FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Understand Agreements in Hold Harmless and Indemnity Provisions

June 06, 2022 — Jeffrey Cavignac - Construction Executive
One of the most important provisions in a construction contract is the indemnity provision. An indemnity provision, which usually includes a requirement to hold harmless and defend another party, is included in nearly all construction contracts. Generally speaking, the upstream party (a general contractor or owner, for example) is attempting to shift risk to a downstream party (the general contractor or a subcontractor). In simple terms, subject to certain parameters, the downstream party is agreeing to be responsible for the upstream parties’ mistakes. DEFINING INDEMNIFICATION Insurance brokers focused on development and construction businesses get asked frequently: “If we sign this, are we insured?” It would be great if this could be answered “yes” or “no,” but life is rarely that straightforward. To understand whether a specific indemnification is insurable, we have to drill down on the actual provision. Let’s look at a typical indemnification below:

“To the fullest extent permitted by law the Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the owner, architect, architect’s consultants and agents and employees of any of them from and against any claims, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees, arising out of or resulting from performance of the work whether caused in whole or in part by the contractor, a subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them or anyone for whose acts they may be liable.”

Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey Cavignac, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

General Contractor/Developer May Not Rely on the Homeowner Protection Act to Avoid a Waiver of Consequential Damages in an AIA Contract

August 04, 2011 — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

Recently, in Caribou Ridge Homes, LLC v. Zero Energy, LLC, et al., Case No. 10CV1094, Boulder County District Court Judge Ingrid S. Bakke entered a ruling and order on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Determination of Question of Law Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 56(h) on Issue of Damages. The Order found that the Plaintiff was not a homeowner intended to be protected by the Homeowner Protection Act (the “HPA”) and thus could not pursue its claims for consequential damages against Defendant.



By way of background, on June 18, 2008, Plaintiff Caribou Ridge Homes, LLC (“Caribou”) entered into a Standard Form Agreement Between Owner and Contractor AIA Document A114-2001 (the “Contract”) with Defendant Zero Energy, LLC (“Zero Energy”). Plaintiff hired Zero Energy to serve as a general contractor for the construction of a single-family home in the Caribou Ridge subdivision in Nederland, Colorado. A provision in the contract contained a mutual waiver of consequential damages (“Waiver”).

Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

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

---

Digital Twins – Interview with Cristina Savian

February 11, 2019 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
In this interview with Cristina Savian, we discuss the present and future of digital twins in the construction industry. Cristina Savian is the founder and managing director at BE-WISE, a London based consultancy firm specialized in helping start-ups and SMEs to scale-up and bring new technologies into the construction market. Cristina has over twenty years’ experience in the civil engineering and technology industries, working from small-scale traffic calming and parking schemes in UK and Italy, through to planning major events such as playing a key role as transport manager of the Greenwich Park venue during the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. She then moved to work for a multinational leading technology company, Autodesk, covering several global roles as technical and commercial lead across Europe and America. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Court Holds That Trimming of Neighbor’s Trees is Not an Insured Accident or Occurrence

June 10, 2015 — Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Albert v. Mid-Century Insurance Co. (No. B257792, filed 4/28/15, ord. pub. 5/20/15), a California Court of Appeal held that an insured’s trimming of a neighbor’s trees which allegedly damaged the trees was not an accident or occurrence covered by her homeowners insurance, despite a mistaken and good faith belief as to where the property line lay. Ms. Albert was sued by her adjoining neighbor, who alleged damage to his property when she erected an encroaching fence and pruned nine mature olive trees on his property. The two parcels shared a reciprocal roadway easement providing for access to the main public road. At some point, Ms. Albert erected a fence that was subsequently determined to be on the neighbor’s land, and which enclosed a grove of nine mature olive trees. Ms. Albert claimed that the trees straddled the property line and were mutually owned. She pointed out that she had regularly been notified by the Los Angeles Fire Department to clear the area, and that she had been trimming the trees for years. Thus, she claimed a good faith belief that the trees were hers and that she was required to trim them. Contending that her trimming had caused severe damage by reducing the aesthetic and monetary value of the trees, the neighbor sued alleging causes of action for trespass to real property and trees; abatement of private nuisance; declaratory relief; and for quiet title. He sought treble damages under Civil Code sections 733 and 3346, for injury to timber or trees. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Architectural Firm Disputes Claim of Fault

May 27, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Lake-Flato Architects has disputed the arbitration panel’s conclusion that problems with the home of Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson were due to design flaws. The firm settled with the couple for $900,000, however the Idaho Mountain Express reports that David Lake said, “the settlement in the case in no way represents that Lake Flato was responsible for faulty design.” The Express reported that “the arbitrators found that problems at the home were attributable to design errors that did not take into account the cold winter climate of the Sun Valley area.”



Read the full story…

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

---

California Construction Bill Dies in Committee

July 21, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

AB 20, which its sponsor, Linda Halderman (R-Fresno), stated would discourage class action lawsuits against builders and protect jobs in the construction industry, has died in committee. Although the Business Journal reported in June that Haldeman was promoting the bill during a talk in her district and the bill is still on her web site, the California Assembly reports that the bill failed in committee on March 15, 2011. It is possible that the bill could be reconsidered, but the Assembly Committee on Judiciary sees the bill as responding to issues quieted by SB 800 which gives builders the right to repair alleged defects before any suit can be filed.

Read the full story…

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

---

Insurance Client Alert: Denial of Summary Judgment Does Not Automatically Establish Duty to Defend

January 28, 2015 — Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In McMillin Companies v. American Safety Indemnity (No. D063586, filed 1/20/15), a California appeals court ruled that an insurer's loss of a summary judgment motion on the duty to defend does not necessarily establish that a duty to defend existed. McMillin was the general contractor for a series of residential construction projects, sued in a construction defect action brought by 117 homeowners. McMillin tendered its defense to its subcontractors' insurers, including American Safety (ASIC), claiming status as an additional insured (AI). ASIC denied the tender. McMillin sued ASIC and other insurers alleging breach of contract and bad faith for the failure to defend McMillin as an additional insured. Eventually, all of the other insurers settled, leaving ASIC as the sole defendant. ASIC moved for summary judgment, but the trial court denied the motion, ruling that ASIC had failed to carry its burden of disproving coverage under a blanket additional insured endorsement in the policy. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com, Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Homeowners Can Release Future, Unknown Claims Against Builders

June 10, 2015 — Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and William L. Doerler – White and Williams LLP
In Belasco v. Wells, 183 Cal. Rptr.3d 840, 234 Cal. App. 4th 409 (2015), the California Court of Appeals for the Second District addressed the question of whether a homeowner, when settling an administrative complaint against a licensed homebuilder, can release future, unknown claims. Despite the presence of a California statute, Cal. Civ. Code § 1542, stating that a general release does not extend to claims that the releasor does not know about, the court held that the homeowner’s express release of future claims was enforceable. Thus, the homeowner’s release - signed as part of a 2006 settlement of the homeowner’s construction defect claims against the defendant, a homebuilder - barred the homeowner’s 2012 claims against the builder based on latent defects in the roof of the home that the homeowner discovered in 2011. Background The plaintiff, David Belasco, a patent attorney, bought a newly-constructed home from the defendant-builder, Gary Wells, in 2004. Wells holds a Class B General Building Contractor license issued by the Contractors State License Board (the Board). In 2006, Belasco filed a complaint against Wells with the Board based on alleged construction defects in the home. As a result of Belasco’s complaint to the Board, the parties engaged in arbitration. At the arbitration, both parties were represented by counsel. Wells offered to settle the dispute for the sum of $25,000 and Belasco accepted Wells’ offer. Reprinted courtesy of Edward A. Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP and William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---