FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

South Carolina “Your Work” Exclusion, “Get To” Costs

July 30, 2014 — Scott Patterson - CD Coverage
In Precision Walls, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., No. 2013-000787 (S.C. Ct. App. July 23, 2014), SYS was the general contractor for a project. SYS contracted with Precision for the supply and installation of exterior insulation board, to include the taping of all joints. After Precision completed its work, another subcontractor began construction of the brick veneer wall over the insulation board. During construction of the brick wall, some of the joint sealing tape installed by Precision began to come loose. To correct the problem, the existing portion of the brick veneer wall had to be torn down, all of the joint sealing tape removed and replaced, and the brick veneer wall rebuilt. SYS deducted the cost of tearing down and rebuilding the brick veneer wall from Precision’s contract. Precision sought reimbursement for this amount from its CGL policy issued by Liberty Mutual. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Patterson, CD Coverage

---

Manhattan Luxury Condos Sit on Market While Foreign Buyers Wait

January 21, 2015 — Prashant Gopal, Oshrat Carmiel and John Gittelsohn – Bloomberg
Manhattan real estate agent Lisa Gustin listed a four-bedroom Tribeca loft for $7.45 million in October, expecting a quick sale. Instead, she cut the price this month by $550,000. “I thought for sure a foreign buyer would come in,” said Gustin, a broker at Brown Harris Stevens who is still marketing the 3,800-square-foot (353-square-meter) apartment at 195 Hudson St. “So many new condos are coming up right now. They’ve been building them for the past few years and now they’re really hurting the resales.” Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net; Ms. Carmiel may be contacted at ocarmiel1@bloomberg.net; Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Oshrat Carmiel and John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg

---

Crime Policy Insurance Quotes Falsely Represented the Scope of its Coverage

July 13, 2020 — Brian J Clifford - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
An Indiana businessman found out the hard way how far his insurance company was willing to go to avoid paying a claim after it misrepresented the coverage of a crime policy it sold to him. The quote for the policy indicated that it included coverage for losses resulting from computer hacking. Despite this representation, when the policyholder’s bank accounts were hacked, the insurer denied coverage on the ground that there was no provision for hacking coverage in the policy. Fortunately, the Indiana Court of Appeals recognized the insured’s right to argue before a jury that the insurer’s quotes falsely represented the scope of its coverage. In Metal Pro Roofing, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., Richard Cornett, principal of Metal Pro Roofing, LLC and Cornett Restoration, LLC (the “LLCs”), purchased a Cincinnati Insurance Company CinciPlus Crime XC+ Policy (the “Policy”). At the time Mr. Cornett purchased this coverage, and during all subsequent renewals, Cincinnati issued insurance quotes that stated:

Cincinnati can insure your money and securities while at your premises, inside your bank and even off site in the custody of a courier. While you’ve taken precautions to protect your money and securities, you run the risk of loss from employees, robbers, burglars, computer hackers and even physical perils such as fire.

Give yourself peace of mind with Cincinnati’s crime coverage to insure the money and securities you worked so hard to earn.

Crime Expanded Coverage (XC®)Plus Endorsement $125.00.

(Emphasis added.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian J Clifford, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Clifford may be contacted at bjc@sdvlaw.com

---

Toolbox Talk Series Recap - The Mediator's Proposal

January 21, 2025 — Douglas J. Mackin - The Dispute Resolver
In our final edition of the year of Division 1's Toolbox Talk Series on December 19, 2024, Matthew Argue and Gene Witkin discussed the use of the Mediator’s Proposal to bridge any final gaps to settlement between parties to a mediation. For those unfamiliar, a Mediator’s Proposal is a settlement proposal that the mediator makes to all parties to the dispute simultaneously. Each party then advises the mediators in confidence whether they accept or reject the proposal. The Mediator will communicate to all the parties that the Mediator’s Proposal is accepted only if all parties accept. Argue and Witkin emphasized that the Mediator’s Proposal is not a shortcut and should not be used simply to split the difference. Instead, it is a tool available to the mediator to push the parties to resolution after they have had robust negotiations, understand the strengths and weaknesses of the positions of each side, and have made progress towards at least getting within range of one another. A successful Mediator’s Proposal depends on the mediator (and the parties) having sufficient information to make a credible recommendation and creating an environment where all parties will consider the Mediator’s Proposal in good faith. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas J. Mackin, Cozen O’Connor
Mr. Mackin may be contacted at dmackin@cozen.com

---

The Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that a Statutory Notice of Claim Triggers an Insurer’s Duty to Defend.

October 23, 2012 — David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell

Gene and Diane Melssen d/b/a Melssen Construction (“Melssen”) built a custom home for the Holleys, during which period of time Melssen retained a CGL insurance coverage from Auto Owners Insurance Company. Soon after completion of the house, the Holleys noticed cracks in the drywall and, eventually, large cracks developed in the exterior stucco and basement slab. Thereafter, the Holleys contacted Melssen, the structural engineer, an attorney, and Auto-Owners, which assigned a claims adjuster to investigate the claim.



In April 2008, the Holleys sent Melssen a statutory notice of claim pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-20-803.5 (“NOC”). In this NOC, the Holleys claimed approximately $300,000 in damages related to design and construction defects. The Holleys also provided a list of claimed damages and estimated repairs, accompanied by two reports from the Holleys’ consultant regarding the claimed design and construction defects. In June 2008, Melssen tendered the defense and indemnity of the claim to Auto-Owners. While Auto-Owners did not deny the claim at that time, it did not inspect the property or otherwise adjust the claim. Thereafter, in October 2008, Auto-Owners sent Melssen a letter denying coverage on the basis that the damage occurred outside of the applicable policy period.



Ultimately, Melssen settled the claims against it for $140,000.



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

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

---

Fix for Settling Millennium Tower May Start This Fall

August 17, 2020 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
With the lengthy and complex permitting and approval process complete and almost all the other details worked out, construction could begin in mid-November on the estimated $100-million shoring fix for the 645-ft-tall Millennium Tower in San Francisco. The perimeter pile upgrade for the 58-story residential condominium building, which has settled more than 17 in. toward the northwest since its completion in 2009, was originally expected to begin earlier this year. Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Las Vegas HOA Conspiracy & Fraud Case Delayed Again

September 17, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “[T]he federal trial of former construction company boss Leon Benzer and five others in a massive scheme to take over Las Vegas-area homeowners associations” has been delayed to February 2015 by U.S. District Judge James Mahan. Defense attorneys “argued they needed more time to review thousands of pages of new documents provided by prosecutors.” The prosecutors did not object to the delay. Benzer and the other defendants face conspiracy and fraud charges in an HOA takeover scheme that allegedly occurred between 2003 and 2009. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

An Additional Insured’s Reasonable Expectations may be Different from the Named Insured’s and Must be Considered to Determine whether the Additional Insured is Entitled to Defense from the Insurer of a Commercial Excess & Umbrella Liability Policy

June 12, 2014 — Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq. and Kacey R. Riccomini, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
The Second District Court of Appeal’s recent decision, Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216, immediately affects builders and contractors (collectively “builders”) who are often named as additional insureds (AIs) to contractors’ general liability policies. The decision is an important tool for builders’ counsel because the builder’s reasonable expectations can alter the interpretation of ambiguous terms in policies issued to subcontractors. Essentially, the builder’s intent is relevant to the interpretation of policy terms because the subcontractor’s intent in requesting additional coverage depends on the agreement it made with the builder. The salient aspects of the facts, the Appellate Court’s reasoning, and practical considerations are discussed below. Transport Insurance Company (Transport) issued a commercial excess and umbrella liability policy (Policy) to Vulcan Materials Company (Vulcan), naming R.R. Street & Co., Inc. (Street) as an AI for its distribution of a solvent. The Policy provided that Transport would indemnify and defend the insured for loss caused by property damage if (1) it was not covered by “underlying insurance” but was within the terms of coverage of the Policy, or (2) if the limits of liability of the “underlying insurance” were exhausted during the Policy period due to property damage. The Policy included a Schedule of Underlying Insurance (Schedule) that listed policies issued to Vulcan. Thereafter, Vulcan and Street were named as defendants in several environmental contamination actions (Underlying Actions). Transport brought a declaratory relief action against Vulcan regarding Transport’s duty to defend. (Legacy Vulcan Corp. v. Superior Court (Legacy Vulcan) (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 677). The trial court found the term “underlying insurance” ambiguous as it was not expressly defined to include only the policies on the Schedule and could be interpreted to include all primary policies in effect. Vulcan challenged the trial court’s decision by petition for writ of mandate, contending “underlying insurance” only included policies listed on the Schedule. The Court of Appeal found “underlying insurance” ambiguous because it was an expressly qualified term under other Policy provisions but not in the umbrella coverage provision and, thus, it was a generic term that was not limited to policies listed in the Schedule or inclusive of all primary insurance. Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto and Kacey R. Riccomini Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com; Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com, and Ms. Riccomini may be contacted at kriccomini@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---