Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

OH Supreme Court Rules Against General Contractor in Construction Defect Coverage Dispute

October 30, 2018 — Theresa A. Guertin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
On October 9, 2018, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision in Ohio Northern University v. Charles Construction Services, Inc., Slip Op. 2018-Ohio-4057, finding that a general contractor was not entitled to defense or indemnity from its CGL insurer in a construction defect suit brought by a project owner post-project completion. With this decision, Ohio has solidified its place amongst a diminishing number of states, including Pennsylvania and Kentucky, which hold that there is no coverage for defective construction claims because those losses do not present the level of fortuity required to trigger CGL coverage. This places Ohio amongst the worst in the country on this issue at a time when numerous states have abandoned old precedent and moved towards a policyholder friendly analysis. Ohio Northern University (“ONU”) hired Charles Construction Services, Inc. (“CCS”) to construct the University Inn and Conference Center, a new hotel and conference center on their campus in Ada, Ohio. CCS purchased CGL insurance from Cincinnati Insurance Company (“CIC”) insuring the project. Following completion of the project, ONU sued CCS alleging defects in the construction of the completed project, including allegations that windows improperly installed by one subcontractor led to damage to walls built by another subcontractor. CIC agreed to defend CCS under a reservation of rights but intervened in the action between ONU and CCS to pursue a declaratory judgment that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify its insured for the alleged losses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com

Construction Problem Halts Wind Power Park

November 13, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Engineers have yet to determine why a blade on a wind turbine broke at a wind power plant in Michigan, but as part of their investigation they are halting work on the final 10 turbines. The already completed 60 turbines have been taken out of operation. As a result, the Echo Wind Park is no longer generating power. Scott Simons, a spokesperson for the project, said “we’re not going to put anyone or anything at risk until we get to the bottom of this.” However, Dennis Buda, the project manager, attributed the broken blade to a manufacturing defect. Construction was planned to end in November. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Proving & Defending Lost Profit Damages

June 09, 2016 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
I have written numerous articles regarding the challenge in proving lost profit damages. Yes, lost profits are a form of damages in business disputes, but they are a form of damages that are subject to a certain degree of conjecture and speculation. For this reason, lost profit evidence is oftentimes precluded from being presented at trial or lost profit damages are reversed on appeal. This is why it is imperative to ensure i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed when it comes to proving lost profit damages. It is also imperative, when defending a lost profit claim, to put on evidence and establish the speculative nature of the lost profit damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

DIR Public Works Registration System Down, Public Works Contractors Not to be Penalized

July 15, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In a bit of a major freak-out this past Friday, June 28, 2024, public works contractors with Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) registrations expiring on June 30, 2024 were unable to renew their public works registrations. Those who had submitted checks were not receiving responses, DIR was not accepting online payments, and there was no telephone number or address to contact the DIR about the issue. This, of course, could have been a big deal since Labor Code section 1725.5 prohibits contractors and subcontractors from bidding on, being listed in a bid, or being awarded a public works contract unless registered with the DIR. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Texas Supreme Court Authorizes Exception to the "Eight-Corners" Rule

February 28, 2022 — Jared De Jong, Nathan A. Cazier & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & Fears
For decades, an insurer’s duty to defend under Texas law was determined exclusively by reviewing the insurance contract and the allegations of the complaint under the “eight-corners rule.” All of this changed last week when, in a long-awaited decision, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that courts may consider extrinsic evidence to determine the existence of coverage in certain limited situations. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. BITCO Gen. Ins. Corp., No. 21-0232, 2022 WL 413940 (Tex. Feb. 11, 2022). In Monroe, a drilling contractor was sued for damages arising out of the allegedly botched drilling of an irrigation well. The underlying lawsuit alleged that negligent drilling caused damage to surrounding farmland. However, the complaint did not allege when the damage occurred. The contractor’s insurers, BITCO General Insurance Corporation (“Bitco”) and Monroe Guarantee Insurance Company (“Monroe”) disputed whether Monroe owed a duty to defend. Although Bitco agreed to provide a defense, Monroe refused, arguing that the property damage happened before its policy period. Bitco sued Monroe for contribution. In the trial court, the insurers stipulated that a drill bit became stuck before Monroe’s policy incepted, a fact that would have supported Monroe’s “prior damage” defense. On summary judgment, though, the trial court ruled this stipulated fact could not be considered under Texas’ eight-corners rule. Monroe appealed, and the Fifth Circuit, which had previously endorsed an exception to the eight-corners rule under Northfield Insurance Co. v. Loving Home Care, Inc., 363 F.3d 523, 531 (5th Cir. 2004), certified the question to the Texas Supreme Court. Reprinted courtesy of Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears, Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Mr. Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com Mr. Cazier may be contacted at nac@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Testing Your Nail Knowledge

September 03, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Tools of the Trade provided “ten things you probably don’t know about nails.” For instance, “[I]n 2013 the U.S consumed 629,716 tons of steel nails.” Frane, the author of the article, said that if that “many nails were melted down and cast into a block of solid steel, the block would cover the area of a football field to a depth of 45’.” Another fact is that only 21% of nails used in the U.S. were made in the U.S. Furthermore, the leading U.S. supplier of nails is Mid Continent Nail Corporation, and they are located in Poplar, Missouri. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause

April 10, 2019 — Parker A. Lewton - Smith Currie
A contractor who has encountered unforeseen conditions will typically rely on the contract’s differing site conditions clause as a means to recovery. Most construction contracts address those issues directly. In ConsensusDocs Standard Agreement and General Conditions between Owner and Constructor, the starting point is § 3.16.2. But what if the contract does not contain a differing site conditions clause? Or, what if the contract does contain such a clause, but the contractor failed to provide adequate notice or satisfy other conditions or requirements of the contract? When reliance on a differing site conditions clause is impractical, a contractor still may seek recovery in certain instances under one or more of the following legal theories: misrepresentation; fraud; duty to disclose; breach of implied warranty; and mutual mistake. Misrepresentation Misrepresentation occurs when an owner “misleads a contractor by a negligently untrue representation of fact[.]” John Massman Contracting Co. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 24, 31 (1991) (citing Morrison–Knudsen Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 712, 718–19, 345 F.2d 535, 539 (1965)). A contractor may be able to recover extra costs incurred, under a theory of misrepresentation, if it can show that (1) the owner made an erroneous representation, (2) the erroneous representation went to a material fact, (3) the contractor honestly and reasonably relied on that representation, and (4) the contractor’s reliance on the erroneous representation was to the contractor’s detriment. See T. Brown Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 132 F.3d 724, 728–29 (Fed. Cir. 1997). These four requirements can be satisfied, for example, through the use of deposition testimony detailing the owner’s representations and the contractor’s reliance thereon. See, e.g., C & H Commercial Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 246, 256–57 (1996). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Parker A. Lewton, Smith Currie
Mr. Parker may be contacted at palewton@smithcurrie.com

California Limits Indemnification Obligations of Design Professionals

August 24, 2017 — William L. Doerler - White and Williams LLP
The California legislature recently enacted legislation – SB 496 – limiting a design professional’s indemnification obligations in private contracts related to design services. The term “design professional” refers to licensed architects, landscape architects and professional land surveyors, and registered professional engineers. As revised, Cal. Civ. Code § 2782.8 states that, for all contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2018 for design professional services, all provisions that purport to have the design professional indemnify the indemnitee for claims against the indemnitee – or require the design professional to provide a defense to the indemnitee – are unenforceable except to the extent that the claims against the indemnitee arise out of, or relate to, the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the design professional. In addition, as revised, § 2782.8 limits a design professional’s liability for the cost of defense to the design professional’s percentage of fault. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES