Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion on Business Risk Exclusions Fails

November 15, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment on the CGL policy's business risk exclusions. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. TL Spreader, LLC, (W.D. La. Oct. 20, 2017). Helena Chemical Company contracted with its customer Wild Farms to sell and apply certain herbicides and pesticides to Wild Farms' 123 acre rice filed. Helena subcontracted the TL Spreader, LLC (TLS) to apply the chemicals to Wild Farm's rice field. The TLS employee failed to properly neutralize a chemical being used in the spray. TLS finished its work on May 6, 2014, completing all its work for Helena's contract with Wild Farms. Three days after completion of the spraying, the rice crop first began to exhibit physical damage in the form of abnormal stunting, lesions, yellowing and death. 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

Construction Contract Terms Matter. Be Careful When You Draft Them.

February 01, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In a prior post, I discussed the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. Bae Sys. Ordinance Sys in the context of the interplay between fraud, contract, and statutes of limitation. Some cases just keep on giving. This time the case illustrates the need for careful drafting of those pesky, and highly important, clauses in your construction documents. In the current iteration of this ongoing saga, the Court considered the contractual aspects of the matter. As a reminder, the facts are as follows: In May 2011, the United States Army (“Army) awarded BAE Systems Ordnance Systems, Inc. (“BAE”) a contract to design and construct a natural gas-fired combined heating and power plant for the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (“RAAP”). On October 7, 2015, BAE issued a request for a proposal from Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC (“Fluor”) to design and build a temporary boiler facility at a specific location on the RAAP property. On October 13, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to change the location of the boiler facility. On December 10, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to require BAE to design and construct a permanent boiler facility. On December 30, 2015, Fluor and BAE executed a fixed-price subcontract for Fluor to design and construct the temporary boiler. Throughout 2016, BAE issued several modifications to Fluor’s subcontract to reflect the modifications BAE received from the Army on the prime contract. On March 23, 2016, BAE directed Fluor to build a permanent – rather than temporary – boiler facility. On March 28, 2016, Fluor began construction of the permanent facility and began negotiations with BAE about the cost of the permanent facility. On September 1, 2016, the parties reached an agreement on the cost for the design of the permanent facility, but not on the cost to construct the permanent facility. On November 29, 2016, the parties executed a modification to the subcontract, officially replacing the requirement to construct a temporary facility with a requirement to construct a permanent facility and agreeing to “negotiate and definitize the price to construct by December 15, 2016.” The parties were unable to reach an agreement on the construction price. 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

"Damage to Your Product" Exclusion Bars Coverage

February 02, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of coverage for the insured based upon the exclusion for "damage to your product." S.E. Arnold & Co. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2016 Ark. App. LEXIS 625 (Ark. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2016). The homeowners paid the insured, S.E. Arnold & Company, over $78,000 to supply and install wood flooring in their residence. The homeowners eventually sued Arnold, alleging that the products and services as provided by Arnold had breached its contract, Arnold was negligent, and it violated applicable rules, regulations, and laws. Specifically, the homeowners alleged that the flooring as sold and installed had splinters, cupping occurred across the width of the individual pieces of flooring, and installation was in contradiction to industry standards and applicable building codes. 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

Connecticut Court Clarifies a Limit on Payment Bond Claims for Public Projects

May 15, 2023 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
In All Seasons Landscaping, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., No. DBD-CV21-6039074-S, 2022 WL 1135703 (Conn. Super. Ct. April 4, 2022) the plaintiff, a subcontractor on a state project, commenced a lawsuit against the surety who issued a payment bond on the project two years after the subcontractor last performed any original contract work on the project. The defendant surety moved to dismiss the action based on the one-year statute of limitation in Connecticut General Statute § 49-42. The plaintiff countered that it complied with that deadline because it also performed warranty inspection work after the contract was completed and within the limitation period in section 49-42. The issue of whether warranty work or minor corrective work can extend the limitations period in section 49-42 had not previously been addressed by a Connecticut court. Section 49-42(b) governs the limitation period on payment bond claims on public projects. It provides in relevant part that “no … suit may be commenced after the expiration of one year after the last date that materials were supplied or any work was performed by the claimant.” Section 49-42 provides no guidance on what “materials were supplied or any work was performed” by the claimant means, nor is there any direct appellate-level authority in Connecticut on this issue. What is clear under well-established law in Connecticut is that the time limit within which suit on a payment bond must be commenced under Section 49-42 is not only a statute of limitation but a jurisdictional requirement establishing a condition precedent to maintenance of the action and such limit is strictly enforced. If a plaintiff cannot prove its suit was initiated within this time constraint, the matter will be dismissed by the court as untimely. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

Judge Gives Cintra Bid Protest of $9B Md. P3 Project Award New Life

March 21, 2022 — Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
The Maryland Dept. of Transportation will have to reconsider a protest lodged by the losing bidder for the initial phase of its $9-billion Express Lanes project, according to a Feb. 17 state circuit court judge's ruing. The decision likely stalls the state's ambitious plan to add capacity along portions of the I-495/Beltway and I-270 west of Washington, DC, using a progressive public-partnership. Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Feds Used Wire to Crack Las Vegas HOA Scam

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Court documents have revealed that the FBI used informants wearing listening devices in order to uncover the plan to take over Las Vegas area homeowner associations with the intent of bilking the residents through backdoor agreements on construction defect claims. The Las Vegas Review-Journal notes one important step was when the FBI managed to get a member of the Mission Pointe board to act as an informant. The FBI informant was recruited by one of the conspirators, Sami Robert Hindiyeh. The informant eventually spoke with Benzer himself. The plan was to convince the community manager of Mission Pointe to take bribes, all part of rigging the board election. At one point, the informant was paid $20,000 for his help in convincing the manager to take part. The manager had agreed to play along in the FBI sting. Ralph Priola, one of the conspirators, told the informant that “as long as we keep everything on the up and up, that’s the way our company operates.” Later Priola asked the informant if legitimate ballots could be swapped out for those voting for Benzer’s candidates. But the election didn’t happen. The FBI raided Benzer’s office, bringing the scam to its end. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Buy Clean California Act Takes Effect on July 1, 2022

July 25, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The Buy Clean California Act (BCCA) – Public Contract Code section 3500 et seq. – requires state agencies to consider the carbon content of the following products when awarding contracts:

Structural steel;
Concrete reinforcing steel;
Flat glass; and
Mineral wool board insulation.

It is anticipated that additional products may be added through future legislation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Traub Lieberman Partners Lisa Rolle, Erin O’Dea, and Nicole Verzillo Win Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner

September 30, 2024 — Lisa M. Rolle, Erin O’Dea, Nicole Verzillo - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partners Lisa Rolle, Erin O’Dea, and Nicole Verzillo won motion for summary judgment in a premises liability matter brought before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County. The Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell in a pothole on the common driveway of five abutting properties and sustained an injury. The firm represented one of the multiple property owners. Traub Lieberman moved for summary judgment, asserting that the claims against the firm’s client should be dismissed as they did not own, operate, control or make special use of the driveway where the incident occurred. The firm also asserted that the alleged condition of the driveway that allegedly caused Plaintiff’s accident was a non-actionable, trivial defect. The firm also moved to dismiss the cross-claims asserted against them, contending that there was no evidence of negligence on behalf of the firm’s client. As such, the court found that the defect was a non-actionable, trivial defect. The firm secured dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against the firm’s clients and against all moving and non-moving Defendants. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman, Erin O’Dea, Traub Lieberman and Nicole Verzillo, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Ms. O'Dea may be contacted at eodea@tlsslaw.com Ms. Verzillo may be contacted at nverzillo@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES