FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement

December 20, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
The Court of Appeals of Washington has struck down a construction defect settlement between a building owner and the companies she hired to repair the siding, among other repairs to bring the building up to code. Yuan Zhang hired Hawk Construction LLC to do repair work. Hawk, in turn, hired Ready Construction LLC for some aspects of the project. Hawk and Ready were both insured by Capital Specialty Insurance Corporation. There were several problems with Ready’s work. After removing old siding, they did not protect the building, nor did they remove all of the damaged layers. Ready covered, but did not fix, a mildew problem under the old siding. When new siding was reattached, the nails used were too short to adequately attach it. After paying for an inspection of the work, Zhang had Hawk and Ready begin the repairs again, but the work was abandoned without being completed. Zhang sued Hawk for breach of contract. Hawk then sued Ready, claiming that “Ready was liable to Hawk to the extent that Hawk was liable to Zhang.” Capitol retained defense for both contractors. Zhang settled with Hawk, in an agreement that gave her “the right to collect and/or pursue all costs and attorney fees paid by Hawk or its insurance company defending against the Zhang’s claims and pursuing claims against Ready.” Subsequently, she also settled with Ready. Both companies ceased operations. Zhang had the settlements reviewed by a court, which concluded that the settlements were reasonable. Capital was allowed to appeal, claiming that the settlement included costs that were Zhang’s responsibility. The appeals court did not examine the question of the reasonableness of the settlement, concluding that Capitol’s interests were relevant only to “questions of bad faith, collusion, and fraud.” In the case of Zhang, the court concluded that the relationship between Zhang and her former contractors was collusive. The court noted that “bad faith or collusion may exist when the evidence indicates a joint effort to create, in a non-adversarial atmosphere, a resolution beneficial to both parties, yet highly prejudicial to the insurer as intervener.” The court noted that both companies had minimal assets which were, in any case, exempted from the agreement. Further, the court found that the agreements failed to determine “what amount of the repairs related to preexisting water damage.” Zhang’s calculation of costs also included her expenses for architectural and engineering services, which the court points out, “where always Zhang’s costs to bear.” The court concluded that “the overall structure of the settlements is highly probative of collusion, fraud, or bad faith.” Zhang’s agreements with Hawk and Ready allowed her to collect compensation from Hawk and then collect Ready’s compensation to Hawk for their portion of the settlement, allowing Zhang to collect the monies twice. Further, she was allowed to pursue Capitol for Hawk’s attorney expenses, even though Hawk had none. “The right to recover Hawk’s fees merely set up a windfall recovery for Zhang.” The court described the agreements among Zhang, Hawk, and Ready as “precisely the type of manipulation [the law] is intended to preclude.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: Tenth Circuit Upholds the “Complaint Rule”

May 12, 2016 — Adria Robinson – Colorado Construction Litigation
In Colorado, the “complaint rule” requires insurance carriers to provide a defense to its insured when the allegations contained in the complaint allege any set of facts that may fall within an insurance policy. Some insurers have pushed back on this rule arguing that it may cause an insurer to exercise its duty to defend although the underlying facts ultimately do not fall within the policy. In KF 103-CV, LLC v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, 2015 WL 6517782, the Tenth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals upheld the complaint rule. In its decision, the Tenth Circuit cited several Colorado state court rulings recognizing the courts’ intent to incentivize insurers to defend policies that may facially fall within the terms of the policy. Where there is uncertainty about coverage, the Tenth Circuit cited a Colorado Supreme Court case stating, “[t]he appropriate course of action for an insurer who believes that it is under no obligation to defend, is to provide a defense to the insured under the reservation of its rights.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Adria Robinson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Robinson may be contacted at robinson@hhmrlaw.com

---

PSA: New COVID Vaccine ETS Issued by OSHA

November 08, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Back in September, Joe Biden announced that his administration would mandate vaccinations for employers with over 100 employees. Today, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued the emergency temporary standard implementing that mandate. While I have not had a chance to thoroughly review the standard and how it will impact the clients of my firm or those in the Virginia construction industry, OSHA provided a fact sheet outlining the basics that I recommend you review as soon as possible. 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

---

Construction Site Blamed for Flooding

November 08, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A neighborhood in Pflugerville, Texas was during some recent heavy rains, and the residents blame the nearby construction of a new elementary school. During the rains, a retention wall around the site collapsed, leading to the water discharging to their neighborhood. One resident noted that he had about $16,000 worth of damage to his home and it has also cost him work. “I fix computers for a living, but I don’t have internet right now, and a lot of my stuff is wet,” said Erik Goeser, one of the Shallow Creek neighborhood residents. The county is looking into the situation but notes that “the construction site in question had recently been inspected and met all Travis County expectations, requirements and codes.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Connecticut Court Clarifies Construction Coverage

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Connecticut Supreme Court has recently ruled on a case in which breach of contract and bad-faith claims were made against an insurer in an construction defect case. Joseph K. Scully of Day Pitney LLP discussed the case in a piece on Mondaq. Mr. Scully noted that the background of the case was that Capstone Building was the general contractor and project developer of a student housing complex for the University of Connecticut. Unfortunately, the building had a variety of problems, some of which were violations of the building code. Mr. Scully noted that the building had “elevated carbon monoxide levels resulting from inadequate venting, improperly sized flues.” Capstone entered into mediation with the University of Connecticut. Capstone’s insurer, the American Motorists Insurance Company (AMICO), declined involvement in the participation. Afterward, Capstone sued AMICO. The issues the court covered involved the insurance on this project. The court addressed three questions. The first was “whether damage to a construction project caused by construction defects and faulty workmanship may constitute ‘property damage’ resulting from an ‘occurrence.’” The court concluded that it could “only if it involved physical injury or loss of use of ‘nondefective property.’” The second question dealt with whether insurers were obligated to investigate insurance claims. The court, “agreeing with the majority of jurisdictions,” did not find “a cause of action based solely on an insurer’s failure to investigate a claim.” Under the terms of the contract, it was up to AMICO to decide if it was going to investigate the claim. Thirdly, the court examined whether “an insured is entitled to recover the full amount of a pre-suit settlement involving both covered and noncovered claims after an insurer wrongfully disclaims coverage.” The court concluded that the limits are that the settlement be reasonable, the policy limit, and the covered claims. Mr. Scully concludes that the decision will limit “the scope of coverage for construction defect claims” and “also imposes reasonable requirements on an insured to allocate a settlement between covered and noncovered claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Harvey's Aftermath Will Rattle Construction Supply Chain, Economists Say

September 07, 2017 — Tim Grogan - Engineering News-Record
Hurricane Harvey’s immediate impact on the construction sector will be a disruption in the supply chain for key materials, along with scheduling problems for projects that were under construction. As the cleanup and eventual rebuilding proceed, increased demand for materials and labor will push costs upward and contractors will be scrambling to secure supplies and workers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tim Grogan, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

---

California Supreme Court Hands Victory to Private Property Owners Over Public Use

June 21, 2017 — Sean M. Sherlock - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In 1970 the California Supreme Court held that, under certain circumstances, private property owners impliedly dedicate their property to the public if they permit the public to use it. Gion v. City of Santa Cruz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 29. This holding was controversial, and the next year the California Legislature enacted Civil Code section 1009 limiting the public’s ability to permanently use private property through an implied dedication. In the 40-plus years since then, the lower courts have wrestled with the issue of whether the statute limiting implied dedication applies only to recreational uses by the public, or also to nonrecreational uses. On June 15, 2017, the California Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion in Scher v. Burke (June 15, 2017, S230104) ___ Cal.4th ___, holding that the limitations on implied dedication apply to nonrecreational as well as recreational uses. The case is significant because it demonstrates that the Supreme Court will apply the plain language of the state’s statutes to uphold private property rights. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Sherlock may be contacted at ssherlock@swlaw.com

---

Third Circuit Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Despite Insured’s Expectations

November 21, 2018 — Brian Margolies - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In its recent decision in Frederick Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hall, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31666 (3d Cir. Nov. 8, 2018), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had occasion to consider Pennsylvania’s doctrine of reasonable expectations in the context of a faulty workmanship claim. Hallstone procured a general liability policy from Frederick Mutual to insure its masonry operations. Notably, when purchasing the policy through an insurance broker, Hallstone’s principal stated that he wanted the “maximum” “soup to nuts” coverage for his company. Hallstone was later sued by a customer for alleged defects in its masonry work. While Frederick agreed to provide a defense, it also commenced a lawsuit seeking a judicial declaration that its policy excluded coverage for faulty workmanship. The district court agreed that the business risk exclusions applied, but nevertheless found in favor of Hallstone based on the argument that Hallstone had a reasonable expectation that when applying for an insurance policy affording “soup to nuts” coverage, it this would include coverage for faulty workmanship claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

---