Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

California Appellate Court Confirms: Additional Insureds Are First-Class Citizens

May 04, 2020 — Scott S. Thomas - Payne & Fears
Many businesses shift risk by requiring others with whom they do business – e.g., vendors, subcontractors, suppliers, and others – to procure insurance on their behalf by making the business an “additional insured” under the other person’s liability insurance policy. Unfortunately, insurance companies sometimes treat these additional insureds as second-class citizens, refusing to acknowledge that the additional insured has the same rights as the policyholder, who paid the premium. In Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. SMG Holdings, a California appellate court removes any doubt whether these additional insureds are third-party beneficiaries entitled to the same rights – and bound by the same duties – as the entity that bought the policy. While the dispute at issue in SMG Holdings was a narrow one – i.e., whether the additional insured was bound by the policy’s arbitration clause – the implications of its holding are far ranging in ways that, in some instances, may benefit the additional insured. For example, because the additional insured is an intended beneficiary under the policy, neither the insurer nor the policyholder may do anything to impair the additional insured’s rights under the policy; if they do, they may be liable for tortiously interfering with the additional insured’s contract rights. This means that (again, by way of example) if the insurer attempts to rescind, or cancel, or amend the policy in a way that impairs the additional insured’s rights, the additional insured may have recourse. It also means that if the policyholder does something untoward that jeopardizes the additional insured’s rights under the policy, the policyholder may be liable to the additional insured for any resulting harm. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com

Federal Miller Act Payment Bond Claim: Who Gets Paid and Who Does Not? What Are the Deadlines?

September 16, 2019 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
When working on federal public works construction projects there are no Stop Payment Notice or Mechanics Lien remedies available to protect subcontractors’ and suppliers’ right to payment. Instead, unpaid subcontractors and suppliers must resort to making a claim for payment under a federal law known as the AMiller Act@ (40 USCS 3131 et seq.). Many claimants however, do not realize that the right to make a Miller Act claim is not available to all subcontractors and suppliers. Before committing to performing work on a federal project it is important for subcontractors and suppliers to understand whether or not a Miller Act claim will be available. For those who have no Miller Act rights, careful consideration must be given to whether it is worth the risk to take on the project. For those who have valid Miller Act claim rights, important deadlines must be considered. Who Gets Paid Under a Miller Act and Who Does Not For federal projects in excess of $100,000, contractors who have a contract directly with the Federal Government must obtain Miller Act Payment Bond intended for the protection of Subcontractors, laborers and material suppliers to the project. As a general rule, every subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who deals directly with the prime contractor and is unpaid may bring a lawsuit for payment against the Miller Act Payment Bond. Further, every unpaid subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier who has a direct contractual relationship with a first-tier subcontractor may bring such an action. The deadlines for these claims are described below. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

Aurora Joins other Colorado Cities by Adding a Construction Defect Ordinance

September 03, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the Aurora Sentinel, the city council of Aurora, Colorado, approved an ordinance targeted at making it more difficult for homeowners to sue builders over construction defect claims. Similar to other recent Colorado city construction defect measures, “the new rule gives builders the right to repair defects before the litigation is pursued, requires that the majority of home owners in a home owners association – as opposed to just a majority of HOA board members – approve of any lawsuits, and allows builders to offer monetary settlements to homeowners in lieu of repairs.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

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

More on Fraud, Opinions and Contracts

February 06, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Here at Construction Law Musings, I have discussed the interaction between fraud and contracts on many occasions. Recently, I got to put my advice into action. I am counsel for the plaintiff in the matter of Environmental Staffing Acquisition Corp. v. Beamon, et. al. in the Portsmouth, VA Circuit Court and recently got a great opinion (.pdf) right on point that was recently featured in Virginia Lawyers Weekly. The basic facts are these. My client, Environmental Staffing (En-Staff) filed a Little Miller Act claim and a claim for breach of contract for Beamon’s failure to pay for temporary staffing that En-Staff provided it at the Jeffry Wilson housing project demolition in Portsmouth, VA. Beamon then counterclaimed for fraud and breach of contract claiming that some statements to the effect that a particular supervisor was qualified along with presentation of the individual’s resume constituted fraud. My client demurred to the two fraud counts (actual and constructive). 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

Florida Self-Insured Retention Satisfaction and Made Whole Doctrine

March 11, 2014 — Scott Patterson – CD Coverage
Intervest Construction of Jax, Inc. v. General Fidelity Insurance Co., * So.2d * (Fla. 2014), the issue was whether the insured general contractor could satisfy the SIR in its CGL policy with funds it received from the insurer of a subcontractor in settlement of the general contractor’s contractual indemnity claim against that subcontractor. ICI was the general contractor for a residence sold to Ferrin. Several years after completion, Ferrin suffered injuries in a fall while using attic stairs installed by ICI’s subcontractor Custom Cutting. Ferrin sued ICI but not Custom Cutting. ICI was insured by General Fidelity with a $1M SIR. ICI sought contractual indemnity from Custom Cutting. The Ferrin suit was ultimately settled for $1.6M. Custom Cutting’s CGL insurer paid $1M to ICI to resolve ICI’s contractual indemnity claim. Using the $1M paid on behalf of Custom Cutting and $300K of its own funds, ICI paid $1.3M to Ferrin. General Fidelity paid the remaining $300K with an agreement with ICI that each was entitled to seek reimbursement of $300K from the other. ICI filed suit in Florida state court. General Fidelity removed to federal court. The Eleventh Circuit certified the relevant questions to the Supreme Court of Florida. The Florida Supreme Court first held that the General Fidelity SIR allowed ICI to satisfy the SIR through indemnification payments received from a third party. While the SIR provision stated that it must be satisfied by the insured, it did not include any language proscribing the source of the funds used by the insured to satisfy the SIR. The court distinguished other decisions where the SIR endorsement expressly stated that payments by others, including other insurers, could not satisfy the SIR. The court also relied on the fact that ICI “hedged its retained risk” by paying for its entitlement to contractual indemnification from its subcontractor years prior to purchasing the General Fidelity policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Patterson, CD Coverage

Homebuilding Down in North Dakota

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Only eleven new homes have been started this year in the Pierre area in North Dakota. Last year saw 35 homes built in the same area. Brad Lawrence, the Fort Pierre Director of Public Works, blamed last year’s Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey, stating that “superstorm Sandy has just devoured a tremendous amount of building projects.” Area builders did say that some building materials went up in price after the storm, describing it as an “availability scare,” but some prices went down during the summer of 2013. Susan Ogan, of Neil Ogan Construction said that “our biggest thing is that people cannot find a lot they can afford and still say within their budget for the overall project.” Although single-family homes aren’t being built, apartments are. “We’ve got a 24-unit apartment going in as we speak,” said Mr. Lawrence. That, some feel, may be responsible for the lack of demand for single-family homes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Florida Legislative Change Extends Completed Operations Tail for Condominium Projects

December 10, 2024 — Holly A. Rice - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Florida Legislature recently passed House Bill 1021 which amended Florida Statute § 718.124. The July 1, 2024 amendment changes Florida’s statute of repose (“SOR”) trigger date for condominium projects. Now, the SOR trigger for existing condominium projects will be governed by Florida Statute §718.124, not Florida Statute § 95.11. Most critically, Florida Statute § 718.124 changes the trigger events for when the “clock” starts running and impacts how long the SOR runs. Notably, Florida Statute § 718.124 already governed the trigger event for the statute of limitations (“SOR”) for condominium projects. One important overarching takeaway for contractors to carefully assess is that the change in the “trigger” event may result in the SOR concluding at a later date than originally planned – affecting time on the risk and, critically, the availability of insurance. The standard approach of using a static 10-year completed operations tail on a condominium construction insurance program may now be insufficient in certain circumstances. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Holly A. Rice, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Rice may be contacted at HRice@sdvlaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES