FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

GOP, States, Industry Challenge EPA Project Water Impact Rule

January 02, 2024 — Pam McFarland - Engineering News-Record
Days after the Biden administration rule reinstated state authority under the U.S. Clean Water Act to delay or deny construction permits on projects with water quality impacts, attorneys general from 11 Republican-led states, along with the American Petroleum Association, National Hydropower Association and Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, filed suit in federal court. Reprinted courtesy of Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

March 01, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

Charles and Valerie Myers hired Perry Miller to build their home. Myers v. United Ohio Ins. Co., 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 287 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2012). After completion of the home, Miller was again hired to construct an addition which included a full basement, staircases, bathroom, bedroom, hallway and garage.



After the addition was completed, one of the basement walls began to crack and bow. Miller began to make repairs, but eventually stopped working on the project. Other contractors were hired to make repairs, but further problems developed. A second basement wall began to bow and crack, allowing water into the basement. The wall eventually had to be replaced. Subsequently, the roof over the addition began to leak in five or six places before the drywall could be painted. The leaks caused water stains on the drywall and cause it to separate and tear. It was discovered the roof needed to be replaced.



The Myers sued Miller and his insurer, United Ohio Insurance Company. The trial court ruled that the policy did not provide coverage for faulty workmanship, but did provide coverage for consequential damages caused by repeated exposure to the elements. United Ohio conceded liability in the amount of $2,000 to repair water damage to the drywall. United Ohio was also found liable for $51,576, which included $31,000 to repair the roof and ceiling and $18,576 to replace the basement wall.

Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Interpreting Insurance Coverage and Exclusions: When Sudden means Sudden and EIFS means Faulty

June 15, 2020 — Ben Volpe - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
EIFS, or Exterior Insulation and Finish System, is an integrated exterior insulation and synthetic stucco system, praised for its energy efficiency.[1] However, EIFS has come to be well known in the construction defect world as placing homes at risk due to a lack of a built-in moisture management system. Before long, insurance companies recognized the risk and began explicitly excluding coverage for EIFS-related damage. However, EIFS exclusions have not always been so clearly set forth in some policies, causing insurance coverage litigation. Recently, a Greenwood Village couple, Mark and Susan Mock, lost this fight. Built in 1994, the Mocks’ home was constructed with an EIFS system. The Mocks carried a homeowner’s insurance policy through Allstate, which covered “sudden and accidental loss” to property, but excluded coverage for “planning, construction or maintenance” issues. Such “planning, construction or maintenance” exclusions included “faulty, inadequate or defective designs.” A few months after a hailstorm, the Mocks discovered moisture-related damage to their home’s EIFS system. They reported the damage to Allstate, but Allstate would not cover it, reasoning that the damage to the EIFS system was excluded as a design and/or construction failure, and thus not covered as a “sudden and accidental” loss. The experts who evaluated the damage concluded it was the result of inherent flaws in the EIFS systems common in the 1994 timeframe, which involved long term moisture intrusion behind the cladding and no means for the water to escape. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Benjamin Volpe, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Volpe may be contacted at volpe@hhmrlaw.com

---

Tesla Finishes First Solar Roofs—Including Elon's House

August 02, 2017 — Tom Randall - Bloomberg
First the Model 3 electric car. Now the solar roof. In just one week, Tesla has challenged two distinct industries with radically new products. Tesla has completed its first solar roof installations, the company reported Wednesday as part of a second-quarter earnings report. Just like the first Model 3 customers, who took their keys last week, the first solar roof customers are Tesla employees. By selling to them first, Tesla says it hopes to work out any kinks in the sales and installation process before taking it to a wider public audience. “I have them on my house, JB has them on his house,” Musk said, referring to Tesla’s Chief Technology Officer J.B. Straubel. “This is version one. I think this roof is going to look really knock-out as we just keep iterating.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Randall, Bloomberg

---

Shaken? Stirred? A Primer on License Bond Claims in California

July 14, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Shaken? Stirred? A bit hot under the tuxedo collar perhaps? Maybe it’s time for a martini. Or two. When your project’s a mess, your contractor isn’t returning your calls, and you don’t have a license to kill it’s only natural that you would want to go after that other license: the contractor’s license bond. However, except for smaller claims, or situations where you discover that the contractor is or might be judgment-proof, going after a contractor’s license bond isn’t necessarily the panacea many might hope it to be. Read on to learn why. What is a license bond? First, a license bond is not insurance. While insurance is typically limited to property damage and personal injury, a license bond covers a contractor’s violation of the Contractors State License Law. All California contractors are required to have on file a license bond (or, alternative, such as a cash deposit) with the California Contractors State License Board (“CSLB”). 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

---

Quick Note: Attorney’s Fees on Attorney’s Fees

June 13, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a recent case, the appellate court held that the attorney’s fees provision in the contract was NOT broad enough to entitle the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees for litigating the amount of attorney’s fees. This is known as “fees on fees” which is when you can recover your prevailing party attorney’s fees when you are fighting over the quantum that should be awarded to you as the prevailing party. The attorney’s fees provision at-issue stated: “In any lawsuit to enforce the Lease or under applicable law, the party in whose favor a judgment or decree has been rendered may recover its reasonable court costs including attorney’s fees from the non-prevailing party.” Language similar to this language can be found in many contracts as a prevailing party attorney’s fees provision. However, this provision was NOT broad enough to recover “fees on fees.” As explained in this article, if this is a consideration, you can negotiate or include this provision into your construction contract by expanding the scope of the prevailing party attorney’s fees provision to clarify that it entitles the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees in litigating the amount of attorney’s fees. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Biden's Next 100 Days: Major Impacts Expected for the Construction Industry

May 10, 2021 — Tom Ichniowski, Pam Radtke Russell & Bruce Buckley - Engineering News-Record
As President Joe Biden’s busy first 100 days in office—which included enactment of a $1.9-trillion pandemic rescue bill and proposals for two other massive measures—wrap up, the months ahead also are expected to generate plenty of legislative and regulatory action with major impact for the construction sector. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR, Pam Radtke Russell, ENR and Bruce Buckley, ENR Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Dreyer v. Am. Natl. Prop. & Cas. Co. Or: Do Not Enter into Nunn-Agreements for Injuries that Occurred After Expiration of the Subject Insurance Policy

January 20, 2020 — Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction Litigation
While Nunn-Agreements[1] may be appealing for both plaintiffs and defendants where an insurer unreasonably fails to defend a lawsuit, a recent opinion from The Honorable Marcia Krieger in the United States District Court of Colorado[2] (“Opinion”) demonstrates the importance of first confirming that there exists a viable insurance claim before proceeding with such a Nunn- Agreement. The facts giving rise to the Opinion were as follows. In March 2015, a Homeowner couple (the “Homeowners”) suffered damages to their home resulting from a brushfire. Fortunately, the Homeowners were insured, they submitted their claim to their homeowners’ insurance carrier which was in effect at the time of the brushfire (the “Insurance Carrier”), and the Insurance Carrier paid the claim. Ostensibly as part of the Homeowners’ remediation efforts to their home they removed a large bush which left a hole in the ground. After paying the claim, in August 2015 the Insurance Carrier cancelled or elected not to renew the Homeowners’ policy. In October 2015, a repairman working on the Home (the “Repairman”) was injured after his ladder fell over allegedly because of the hole in the ground caused by the bush that had been removed. As a result of injuries caused by the fall from the ladder, the Repairman brought suit against the Homeowners. In response to the Repairman’s claim, the Homeowners again tendered to their Insurance Carrier. This time, however, the Insurance Carrier denied coverage on the basis that the Repairman’s injuries occurred after the expiration of the relevant policy. Without insurance coverage, the Homeowner’s entered into a Nunn-Agreement with the Repairman, conceding liability, and assigning any claims they might have had against the Insurance Carrier in lieu of execution of any judgment against the Homeowners. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Meyer may be contacted at meyer@hhmrlaw.com

---