FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Based on New Information …”

August 01, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
Based on new information … your arbitration award is thrown out! So said the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming a district court’s vacatur of the award based upon the award having been procured by fraud. The lower court ruled as it did notwithstanding the fact that the action seeking to have the arbitration award vacated was filed and served beyond the three months allowed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 12. The party attacking arbitration award alleged that during the course of the arbitration hearing, a witness whose testimony was been handled remotely by videoconference was being inappropriately aided: the witness was being instructed remotely – by texting – by the corporate representative for his company, who was entitled to sit in on all portions of the arbitration hearing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

---

Changes to Arkansas Construction and Home Repair Laws

September 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

A new law, set to take effect in 2012, lowers the ceiling on when work must be done by a licensed contractor. Through the end of the year, projects costing $20,000 or more had to be done by an Arkansas licensed contractor. As of January 1, 2012, that new limit will be $2,000.

This will apply to all single-family residences and according to Lovely County Citizen, covers “construction, alteration, renovation, repair, modification, improvement, removal, demotion, or addition to a pre-existing structure.” Residential building contractors will be required to have workers compensation insurance, as will home improvement contactors if they take jobs worth more than $20,000.

Morris Dillow, a building inspector in Holiday Island, said, “It will get these scammers out of here who are ripping people off.” He cited the example of a contractor who after getting paid for roof repairs and painting, left the job unfinished.

Read the full story…

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

---

A Relatively Small Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix

April 01, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Remember all of my posts about how fraud and contract claims don’t usually play well in litigation? Well, as always with the law, there are exceptions. For instance, a well plead Virginia Consumer Protection Act claim will survive a dismissal challenge. A recent opinion out of the Alexandria division of the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia sets out another exception, namely so called fraudulent inducement. In XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Truland et al, the Court considered the question of whether both a tort and contract claim can coexist in the same lawsuit when the tort claim is based upon the information provided to the plaintiff when that information proves false. As the courts of Virginia have held for years, only certain information and statements made pre-contract can be the basis for a fraud claim in the face of a contractual duty to perform. One type of statement that is not properly the subject of a fraud in the inducement type claim is sales talk or opinion. Such sales talk (for example claiming that your company is the best for the job) is not the subject of a fraud claim because it is not meant to be relied upon and that such talk is an opinion about future performance, not a false statement of present fact or intent. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Renters Who Bought Cannot Sue for Construction Defects

October 08, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A Wisconsin couple that leased then bought a home cannot sue the couple that built the home for construction defects. The court rejected the claims made by Niksa and Kelly Ivancevic that the sellers, Ronald and Debra Reagan, had breached contract or that the contract represented a mutual mistake. The Ivancevics initially leased the home, with an agreement that said the house would be “delivered in clean condition and good repair, free of mold and toxic substances, suitable for habitation in compliance with all laws.” Before the purchase, no defects were found. After the purchase, the Ivancevics had problems with the air conditioning, leading to water leaks on the second floor. The court found that the actual sales contract did not guarantee a defect-free residence. Therefore the Ivancevic’s claim of a mutual mistake, in which “both parties of a contact are unaware of the existence of a past or present fact material to their agreement” did not apply, since the presence of construction defects was not “material to their agreement.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Damages or Injury “Likely to Occur” or “Imminent” May No Longer Trigger Insurance Coverage

January 05, 2017 — Masaki J. Yamada – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Washington Courts allow an insurer to determine its duty to defend an insured against a lawsuit based only on the face of the complaint and the limitations of the insurance policy. This is otherwise known as the “eight corners” rule (four corners of the complaint plus the four corners of the policy). In other words, the insurance company is not permitted to rely on facts extrinsic to the complaint in order to deny its duty to defend an insured. See Truck Ins. Exch. v. VanPort Homes, Inc., 147 Wn.2d 751, 763 (2002). The laws in Washington provide greater protection to the insured over the insurer when it comes to the insurer’s duty to defend. The duty to defend a claim is triggered if a claim could “conceivably” be covered under the policy. See Woo v. Fireman’s Insurance, 161 Wn.2d 43 (2007). If there is any ambiguity in a policy with regard to coverage, the ambiguity is interpreted in favor of the insured. As a result, contractors in Washington regularly tender claims or potential claims to their insurers even when damage has not occurred but will occur in the imminent future. Especially in the context of construction defect cases, a contractor will tender such a claim to its insurer to trigger the broad duty of the insurer to provide a defense. We also regularly recommend this to our contractor clients. For example, if a building owner serves a contractor with a claim that the construction and installation of a window system will imminently cause leaks and corrosion, we would recommend that the contractor tender the claim to its commercial general liability insurer. Washington courts have found a duty to defend when there are allegations in the complaint that covered damages will occur in the imminent future. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Masaki J. Yamada, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Yamada may be contacted at myamada@ac-lawyers.com

---

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

---

Construction Cybercrime Is On the Rise

May 26, 2019 — Tom Sawyer & Jeff Rubenstone - Engineering News-Record
At the end of April, just as St. Ambrose Roman Catholic Church in Brunswick, Ohio, neared the close of a five-month-long, $5.5-million renovation, Father Bob Stec, the parish pastor, was surprised to hear that the contractor, Marous Brothers Construction, Willoughby, Ohio, had not received a $1.7- million payment. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Sawyer, Engineering News-Record and Jeff Rubenstone, Engineering News-Record Mr. Sawyer may be contacted at sawyert@enr.com Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insurance Law Client Alert: California FAIR Plan Limited to Coverage Provided by Statutory Fire Insurance Policy

February 07, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In St. Cyr v. California Fair Plan Association (No. B243159, filed 1/31/14), a California appeals court held that the state's high risk property insurance plan is not obligated to provide any greater coverage than that mandated for the state's statutory fire insurance policy. The plaintiff-policyholders lived in high fire risk areas and were insured under the California FAIR Plan, which provides property insurance to the otherwise uninsurable. Following loss of their homes and other property in wildfires, the policyholders were paid the full amount of their policy limits, but contended that they were entitled to additional payments. Specifically, the policyholders alleged that the FAIR plan provided less protection than statutorily mandated by Insurance Code sections 10090 through 10100.2, which spells out the "Basic Property Insurance Inspection and Placement Plan" of the FAIR program. The policyholders contended that FAIR was required to issue a policy not only in accordance with the standard form fire insurance policy set forth in Insurance Code section 2071, but also the "'Basic Property Insurance' written in the normal market . . . known as the 'HO-3'," referring to the copywrited homeowners policy form promulgated by the Insurance Services Office (ISO). Reprinted Courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP and Chris Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com and Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---