Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Be Strategic When Suing a Manufacturer Under a Warranty with an Arbitration Provision

October 02, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: arbitration is a creature of contract. If you don’t want to arbitrate, don’t agree to an arbitration provision as the means to resolve your dispute. Now, with that said, there are times you may not have a choice. An arbitration provision in a warranty from a manufacturer of a product is an example. If you are procuring the product, you are agreeing to the terms of the express warranty. Manufacturers are not negotiating their product warranty on a case-by-case basis considering they are not typically the ones selling the product directly to the end user. This does not mean that is a bad thing. It just means if you elect to sue the manufacturer directly for an alleged product defect or under the terms of the warranty, you should read the warranty and consider the strategic aspect that suing the manufacturer will have on your case. In SICIS North America, Inc. v Sadie’s Hideaway, LLC, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D1581c (Fla. 1st DCA 2023), an owner elected to sue a tile manufacturer, a general contractor, the architect, and a window and door company. One of the arguments the owner raised was that exterior tiles installed were defective. The tiles were procured by the general contractor. The owner sued the general contractor under various theories and sued the tile manufacturer for breaches of warranty and negligence. The general contractor asserted a crossclaim for indemnification against the tile manufacturer. The tile manufacturer moved to compel the owner’s claim and the general contractor’s crossclaim to arbitration since there was an arbitration provision in the warranty documents and the general contractor’s indemnification claim arose from that transaction. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration. On appeal, the appellate court reversed:

First, because [the owner] was suing [the tile manufacturer] based upon the written warranty, it was bound by the arbitration provision contained in [the general contractor’s] agreement with [the tile manufacturer]. As the Florida Supreme Court has explained, “[W]hen a plaintiff sues under a contract to which the plaintiff is not a party . . . we will ordinarily enforce an arbitration clause contained in that contract, absent some other valid defense. . . .” . [The owner] had no valid defense against arbitration, a fact which it apparently realized when it voluntarily dismissed its express warranty claim after the notice of appeal and initial brief were filed.

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

Settlement Reached on Troubled Harbor Bridge in Corpus Christi, Texas

November 16, 2023 — Daniel Tyson - Engineering News-Record
A $400-million settlement was reached between the Texas Dept. of Transportation and general contractor Flatiron/Dragados over Corpus Christi’s Harbor Bridge in mid-October. The accord ends all disagreements and damage claims concerning the cable-stayed bridge, a project halted multiple times. Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Tyson, Engineering News-Record Mr. Tyson may be contacted at tysond@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Illinois Supreme Court Holds That the Implied Warranty of Habitability Does Not Extend to Subcontractors

March 04, 2019 — Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation Strategist
The implied warranty of habitability allows a homeowner to recover damages for latent defects that interfere with the intended use of a home. In Sienna Court Condo. Ass’n v. Champion Aluminum Corp., 2018 IL 122022, 2018 Ill. LEXIS 1244 (2018), the Supreme Court of Illinois held that buyers of new homes cannot assert claims for breach of the implied warranty of habitability against subcontractors involved in the construction of the homes because the subcontractors have no contractual relationship with the homeowners and the damages are purely economic. As the court explained, the implied warranty of habitability is a creature of contract (not tort) and, therefore, only exists when there is contractual privity between the defendants and the homeowners. In Sienna, a group of condominium unit owners alleged that their new homes contained latent construction defects and asserted claims against the various parties involved in the construction and sale of the homes, including claims against the defendant subcontractors for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The plaintiffs contracted with the property developer to purchase the homes, but the plaintiffs had no contractual relationship with the subcontractors involved in the construction of the homes. The Sienna court, overturning the decisions of the trial court and the appellate court, granted the subcontractors’ joint motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for the implied warranty of habitability because the plaintiffs had no contractual relationship with the subcontractors and the damages were purely economic. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

No Bond, No Recovery: WA Contractors Must Comply With WA Statutory Requirements Or Risk Being Barred From Recovery If Their Client Refuses To Pay

September 18, 2018 — Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The risk that a contractor’s client may refuse to pay the full contract balance is a day-to-day reality for every contractor. That risk – and the stress it causes in the mind of any contractor – is tempered by the knowledge that Washington statutes provide contractors with ready access to the courts to file a lawsuit and be fully compensated for the work performed. But a recent case provides a grim reminder that the same statutes that giveth court access can also taketh away. Washington’s Contractor Registration Act (“WCRA”)[1] requires every contractor engaging or offering to engage in services in Washington to register with the Department of Labor and Industries (”L&I”). In order to sue to collect compensation for work or to enforce a contract, a contractor must prove that he/she “was a duly registered contractor and held a current and valid certificate of registration at the time he or she contracted for the performance of such work or entered into such contract.”[2] In order to conclude that a contractor has substantially comply with these requirements, a court must find that: (1) The department has on file the information required by RCW 18.27.030; (2) the contractor has at all times had in force a current bond or other security as required by RCW 18.27.040; and (3) the contractor has at all times had in force current insurance as required by RCW 18.27.050.[3] Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

Travelers Insurance Sues Chicago for $26M in Damages to Willis Tower

May 15, 2023 — Annemarie Mannion - Engineering News-Record
Travelers Property Casualty Co. is suing the City of Chicago and its water district for $26 million in damages caused when more than 1 million gallons of Chicago River water flooded into a 110-story skyscraper during a 2020 storm. Reprinted courtesy of Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-Record Ms. Mannion may be contacted at manniona@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Motion to Dismiss COVID Claim Granted in Part, Denied in Part

February 06, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's motion to dismiss the insured's claim for business losses due to COVID-19 was granted in part, denied in part. SRL v Zurich Am. Ins Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210058 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 21, 2022). Excelsior owned and managed the Westin Excelsior Rome, a luxury hotel in Rome. The hotel suffered business income losses with the onset of the pandemic.While the hotel was not forced to close, its bookings decreased to virtually nothing. The Excelsior's complaint alleged that the COVID-19 virus was present in and around the hotel as multiple guests and at least six employees tested positive for COVID-19. It further alleged that the virus attached to interior property and was in the air. Excelsior was insured under a commercial property policy issued by Zurich. The court agreed there was no direct physical loss because no structure suffered damage. Among the coverages under the policy, however, was a "Cancellation of Bookings" provision. Zurich agreed there was coverage under this provision, but argued that Excelsior had already reached its annual limit for Cancellation of Bookings claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Sochi Construction Unlikely to be Completed by End of Olympic Games

February 11, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
As journalists and visitors descended upon Sochi, Russia for this winter’s Olympic Games, they reported “used linen, improper toilets, poor wiring, unclean water and loose fixtures” using the Twitter hash tag @SochiProblems, according to The International Business Times. Furthermore, it is doubtful that the construction work “in and around Sochi” will be completed by February 23rd—the official end of the games. The International Business Times article features photographs of various unfinished construction sites including an apartment building, hotels, a sports store, and other buildings. The Olympic opening ceremony took place on February 7th. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Federal Court Finds a Breach of Contract Exclusion in a CGL Policy Bars All Coverage for a Construction Defect Action

July 19, 2021 — Robert Dennison - Traub Lieberman
The Southern District of California published a decision in May 2021 in Associated Industries Ins. Co. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2021 WL 1921016 (S.D. Cal. 5/12/21) concerning the scope of a breach of contract exclusion in a general liability insurance policy as applied to a construction defect action. The suit was filed by Associated Industries Insurance Company against Mt. Hawley Insurance Company for equitable contribution for amounts spent to defend and indemnify the parties co-insured, referred to as JGCI in the decision. JGCI agreed to build a building for a third party pursuant to a written construction contract. The City of Davis issued a certificate of occupancy for the building on May 6, 2005. The City’s permits stated the building was final on that date. Mt. Hawley issued the first of several annual general liability insurance policies in September 2005. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert Dennison, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Dennison may be contacted at rdennison@tlsslaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES