FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Faulty Workmanship an Occurrence in Iowa – as Long as Other Property Damage is Involved

November 30, 2016 — Austin D. Moody – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Eighth Circuit recently weighed in on one of the more contentious issues in insurance coverage litigation: is faulty workmanship an occurrence? In Decker Plastics Inc. v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., the Eighth Circuit ruled that, under Iowa law, faulty workmanship is an occurrence – as long as it leads to other property damage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Austin D. Moody, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Moody may be contacted at adm@sdvlaw.com

---

Hawaii Supreme Court Tackles "Other Insurance" Issues

February 25, 2014 — Tred Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Responding to four certified questions from the Ninth Circuit, the Hawaii Supreme Court addressed various issues raised by competing "other insurance" provisions in two CGL policies. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2014 Haw. LEXIS 59 (Haw. Feb. 13, 2014). Coverage for a development on Maui was at issue. The developer, VP & PK (ML) LLC, was insured by Lexington. The other insurance provision in Lexington's policy provided it was excess over "any other primary insurance available to you covering liability for damages arising out of the premises . . . for which you have been added as an additional insured." Kila Kila Construction was one of VP & PK's subcontractors. Kika Kila was not an additional insured under Lexington's policy. Kila Kila had its own CGL policy with Nautilus. The Nautilus other insurance clause stated the insurance was excess over "any other primary insurance available to you covering liability arising out of the premises or operations for which you ahve been added as an additional insured." An endorsement added VP & PK as an additional insured, but only for liability arising out of Kila Kila's negligence. 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

---

Lien Actions Versus Lien Foreclosure Actions

June 02, 2016 — David R. Cook Jr. – AHHC Construction Law Blog
The lawsuits required to perfect and foreclose upon a lien have confused lien claimants and their attorneys for years. This confusion was recently demonstrated in a recent case entitled Founders Kitchen and Bath, Inc. v. Alexander, No. A15A1262, 2015 WL 6875026 (Ga. App. 2015). In the case, the trial court granted an owner’s motion for summary judgment against a subcontractor that sought to foreclose on its materialman’s lien. In deciding to reverse the trial court’s decision, the Court held that issues of material fact still existed as to whether the owner and subcontractor were in privity of contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

---

Eleventh Circuit Upholds Coverage for Environmental Damage from Sewage, Concluding It is Not a “Pollutant”

May 24, 2018 — Lorelie S. Masters & Alexander D. Russo - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
On April 20, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed an Alabama district court decision finding that an “absolute pollution exclusion” did not bar coverage for environmental property damage and injuries from a sewage leak. Evanston Ins. Co. v. J&J Cable Constr., LLC, No. 17-11188, 2018 WL 1887459, (11th Cir. Apr. 20, 2018). J&J Cable was hired to install underground electrical conduit in a subdivision when it struck and broke the sewer pipe to two homes. As a result, sewage backed up into the homes causing property damage and personal injuries. The commercial general liability policy at issue contained an “absolute pollution exclusion,” which sought to bar coverage for “bodily injury” and “property damage” arising out of the actual, alleged, or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of “any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste.” The insurer relied on an earlier Alabama federal district court decision, which precluded coverage for liability from lead paint exposure, concluding that lead was a pollutant under a similar exclusion. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed, recognizing that insurance is a state law issue and opting instead to rely on binding state court precedent. The Eleventh Circuit, therefore, found that the decision in U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Armstrong, 479 So. 2d 1164 (Ala. 1985), by the state’s highest court, the Alabama Supreme Court, governed. That case made a distinction between industrial waste and residential sewage. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit found that the “absolute pollution exclusion” did not preclude coverage for liability for injuries caused by sewage. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters , Hunton Andrews Kurth and Alexander D. Russo , Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters  may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Russo  may be contacted at arusso@huntonak.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation

May 16, 2018 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In All Green Electric v. Security National Ins. Co. (No. B279456, filed 3/19/18, ord. pub. 4/17/18), a California appeals court ruled that the impaired property exclusion barred coverage for a claim based on the insured’s failure to tighten a loose bolt that resulted in stray magnetic fields interfering with operation of an MRI machine and allegedly threatening the health of personnel. All Green was an electrical contractor hired to perform wiring for an MRI unit installation. Stray magnetic fields interfered with the unit’s operation. Efforts to remediate the problem included installing shielding and ultimately relocating the unit to another room. An expert finally determined that a bolt left loose by All Green was causing the magnetic field, which disappeared when the bolt was properly tightened. The facility sought damages for negligence, including costs for unnecessary modifications and repairs, payments to outside sources for substitute mammography testing, operational costs and expenses, damage to reputation, lost profits, and the loss of an HMO contract. 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

---

The Importance of the Subcontractor Exception to the “Your Work” Exclusion

May 16, 2018 — John J. Kozak, Esq. - Florida Construction Law News
Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies typically include a “your work” exclusion, excluding coverage for “’property damage’ to ‘your work’ arising out of it or any part of it and included in the ‘products-completed operations hazard.’” These CGL policies define “your work,” in pertinent part, as “work or operations performed by you or on your behalf.” (emphasis added). As the recent case of Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. JWN Construction, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20529 (S.D. Fla. 2018) reminds us, the “your work” exclusion can serve to eliminate coverage for a general contractor, even when property damage is caused by a subcontractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John J. Kozak, Esq., Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.
Mr. Kozak may be contacted at john.kozak@csklegal.com

---

Consider the Risks Associated with an Exculpatory Clause

November 24, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
An exculpatory clause in a contract is a clause aimed at relieving another party from certain liability. A disclaimer and insulation from liability. Obviously, if you are the party relieving the other party from liability, you want to consider this risk including the potential enforceability of this risk if something goes wrong. If you are the party asking for the insulation from liability, you do not want to create an exculpatory provision that disclaims and insulates you of all liability arising from the contract as it may create an illusory effect – that the agreement is nothing but a naked promise on your end because your promise is fully disclaimed and you are insulated from liability if you break your promise. This could result in an unenforceable contract. The validity of such an exculpatory clause was at-issue in Pier 1 Cruise Experts v. Revelex Corp., 2019 WL 3024618 (11thCir. 2019). Although not a construction dispute, the exculpatory clause in this case was with two fairly sophisticated parties and expressly insulated one of the contracting parties from “any…damages regardless of kind or type…whether in contract, tort (including negligence), or otherwise.” Pier 1 Cruise Experts, 2019 WL at *7. This is a powerful exculpatory clause because it could be broadly construed to insulate that party from its own breaches of the contract. In Florida:

[A]n exculpatory clause is enforceable so long as (1) the contracting parties have equal bargaining power and (2) the clause’s provisions are clear and unambiguous. With respect to the latter requirement, ‘the intention to be relieved from liability [must be] made clear and unequivocal and the wording must be so clear and understandable that an ordinary and knowledgeable person will know what he is contracting away.” In the same vein, exculpatory clauses are ‘strictly construed against the party seeking to be relieved of liability.’ Pier 1 Cruise Experts, 2019 WL at *7 (internal citations omitted).

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

---

Construction Employment Rises in Half of the States

December 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Labor Department has noted that half the states and the District of Columbia saw increases in construction employment during the month of October. During the same month, twenty-three states lost construction jobs.

The biggest gains were in North Dakota, Oklahoma, DC, Texas, and California. The biggest losses were in Georgia, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Florida. There was no change for Alabama.

The chief executive officer of the Association of General Contractors of America, Stephen E. Sandherr, called for more infrastructure development. “Allowing water, transportation and energy networks to deteriorate will hurt construction employment and force taxpayers to spend more later, to fix broken infrastructure.”

Read the full story…

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

---