or a waiver is granted. Since then we have received feedback from contractors, complaining about the difficulties in determining whether their internal operations use covered telecommunications equipment and services and the need for additional time to become compliant or even obtain enough information to submit a waiver request. Now it seems that Department of Defense (DoD) contractors and subcontractors may be getting a temporary reprieve. The DoD Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment requested a waiver that would allow DoD to continue to execute procurement actions providing supplies, equipment, services, food, clothing, transportation, care, and support necessary to execute the DoD mission. The Director of National Intelligence granted the temporary waiver until September 30, 2020 pending a further review of waiver request. Depending upon the outcome of this additional review, the temporary waiver may be continued beyond September 30, 2020 if it is in the national security interests of the United States. Reprinted courtesy of Lori Ann Lange, Peckar & Abramson and Sabah Petrov, Peckar & Abramson Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com Ms. Petrov may be contacted at spetrov@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer Must Defend General Contractor

April 03, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Interpreting Massachusetts law, the federal district court determined consequential damage resulting from the insured's faulty work triggered a duty to defend. Capitol Spec. Ins. Corp. v. Dello Russo Enter. LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11627 (D. Mass. Jan. 24, 2023). Peta-Gay and Michael Print sued the insured, Dello Russo, who they hired as the general contractor for extensive remodelling and renovation of their building. During the demolition work, certain structural load-bearing walls were removed, including a portion of an exterior bricked masonry wall. Shoring of other parts of the building was inadequate and removal of the masonry wall reduced the structural integrity of the building. Cracks began to appear in the remaining portion of the masonry wall and increased over the next few days. Soon thereafter, the City of Boston determined the building was dangerous and that salvage of the undamaged portions was not feasible. Therefore, the building was demolished. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, filed suit against Dello Russo as subrogee of the Prinns. Dello Russo tendered the complaint to its insurer, Capitol Specialty Insurance Corporation, who defended under a reservation of rights,. Capitol then filed a suit seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or to indemnify. The parties cross-claimed for summary judgment. 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

Business Risk Exclusions Bar Faulty Workmanship Claim

December 21, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The manufacturer of roofing and waterproofing systems was unsuccessful in securing coverage for alleged faulty workmanship due to the "your work" and "your product" exclusions. Siplast, Inc. v. Emplrs Mut. Cas. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176539 (N.D. Texas Sept. 25, 2020). Siplast was sued in New York by the Archdiocese for work done at Cardinal Spellman High School. The Archdiocese purchased a Siplast Roof System for the high school. Vema Enterprises installed the roof system. The roof system was covered by a guarantee. After completion, school officials noticed water damage in the ceiling tiles throughout the school. A consultant hired by the Archdiocese concluded that the leaks were caused by the workmanship and the materials that were compromising the entire roof membrane and system. Siplast determined the guarantee was not applicable. The Archdiocese informed Siplast that it would repair the roof and hold Siplast liable for the costs. Siplast gave notice of the claim to Employers, but coverage 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

The Overlooked Nevada Rule In an Arena Project Lawsuit

August 04, 2016 — Scott Van Voorhis – Engineering News-Record
When crunching the numbers on the construction wrap-up program for the T-Mobile Arena project outside Las Vegas, insurance broker Aon Risk Services South allegedly failed to take into account a Nevada workers’ compensation rule, one of many intricate features of the state’s workers’ compensation regulations. Others had apparently missed this aspect of the rule, too. “Many business owners and executives are unaware of this regulation and … are paying more premium to their workers’ compensation carriers than they should be,” warned Bradley Rowe, a commercial insurance broker in Las Vegas, in a blog post in 2014. Two years later, the prime contractor joint venture on the completed $230-million arena is battling in court with Aon, charging the broker with professional negligence and breach of contract, according to court documents filed in U.S. District Court in Nevada. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record
You may send questions or comments to enr.com@bnpmedia.com

Revisiting Statutory Offers to Compromise

August 28, 2023 — Kathryne Baldwin - Wilke Fleury
The fourth appellate district published an opinion earlier this year in Smalley v. Subaru of America, Inc. (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 450 that serves as an excellent refresher on requirements of the “998 Offer,” or a statutory offer to compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §998. In Smalley, set in the context of a Lemon Law action, Defendant Subaru made a 998 Offer for $35,001.00, together with attorneys’ fees and costs totaling either $10,000.00 or costs and reasonably incurred attorneys’ fees, in an amount to be determined by the Court. (Smalley, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at 454.) Plaintiff objected that the offer was not reasonable and the case proceeded to trial. At trial, a jury found in favor of Plaintiff and awarded him a total judgment award of $27,555.74 – far short of the $35,001.00 offer. The trial court found Plaintiff had failed to beat the 998 at trial and that Subaru’s earlier 998 offer was reasonable. Plaintiff appealed the post-judgment order awarding Plaintiff pre-offer costs and Defendant post-offer costs on the grounds that the 998 was not reasonable in that it did not specify whether Plaintiff would be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of a motion for attorneys’ fees. The fourth district affirmed the trial court’s order and engaged in a helpful review of 998 requirements. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kathryne Baldwin, Wilke Fleury
Ms. Baldwin may be contacted at kbaldwin@wilkefleury.com

Your “Independent Contractor” Clause Just Got a Little Less Relevant

January 12, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Construction projects are complex, multi-partied, multi-disciplinary endeavors, in which subcontracting all or a portion of the work to be performed is not uncommon. When subcontracting work, parties usually make it clear in their contracts that the party performing work is acting as an “independent contractor.” Here’s a fairly typical provision from the AIA A201 General Conditions:

The parties agree that the contractual relationship on Contractor to Owner is one solely of an independent contractor in all respects and that the Contract Documents do not in any way create a partnership, joint venture or any other relationship between Owner and Contractor other than the contractual relationship as specified in this Agreement.

These provisions are intended to shield the contracting party from claims that it is responsible for workers’ compensation premiums, retirement contributions, health care insurance, or other benefits provided for the benefit of employees of the company performing the work. Fair enough. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES