FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

#7 CDJ Topic: Truck Ins. Exchange v. O'Mailia

December 30, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to attorney Tred R. Eyerly on a post on his Insurance Law Hawaii blog, “The Montana Supreme Court determined there was no coverage for the insured due to a lack of property damage during the policy period.” Eyerly concluded, “Even if exposure to excessively high temperatures created a harmful condition during the policy period, the existence of that condition did not result in property damage to the water heater occurring during the policy period, and thus did not constitute an ‘occurrence’ as defined by the policy.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Don’t Sign a Contract that Doesn’t Address Covid-19 (Or Pandemics and Epidemics)

December 14, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Do yourself a favor: Don’t sign a construction contract that doesn’t address COVID-19 or any pandemic or epidemic from this point forward! As the number of COVID-19 numbers rise, it would be reasonable to think this could have an impact on ongoing or future construction projects. For this reason, I want to revisit the subject of addressing COVID-19 (and any pandemic or epidemic) in your construction contract. The potential impact caused by COVID-19 could result from governmental regulations that impact construction of the project, shutdowns due to affected workers, owners’ decisions to suspend performance or adjust the way the project is being constructed, increased deep cleaning requirements, and increased measures associated with social distancing and re-sequencing of shifts. This all plays into the timeliness of performance and the productivity of manpower and equipment usage. When submitting a price, a lot of these considerations may not be factored in because doing so could lead to a price that will never get accepted. 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

---

Subcontractors Found Liable to Reimburse Insurer Defense Costs in Equitable Subrogation Action

August 03, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc. (No. E068353, filed 6/10/20), a California appeals court reversed the denial of an equitable subrogation claim for reimbursement of defense costs from contractually obligated subcontractors to a defending insurer, finding that all of the elements for equitable subrogation were met, and the equities tipped in favor of the insurer. After defending the general contractor, Pulte, in two construction defect actions as an additional insured on a subcontractor’s policy, St. Paul sought reimbursement of defense costs solely on an equitable subrogation theory against six subcontractors that had worked on the underlying construction projects, and whose subcontracts required them to defend Pulte in suits related to their work. After a bench trial, the trial court denied St. Paul’s claim, concluding that St. Paul had not demonstrated that it was fair to shift all of the defense costs to the subcontractors because their failure to defend Pulte had not caused the homeowners to bring the construction defect actions. The appeals court reversed, holding that the trial court misconstrued the law governing equitable subrogation. Because the relevant facts were not in dispute, the appeals court reviewed the case de novo and found that the trial court committed error in its denial of reimbursement for the defense fees. The appeals court found two errors: First, the trial court incorrectly concluded that equitable subrogation requires shifting of the entire loss. Second, the trial court applied a faulty causation analysis – that because the non-defending subcontractors had not caused the homeowners to sue Pulte, thereby necessitating a defense, St. Paul could not meet the elements of equitable subrogation. 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

---

Multiple Construction Errors Contributed to Mexico Subway Collapse

June 21, 2021 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
The May 3 collapse of an elevated section of the Line 12 subway in Mexico City that killed 26 passengers appears to have resulted from multiple construction faults, according to a risk management firm's preliminary report. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Understand and Define Key Substantive Contract Provisions

March 23, 2020 — Phillip L. Sampson Jr. & Richard F. Whiteley, Construction Executive
The following contract provisions should be clearly understood before undertaking any construction project commences. Force Majeure Often referred to as an “Act of God,” a force majeure is an event, typically beyond the parties’ control, that prevents performance under a contract. To determine if a contractor need a force majeure clause in its contract, it should ask whether there may be instances where events beyond the contractor’s control could impact its contractual performance? If so, it will want this clause. Courts currently treat force majeure as an issue of contractual interpretation, focusing on the express language in the contract. Consequently, the scope and applicability of a force majeure clause depends on the contract’s terms. Using broad language in a force majeure clause may help protect against unforeseen events. But to the extent possible, parties should describe with particularity the circumstances intended to constitute a force majeure. The law relating to force majeure also fairly consistently provides that parties cannot avoid contractual obligations because performance has become economically burdensome. Courts have refused to apply force majeure clauses where an event only affects profitability. Recent attempts to categorize tariffs on construction materials as a force majeure have failed. Unless a tariff or tax is specifically listed as a force majeure event, it is unlikely to constitute a force majeure because it only affects profitability. Reprinted courtesy of Phillip L. Sampson Jr. & Richard F. Whiteley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

After More than Two Years, USDOT Rejects WSDOT’s Recommendation to Reinstate Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs into DBE Participation Goals

February 24, 2020 — Ellie Perka - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
For the past several years, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight has been closely following news of Washington State Department of Transportation’s (“WSDOT’s”) exclusion of non-minority women-owned Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (“DBEs”)[1] from qualifying toward Condition of Award (“COA”) Goals on federally-funded projects. See ACS’s letter of January 9, 2014 and blog articles of June 2, 2017 and September 21, 2017. In a striking—and long awaited—decision issued just days ago, USDOT rejected WSDOT’s recommendation to unwind the exclusion of non-minority women-owned DBEs from COA Goals, meaning women-owned DBEs in Washington remain excluded from DBE COA participation goals until September 2020. As background, the DBE program is a program created by Congress with the goal of increasing women and minority-owned business participation in federally-funded transportation contracting. To withstand constitutional scrutiny, each state must tailor its program to the specific discrimination found to exist in that state.[2] To that end, every three years, WSDOT must conduct a “Disparity Study,” aimed at statistically measuring the “discrimination” in the marketplace. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ellie Perka, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Perka may be contacted at ellie.perka@acslawyers.com

---

Insured Survives Motion for Summary Judgment in Collapse Case

May 30, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's motion to exclude expert testimony and for summary judgment in a cases involving collapse was denied. Firehouse Church Ministries v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53959 (D. Miss. March 25, 2022). A roof truss, a framework supporting the roof, collapsed in the church. The cause was either deterioration over time or a nearby tornado. The Church claimed that before the tornado passed, the church was clean and in orderly condition. When inspected after the tornado, there was debris and wreckage, including tin, insulation dust, plaster, and ceiling tile, on the floor. The Church had a contractor, Gregory Blanchard, inspect. He added posts to support the truss and made other repairs, but informed the Church that the damage was worse than expected and it could not be easily repaired. 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

---

Duke Energy Appeals N.C. Order to Excavate Nine Coal Ash Pits

April 17, 2019 — Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record
Duke Energy Progress said April 11 it will appeal the North Carolina Dept. of Environmental Quality’s order issued earlier this month to excavate nine remaining large coal ash pits at six power plants in the state and move ash to lined landfills; the firm claims the new mandate at sites previously deemed low-risk will cost up to $5 billion to implement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

---