Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Connecticut Crumbling Concrete Cases Not Covered Under "Collapse" Provision in Homeowner's Policy

July 01, 2019 — Kerianne E. Kane - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
What do you do when your house falls out from underneath you? Over the last few years, homeowners in northeastern Connecticut have been suing their insurers for denying coverage for claims based on deteriorating foundations in their homes. The lawsuits, which have come to be known as the “crumbling concrete cases,” stem from the use of faulty concrete to pour foundations of approximately 35,000 homes built during the 1980s and 1990s. In order to save their homes, thousands of homeowners have been left with no other choice but to lift their homes off the crumbling foundations, tear out the defective concrete and replace it. The process typically costs between $150,000 to $350,000 per home, and homeowner’s insurers are refusing to cover the costs. As a result, dozens of lawsuits have been filed by Connecticut homeowners in both state and federal court. Of those cases, three related lawsuits against Allstate Insurance Company were the first to make it to the federal appellate level.1 The Second Circuit Court of Appeals was tasked with deciding one common issue: whether the “collapse” provision in the Allstate homeowner’s policy affords coverage for gradually deteriorating basement walls that remain standing. The Allstate policies at issue were “all-risk” policies, meaning they covered “sudden and accidental direct physical losses” to residential properties. While “collapse” losses were generally excluded, the policies did provide coverage for a limited class of “sudden and accidental” collapses, including those caused by “hidden decay,” and/or “defective methods or materials used in construction, repair or renovations.” Covered collapses did not include instances of “settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Kane may be contacted at kek@sdvlaw.com

Assignment Endorsement Requiring Consent of All Insureds, Additional Insureds and Mortgagees Struck Down in Florida

January 24, 2018 — Tred Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii

Security First Insurance Company's endorsement restricting the ability of policyholders to assign post-loss benefits was struck down by the Florida District Court of Appeal. Security First Ins. Co. v. Florida Office of Ins. Regulation, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 18083 (Fla. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2017).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Wall Failure Due to Construction Defect Says Insurer

October 09, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A wall built by J. F. Smith Construction collapsed during Hurricane Isaac, and Bankers Insurance Group is blaming the builder not the hurricane. The insurer claims that if the wall had been built properly it would have withstood the storm. The suit is being filed in the Louisiana courts. Bankers Insurance is seeking $49,625.25 in damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Long-Planned Miami Mega Mixed-Use Development Nears Initial Debut

September 25, 2018 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
Economic crises, lawsuits and other complications have thrown multiple wrenches into plans for downtown Miami’s massive Worldcenter mixed-use project over the past 12 years. But to hear the master development group’s managing principal Nitin Motwani tell it, the timing for the $2-billion “city within a city” to finally come to fruition couldn’t be better. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Green Buildings Could Lead to Liabilities

March 28, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

Attempts to build “green,” reducing energy costs and increasing the use of sustainable building materials, may lead to more lawsuits, according to a report issued by the British Columbia Construction Association. The report warned those who were going to build green look into the implications. The report looked at the result of green building practices and requirements adopted in the United States.

The report warns that “the use of novel, less harmful building material or new construction techniques may give rise to liability due to: contractor inexperience with installation; lack of long-term evaluation of green materials; lack of understanding of how new building materials may impact existing traditional building systems; or warranties provided unintentionally about the durability or effectiveness of unproven materials or techniques.”

Manley McLachlan, president of the BCAA noted that they are aware of “legal action around the performance of the buildings,” noting that while fast-growing trees help toward LEED certification, their wood is more prone to mold. He also felt that low-VOC paints needed more testing to prove their durability as exterior finishes.

Read the full story…

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

Insurer's Attempt to Strike Experts in Collapse Case Fails

February 03, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's efforts to exclude two of the insured's experts in a collapse case were unsuccessful. Hudon Specialty Ins. Co. v. Talex Enterprises, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150148 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 4, 2019). The insureds' building collapsed. The remaining portions of the building required immediate stabilization. The insureds hired Mr. Laird, an engineer, to prevent further property destruction. The insured designated Mr. Laird as a non-retained expert for trial. Mr. Laird's report claimed that the collapse was caused because the building had been re-roofed many times without removal of the degraded underlying roofing materials, thereby adding additional weight to the roof structure. The insureds also designated Steve Cox as a non-retained expert. Mr. Cox was an architect who owned property neighboring the building that collapsed. He opined that the building collapsed because of the condition of very old mortar and not because of water standing on the building roof or because of roof repairs. Hudson sought to strike these two experts because their opinions were inconsistent with the admitted facts. A document produced by the insureds stated that a large amount of rainwater had collected on the roof and the weight of the rainfall was the proximate cause of the collapse. Hudson claimed that this statement qualified as a judicial admission, removing the question of causation from contention. The court disagreed that the statement was a judicial admission because it did not form any part of the pleadings. The statement may have been an evidentiary admission that could be controverted or explained by the parties. 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

Golden Gate Bridge's $76 Million Suicide Nets Near Approval

June 30, 2014 — Alison Vekshin – Bloomberg
Officials of the agency that runs San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge today approved a $76 million funding plan to erect a suicide barrier along the span, where people plunge to their deaths at a rate of about once a week. The Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District’s 19-member board voted unanimously to approve the funding, which includes $20 million from district reserves. “We must fight mental illness on many fronts and this budget action is a critical component of saving the lives of people who might not see that their brightest days are ahead of them,” Senator Mark Leno, a Democrat from San Francisco, said in a news release yesterday ahead of the meeting. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alison Vekshin, Bloomberg
Ms. Vekshin may be contacted at avekshin@bloomberg.net

Separation of Insureds Provision in CGL Policies

August 31, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
CGL policies contain a “Separation of Insureds” provision. This provision oftentimes states:

As if each named insured were the only Named Insured; and
Separately to each insured against whom claim is made or “suit” is brought.

This provision is designed to “create separate insurable interests in each individual insured under a policy, such that the conduct of one insured will not necessarily exclude coverage for all other insured.” Evanson Ins. Co. v. Design Build Interamerican, Inc., 569 Fed.Appx. 739 (11th Cir. 2014). This provision also allows one insured under the policy (e.g., additional insured) to sue another (e.g., named insured) without violating potential coverage because there are separate insurable interests. This is a valuable provision in CGL policies. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES