FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Why Do Construction Companies Fail?

February 14, 2023 — The Hartford Staff - The Hartford Insights
If a construction company takes on a lot of work, it’s a good thing, right? Not exactly. In fact, overextension is one of the primary reasons why contractors fail. And it’s something that contractors should consider as a priority for their risk management plan. Of the 43,277 construction businesses that started in March 2011, only 37.6% of companies survived 10 years later.1 “The construction industry has a high rate of failure,” explains Tim Holicky, senior executive underwriter in The Hartford’s construction central bond team. “And more often than not, it’s because of too much work, rather than too little of it. The key to a contractor’s long-term survival is knowing when to say no.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights

---

Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits

September 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire has ruled in the case Wyle v. Lees. The Leeses owned a two-unit apartment building in North Conway, New Hampshire. They hired a contractor to add a third, larger apartment, including a two-car garage. The Leeses and their contractor submitted a building permit application. They were informed that site plan review was required. After receiving approval on the site plan, construction started. At no point did they obtain a building permit and the construction was never inspected. The Leeses subsequently added more space to the unit, reducing parking spaces below the minimum required. Again, they did not obtain a building permit.

In 2007, three years after all these changes were complete, the Leeses sold their building to Mr. Wyle. To the question “are you aware of any modifications or repairs made without the necessary permits?” they answered “no.” About six weeks after closing, Wyle “received a letter from the town code enforcement officer regarding the legality of the removal of a garage door from the new unit.” A subsequent inspection revealed “numerous building and life safety code violations.”

Mr. Wyle brought a claim against the Leeses for negligent misrepresentation. The defendants filed a motion “seeking to preclude economic loss damages.” At a two-day bench trial, Mr. Wyle won. The Leeses appealed.

The appeals court found that “the defendants negligently misrepresented that the premises were licensed for immediate occupancy and that the defendants had obtained all necessary permits,” and thus upheld the lower court’s finding of negligent misrepresentation. The appeals court also rejected the Leeses’ argument that damages must be apportioned on all parties, including “the plaintiff himself, the plaintiff’s building inspector, and the defendant’s contractor,” finding a lack of “adequate evidence.”

The Leeses further argued that they were unaware that modifications and repairs were accomplished without the required permits. The appeals court noted that “the trial court found that both the conditional approval and final approval for the site plan stated that a building permit and a certificate of occupancy were required prior to any use.” The court concluded that the Leeses “knew or should have known of the falsity of their representation.”

The appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Surety Bond Producers Keep Eye Out For Illegal Waivers

July 01, 2019 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
The surety bond industry regularly reminds state and local governments, politely, that public works in all states must involve surety bonds. That’s the law. And the National Association of Surety Bond Producers, the bond brokers and agents trade group, has been letting state and local officials know, in writing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, ENR
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

---

Shoring of Ceiling Does Not Constitute Collapse Under Policy's Definition

November 12, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Despite the need to shore up the ceiling, the building was not in a state of collapse under the language of the policy. Ravinia Vouge Cleaners v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123594 (N.D. Ill. July 24, 2019). Ravinia Cleaners held a property policy issued by Travelers for the building from which it operated its dry-cleaning business. On February 2, 2015, there was heavy snowfall. On February 4, Ravinia reported to Travelers a leak coming from the ceiling. A temporary "shoring " was placed on the ceiling. Ravinia reported to Travelers that there was damage to the roof on February 25, 2015. Travelers hired an engineer who observed a buckling truss and roof displacing downward. The inspector recommended that the building be vacated and not occupied until adequate shoring was in place. Travelers denied coverage because the building was in a state of imminent collapse which was caused by the weight of ice and snow, and defective construction of the truss system. The policy excluded damage relating to a "collapse of a building." Collapse was defined by the policy as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building," such that the building could not be occupied for its intended purpose. There were exceptions to the exclusion, however, if the cause of the collapse was: (1) weight of snow; or (2) use of defective materials or methods in construction if the collapse occurred after construction. The policy also excluded damage from a building being in a state of imminent collapse unless the damage was caused by: (1) weight of snow; or (2) use of defective materials or methods in construction if the collapse occurred during construction. 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 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

---

Insurance Measures Passed by 2015 Hawaii Legislature

June 10, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The 2015 Hawaii legislative session passed three insurance-related bills which have all been signed by the governor. Bills that have been enacted are the following: SB0589 - We previously devoted this post to the legislation. The bill provides relief for residents in lava zones on the Big Island. The bill limits the number of property policies that an insurer can refuse to renew in a lava zone. Further, a moratorium on the issuance of policies can be lifted in a state of emergency due to the threat of imminent disaster from a lava flow. SB0736 - Provisions relating to reimbursement for accident and health or sickness insurance benefits are amended. Further, the bill provides that prior to initiating any recoupment or offset demand efforts, an entity must send a written notice to the health care provider at least 30 days prior to engaging in recoupment or offset efforts. An entity may not initiate recoupment or offset efforts more than 18 months after the initial claim payment was received by the health care provider or health care entity. 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

---

Old Case Teaches New Tricks

March 16, 2017 — Angela A.L. Connor & Curtis W. Martin - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Eight years after completion of the wharf project, Zachry and the Port of Houston continue to slug it out in the appellate courts and continue to refi ne Texas construction law along the way. In the latest appellate opinion, the Court of Appeals details the general contractor’s control of the means and methods of their work without interference from a governmental entity. It also supports a subcontractor’s use of a pass-through claim as a cost efficient way to recover damages. By now most of us are familiar with the project and the previous decisions. Zachry sued the Port claiming breach after the Port denied Zachry the right to continue construction using its frozen cutoff wall. The Texas Supreme Court upheld the jury’s $20 million verdict for Zachry, ruling that the Port’s “no damages for delay” clause would not bar Zachry’s claim in light of the Port’s active interference with Zachry’s work. The Supreme Court then sent the case back to the Court of Appeals to consider other arguments that the Port had made. That led to the most recent decision. In December, 2016, the Houston Fourteenth Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Zachry on all issues and affirmed the jury verdict. In doing so, the Court of Appeals provides several lessons or reminders on Texas Construction law. Reprinted courtesy of Angela A.L. Connor, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Curtis W. Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Connor may be contacted at aconnor@pecklaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Florida Court Puts the Claim of Landlord’s Insurer In The No-Fly Zone

March 06, 2023 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
In United States Aviation Underwriters v. Turnberry Airport Holdings, LLC, No. 3D22-270, 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 1207 (U.S. Aviation), the Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District (Appellate Court) considered whether the insurer for a commercial landlord could pursue subrogation against the landlord’s tenant. Based on the terms of the lease between the landlord and the tenant, the Appellate Court held that the landlord’s insurer could not pursue subrogation. In U.S. Aviation, the defendant, Turnberry Airport Holdings, LLC (Turnberry Airport) leased space to an insured aircraft owner. The lease contained the following provision: TENANT agrees that all policies of insurance obtained by it in connection with the Space or as required hereunder shall contain appropriate waiver of subrogation clauses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

---