Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Be a Good Neighbor: Protect Against Claims by an Adjacent Landowner During Construction

November 09, 2020 — Joshua Levy & Madeleine Bailey - Construction Executive
There’s nothing like working in an office while pilings are being pounded into the ground next door, leading to crashing sounds of pile driving and the attendant afternoon headaches. Fortunately, that’s often the extent of a neighboring project’s real inconvenience. In other cases, however, construction in close quarters can mark the beginning of costly and emotional disputes, which can escalate to costly legal battles during and after construction. NUISANCE AND STRUCTURAL DAMAGE CLAIMS Construction claims are often based on the concept of “nuisance,” or on structural damage to adjacent property. Nuisance claims are typically based on noise and dust from construction sites, while structural damage claims are based on direct physical damage caused by neighboring demolition, vibrations, excavation and dewatering. These types of claims can result in monetary damages for neighbor plaintiffs, loss of permits for contractors and reputational damage to the developer. In one recent case in New York City, the developer faces up to $10 million in damages in a lawsuit with a neighboring property owner. The developer was conducting excavation, dewatering and installation of steel sheet piles, which the plaintiff alleges caused its five-story building to settle and shift, rendering doors inoperable and causing extensive cracking and separation of floors and ceilings from walls and supports. The plaintiff filed its complaint on Jan. 24, 2019, and the lawsuit is ongoing, exemplifying that construction claims such as these can be time consuming and costly (Complaint, 642 East 14th St. v. 644 E. 14th Realty [N.Y. Sup. Ct. January 24, 2019]). Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Levy & Madeleine Bailey, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Levy may be contacted at joshua.levy@huschblackwell.com

Unfortunate Event Test Leads to Three Occurrences

December 02, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Second Circuit affirmed the finding of three occurrences in a highway accident after applying the unfortunate event test. Nat'l Liability & Fire Ins. Co. v. Itzkowitz, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16387 (2nd Cir. Sept. 15, 2015). A dump box attached to a dump truck struck and damaged an overpass. The dump box then separated from the truck and landed in the right lane of the highway. Some thirty seconds to five minutes later, the Itzkowitz vehicle struck the detached dump box. Then, at some point between a few seconds and twenty minutes later, the Hershkowitz (second) vehicle struck the dump box. The insurer for the dump truck owner, National, argued there was one accident, or at most two separate accidents, under the policy. The district court found there were three occurrences and National appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Show Me the Money: The Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Penalties

March 13, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
California has a number of prompt payment penalty statutes on the books. Among them is Civil Code section 8800 which requires project owners on private works projects to pay progress payments to direct contractors within 30 days after demand for payment pursuant to contract or be subject to prompt payment penalties of two percent (2%) per month on the amount wrongfully withheld. Like California’s other prompt payment penalty statutes, however, there is an important carve out: If there is a good faith dispute between the project owner and the direct contractor the project owner may withhold up to 150% of the dispute amount and not be subject to prompt payment penalties. And that, my friends, is a higher-tiered party’s “get out of jail free” card. In a case of first impression, the 1st District Court of Appeals, in Vought Construction Inc. v. Stock (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 622, examined whether a project owner’s claim for liquidated damages constitutes a good faith dispute under Civil Code section 8800. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

When is a Contract not a Contract?

January 21, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As I’ve stated numerous times here at Musings, in Virginia the contract is king. The courts of Virginia will read a contract as written and where there is a contract (read as foreshadowing), the courts will assume the parties knew what they were doing and enforce it by its terms. However, there has to be a contract in the first place. When can something look like a contract but still not be a contract? When there isn’t mutual assent according to the case of Knox Energy, LLC v. Gasco Drilling, Inc. In the Knox case, along with a ruling on discovery abuse that is a topic of other blogs, considered a jury instruction on mutual assent given by the district court in a case where Knox contended that it inadvertently sent an unexecuted drilling contract form to Gasco and then inadvertently executed it when Gasco returned it. While this would not normally cause this series of events to be a non-contract, Knox also contended that Gasco knew that Knox had no intention to enter into the drilling contract and that Gasco jumped at the deal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Standard Lifetime Shingle Warranties Aren’t Forever

April 03, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Olympia Construction’s roofing division explained to the web site Thurston Talk how long “lifetime” warranties on shingles really last. Your lifetime? You’re likely to live out the effective period of your lifetime shingle warranty. They note that 100% coverage of the shingle replacement typically lasts only for ten years (and does not cover removal of the existing defective shingles). After that, coverage continues to decline without covering any of the labor. And this can be significant, since they noted that they have seen cases in which a batch of defective shingles means that every home on the block has a defect claim. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Navigating the Construction Burrito: OCIP Policies in California’s Construction Defect Cases

November 16, 2023 — Alexa Stephenson & Ivette Kincaid - Kahana Feld
In the early 2000’s, Owner-Controlled Insurance Programs (OCIP) or WRAPS, were traditionally used in large commercial projects of over $50 million in construction costs. As construction defect lawsuits became more prevalent, subcontractors found themselves unable to meet the insurance requirements of their contracts with developers and general contractors because they could not find insurance companies that were willing to insure the risk. This presented a problem for developers and general contractors and left them with no option but to look into new insurance products that would insure them and all subcontractors who worked on the project. OCIPs became in some instances the only insurance option for developers, general contractors, and subcontractors to build single-family or multi-family projects in California and other western states. OCIPS or WRAPS, often likened to the layers of a savory burrito, offer both enticing benefits and potential pitfalls. Just as a burrito’s ingredients can harmonize or clash, OCIP policies can shape the outcome of legal battles, impacting contractors, developers, and insurers alike. Pros – Savoring the OCIP Burrito: 1. Wrapped Protection: Much like a well-folded burrito envelops its contents, OCIP policies offer comprehensive coverage for construction projects. Developers, general contractors, and subcontractors find comfort in knowing that their liability risks are bundled into a single policy, ensuring all enrolled parties have coverage in the event of a claim. Reprinted courtesy of Alexa Stephenson, Kahana Feld and Ivette Kincaid, Kahana Feld Ms. Stephenson may be contacted at astephenson@kahanafeld.com Ms. Kincaid may be contacted at ikincaid@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Settlement Ends Construction Defect Lawsuit for School

October 02, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The school district in the Chicago-area town of Lake Zurich has made last settlement in a construction defect lawsuit. The $80,000 settlement from Terra Group of Chicago brings the total settlement with the Community Unit School District 95 to about $1.9 million. Other firms included Bovis Lend Lease, Legat Architects, Larson Engineering, and Illinois Masonry Corporation. The school district had contracted for work on several schools in the district. The buildings opened in 2004, with defect claims made in 2007. Defect claims included the failure of a retaining wall and need for reinforcement of stairwells. The settlement with Terra Group was made under the agreement that it was a compromise with no concession of liability. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

North Carolina Supreme Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage,” Allocation and Exhaustion-Related Issues Arising Out of Benzene-Related Claims

January 04, 2023 — White and Williams LLP
On December 16, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court decided Radiator Specialty Co. v. Arrowood Indem. Co., 2022 N.C. LEXIS 1122 (Dec. 16, 2022), in which it addressed coverage issues arising out of claims by individuals alleging injury from exposure to benzene contained in the insured’s products. Affirming in part and reversing in part the intermediate appellate court’s decision, the court held: (1) an “exposure trigger” applied; (2) defense and indemnity costs were subject to pro-rata allocation; and (3) vertical exhaustion applied to the duty to defend under certain umbrella policies. Two justices concurred in part and dissented in part. I. Background In Radiator Specialty, the insured (RSC) was named in hundreds of underlying suits arising from individual plaintiffs’ alleged exposure to benzene contained in its products. Between 1971 and 2012, RSC was insured under primary, umbrella and excess liability policies issued by various insurers. In 2013, RSC sued the insurers in North Carolina state court, seeking coverage for approximately $45 million in defense and indemnity costs incurred for the underlying claims. In 2016, the trial court decided motions for summary judgment on a number of coverage issues. Following a bench trial in 2018, the trial court entered final judgment, which required the insurers to reimburse $1.8 million of RSC’s past costs. The rulings were appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which issued a decision in 2020. In 2021, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted RSC’s and certain insurers’ petitions for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals’ decision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES