FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Eleven Payne & Fears Attorneys Honored by Best Lawyers

September 06, 2023 — Payne & Fears LLP
Congratulations to the ten Payne & Fears attorneys included in the 2024 Edition of Best Lawyers® In America and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch. Attorneys have been recognized in the following practice areas: Best Lawyers in America (2024) Irvine, CA Employment Law – Management Labor Law – Management Litigation – Labor and Employment Jeffrey K. Brown Daniel F. Fears Commercial Litigation Litigation – Real Estate Daniel M. Livingston Thomas L. Vincent Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

---

Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

April 25, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

After the insurer denied coverage in a homeowner’s policy for construction defects under various exclusions, the court found the ensuing loss provision was ambiguous.Kesling v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38857 (D. Colo. March 22, 2012).



After purchasing a home from the sellers, the insureds noticed problems with the deck of the home. Massive cracking appeared, causing lifting and leaking on the deck and water running through the exterior foundation wall into the home. There was also damage to the roof and crawlspace.



The insureds had a homeowner’s policy with American Family, which covered accidental direct physical loss to property described in the policy unless the loss was excluded. They requested coverage for "conditions, defects and damages." American Family denied coverage because wear and tear, as well as damage to foundations, floors and roofs were excluded. The policy did provide coverage, however, for "any resulting loss to property described . . . above, not excluded or excepted in this policy.



When coverage was denied, the insureds sued American Family.



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

---

Default Should Never Be An Option

June 19, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Every time I think that the construction industry has learned that failure to respond to a lawsuit is never the correct response, another case of default judgment comes out. I’ve discussed on multiple occasions that failure to respond can only lead to disaster. Aside from being barred from making any substantive response to the allegations against you, there are other consequences including the inability to seek a reasonable settlement because the other side has no reason to negotiate. One of the more disastrous results recently came about in the Norfolk Division of the Eastern District of Virginia District Court. The case of L & W Supply Corp v. Driven Construction et. al. involved a supplier that sought to enforce its credit agreement against both the corporate entity of the contractor, Driven, and the guarantor, a principal of the company. Needless to say, there was no response to the lawsuit and the Plaintiff filed for default judgment. 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

---

Traub Lieberman Partner Katie Keller and Associate Steven Hollis Obtain Summary Judgment Based on Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Policy Conditions

June 12, 2023 — Kathryn Keller & Steven A. Hollis - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Katie Keller and Associate Steven Hollis obtained summary judgment on behalf of a major homeowners’ insurer in a breach of contract action in the Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Osceola County, Florida. The underlying claim involved a water loss in the kitchen of the Plaintiff’s property allegedly resulting in substantial damage to the home necessitating renovations throughout the residence. The claim was reported seventeen days after the reported date of loss by Plaintiff’s counsel. The Plaintiff had retained counsel and two vendors before giving notice to the insurer. In addition, the insurer’s field adjuster was not provided the opportunity to inspect the plumbing materials which had been allegedly damaged. Specifically, the bottom panel of the sink kitchen cabinet box had been removed. The insurer retained an engineer, who concluded that the removal of the damaged property hindered the ability of the engineer to determine their conditions prior to removal or whether exposure from waste arm leakage occurred. It was later learned that the damaged plumbing fixtures and the bottom of the cabinets had been thrown out by the contractors, which all happened before the claim was reported to the insurer. The insured also failed to provide a signed, sworn proof of loss within sixty days after the loss. Reprinted courtesy of Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman and Steven A. Hollis, Traub Lieberman Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com Mr. Hollis may be contacted at shollis@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Appeals Court Finds Manuscript Additional Insured Endorsements Ambiguous Regarding Completed Operations Coverage for Additional Insured

September 07, 2017 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co. (No. D070478; filed 8/30/17), a California appeals court found that manuscript additional insured endorsements on construction subcontractors’ policies were ambiguous regarding additional insured coverage for the developer, and that substantial evidence supported a finding that the insurer’s refusal to defend the developer was in bad faith. The court also approved awarding punitive damages on a one-to-one basis with the general damages. But the appeals court remanded the case for a further determination on the amount of Brandt fees, based on the developer’s change from a contingency to an hourly agreement. The Pulte case arose from the development of two residential housing projects beginning in 2003 and sold in 2005-2006. Subcontractors were required to name Pulte as additional insured on their policies, some of them issued by American Safety. In 2013, homeowners sued Pulte based in part on the work of subcontractors insured by American Safety, which then denied coverage to Pulte because the construction had taken place years earlier. 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

---

Congress Considers Pandemic Risk Insurance Act to Address COVID-19 Business Interruptions Losses

May 18, 2020 — Richard W. Brown & Andres Avila - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The draft legislation, entitled the Pandemic Risk Insurance Act of 2020 (“PRIA”), would establish a Federal Pandemic Risk Reinsurance Fund and Program (the “Program”), that is intended to provide a system of shared public and private compensation for business interruption (“BI”) losses resulting from a pandemic or outbreak of communicable disease. PRIA, in its current draft form, is modeled after and in many ways mirrors the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act that was enacted to address catastrophic losses resulting from acts of terrorism. PRIA effectively mandates that participating insurers provide coverage for any business interruption loss resulting from an outbreak of infectious disease or pandemic that is declared an emergency or major disaster by the President and certified by the Secretary of Treasury (the “Secretary”) as a public health emergency. PRIA would be triggered in the case of certified public health emergencies upon the aggregate industry insured losses exceed $250 million dollars, and include an annual aggregate limit capped at $500 billion dollars. The draft bill provides that the Secretary would administer the Program and pay the Federal share of compensation for insured losses, which would be 95% of losses in excess of an applicable insurer annual deductible, once the Program is triggered. The compensation would benefit those insurers that elect to participate in the Program in exchange for a premium paid by the participating insurer for reinsurance coverage under the Program. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Andres Avila, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com Mr. Avila may be contacted at ara@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Defects and Warranties in Maryland

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Nicholas D. Cowie, a partner with Cowie & Mott, P.A., has started a blog focusing on construction defect claims in Maryland condominium complexes. In his first post, he writes about the statutory remedies in Maryland law for condominium owners. He notes that “four separate statutory warranties apply to the sale of condominiums.” He further discusses the varying duration of these warranties and when they come into effect, saying that “associations and unit owners are often incorrectly informed that their construction defect-related problems (such as leaks around windows) are ‘out of warranty’ because the problems did not occur during the warranty period.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Residential Construction Rise Expected to Continue

May 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Housingwire reports that Fannie Mae has predicted strong increases in housing starts over the last few years, with an expected return to normal by 2016. If this holds true, residential construction will include 2.5 million jobs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---