Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Contract Change #1- Insurance in the A201 (law note)

April 11, 2018 — Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North Carolina
Insurance– everyone needs it; everyone would just as soon not have to deal with it. I get it, I do. Attorneys, Insurance Agents– no one likes spending time with those folk! Good news though. The changes to the A201 mean that you may end up spending less time with both! The most important change to the Insurance requirements of the AIA contract is that most of it has moved to a new Exhibit. Why is this important? Instead of having to send the entire contract to your agent or broker, you can now send them only the section that they really need to review for compliance. This also means that if insurance policies change (as they surely will), the entire contract document does not need to be re-written– the Exhibit can be updated accordingly, leaving the rest of the A201 alone. Nice, right? This change was made to streamline insurance review and provide for that flexibility of the changing insurance market. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

Connecticut’s New False Claims Act Increases Risk to Public Construction Participants

April 02, 2024 — Fred Hedberg & William Stoll - Construction Law Zone
After several decades, Governor Ned Lamont signed a bill into law, effective July 1, 2023, An Act Concerning Liability for False and Fraudulent Claims, Public Act No. 23-129, eliminating language that previously limited enforcement of Connecticut’s False Claims Act to claims relating to a state-administered health or human services program. The revisions dramatically expanded potential liability under the False Claims Act, allowing both private citizens and the Attorney General to bring actions under the Act in any context, including the construction industry. Consequently, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and design professionals on public construction projects in Connecticut must be familiar with this newly enacted law and take steps to reduce the risks of doing business on such projects. Reprinted courtesy of Fred Hedberg, Robinson & Cole LLP and William Stoll, Robinson & Cole LLP Mr. Hedberg may be contacted at fhedberg@rc.com Mr. Stoll may be contacted at wstoll@rc.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Traub Lieberman Partner Michael K. Kiernan and Associate Brandon Christian Obtain Dismissal with Prejudice in Favor of Defendant

November 27, 2023 — Michael K. Kiernan & Brandon Christian - Traub Lieberman
In a 14-count breach of contract action brought in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida, Partner Michael K. Kiernan and Associate Brandon Christian obtained dismissal with prejudice in favor of Defendant St. Joseph’s Episcopal Church of Boynton Beach, Florida (“Church”). Plaintiffs, St. Joseph’s Episcopal School (“School”) and its benefactor, William Swaney, filed suit to enforce an alleged 99-year oral lease agreement which Swaney asserted had been made to him by a prior rector of the Church in exchange for his contributions to the School. Plaintiffs also sought emergency injunctive relief to allow the School to continue to operate on Church property. The Church maintained in part that the only lease in effect was a written lease, approved by the Church Vestry and the Diocese of Southeast Florida, and which the Church Vestry unanimously voted not to renew in 2022. Reprinted courtesy of Michael K. Kiernan, Traub Lieberman and Brandon Christian, Traub Lieberman Mr. Kiernan may be contacted at mkiernan@tlsslaw.com Mr. Christian may be contacted at bchristian@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Law Breaking News: California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Beacon Residential Community Association

July 09, 2014 — Steven M. Cvitanovic – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On July 3, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion affirming the First District Court of Appeal in the case of Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (Case No. S208173). The issue in the Beacon case is whether the architects of a residential project owe a duty to future third party homeowners under SB800 and common law. In 2011, Judge Richard Kramer of the San Francisco Superior Court sustained demurrers of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill and HKS Architects to the homeowners association complaint without leave to amend. The homeowners association appealed and the First District Court of Appeal reversed Judge Kramer, ruling that the homeowners could assert SB800 and common law claims against the architects of the project even in the absence of privity of contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com

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

Connecticut Answers Critical Questions Regarding Scope of Collapse Coverage in Homeowners Policies in Insurers’ Favor

February 10, 2020 — Kevin Sullivan - Traub Lieberman
Nationwide, homeowners’ insurers routinely face foundation wall collapse claims. But in Connecticut, where at least 30,000 homes are believed to have been constructed in the 1980s and 1990s with defective concrete, the scope of homeowners insurance for collapse claims has been a closely watched issue. In Jemiola v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 2019 WL 5955904 (Conn. Nov. 12, 2019), the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that a collapse coverage grant requiring “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose” is unambiguous and enforceable. In Jemiola, the insured homeowner purchased her home in 1986 and insured it continuously with the same insurer. In 2006, the homeowner noticed cracking in a basement wall, and was informed that the cracking likely resulted from defective concrete used in the construction of the home. The homeowner made a claim under her policy’s collapse coverage, which the insurer denied because the cracking did not compromise the structural integrity of the foundation walls. In the resulting lawsuit, the insured’s expert opined that the defective concrete substantially impaired the foundation walls’ structural integrity, but that this impairment did not commence until 2006 when the homeowner first noticed the cracking. Accordingly, the court analyzed coverage under the collapse coverage grant in effect in 2006, which defined collapse to mean “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at ksullivan@tlsslaw.com

Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
The Supreme Court of Oregon has concluded in an en banc decision that a motion to reconsider a summary judgment is not a motion for a new trial. In coming to their conclusion the court overturned an earlier Oregon Supreme Court case, Carter v. U.S. National Bank. Although the decision does not bear on construction defects, the underlying case did. Due to the decision, these claims can now be evaluated in a trial. The case, Association of Unit Owners of Timbercrest Condominiums v. Warren, came about after an apartment complex was converted into condominium units. The developers hired Big Al’s Construction for some of the remodeling work. The condominium association later sued the developer and the contractor over claims of construction defects. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted. But that wasn’t the end of things. The plaintiff soon filed a “motion to reconsider,” noting that the summary judgment seemed to be in conflict with both law and other recent rulings, and additionally, the grounds for the decision were not in the order. The judge then notified the parties that the court had “pulled the trigger too quickly” and had seven questions for the parties to answer. The court dismissed all claims against the defendants. The defendants filed their responses, objecting that that “‘there is no such thing’ as a motion for reconsideration.” Further, while “the rules do allow for post-judgment review of pre-judgment rulings through a motion for a new trial,” the plaintiffs had not filed for a new trial. But did they need one? They did file an appeal. The judge in the case admitted that there was no such thing as a motion to reconsider, and felt bad about prematurely signing the judgment. The case was sent to the Court of Appeals to determine if the motion to reconsider was a request for a new trial. The Court of Appeals concurred. In reviewing the decision, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that there were a maximum of three questions to address. Was the motion for reconsideration a motion for a new trial? If so, was the later notice of appeal premature? And if so, was the plaintiff required to file a new appeal? The court determined that the answer to the first question was no. Prior decisions pointed to the conclusion “that a motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment amounts to a motion for a new trial,” but here the court concluded that “our prior cases erred,” and turned to the summary judgment rule for clarification. The court noted that “the rule contemplates that summary judgment and trial are separate and distinct events.” With this conclusion, the Oregon Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer's Motion in Limine to Dismiss Case for Lack of Expert Denied

June 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer's motion in limine seeking to dismiss the insureds' complaint due to the absence of expert testimony. Fabozzi v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74069 (E.D. N.Y. May 30, 2014). During the policy period, the insureds noticed their house had serious structural problems, including cracks in the walls and floors that were pitched toward the rear of the house. The insureds had to move from their house. When they submitted a claim, it was denied by Lexington because the losses were caused by "wear and tear, deterioration, earth movement, settlement, shrinking, bulging or expansion of the property leading to cracking of structural components." The insureds sued. Lexington filed a motion in limine to preclude the testimony of the insureds' expert and to dismiss the complaint for inability to offer prima facie proof of a covered loss absent such expert testimony. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES