Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Accident/Occurrence Requirement Does not Preclude Coverage for Vicarious Liability or Negligent Supervision

June 06, 2018 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Inc. (No. S236765, filed 6/4/18) (L&M), the California Supreme Court ruled that the liability insurance requirement that injury be caused by an “occurrence,” defined as an “accident,” does not preclude coverage of an employer’s independent tort liability for injury deliberately caused by its employee. In L&M, Liberty insured a construction company that contracted to manage a construction project at a middle school in San Bernardino, California. A 13-year-old student subsequently sued the company in state court, alleging that she had been sexually molested by a company employee, Hecht. Among others, she alleged a cause of action for negligent hiring, retention and supervision of the employee. The construction company tendered to Liberty, which defended the employer under a reservation of rights while seeking declaratory relief in federal court. The district court granted summary judgment for Liberty, ruling that the injury was not caused by an “occurrence.” On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals certified the question to the California Supreme Court as a matter of state law. 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

You Say Tomato, I Say Tomahto. But When it Comes to the CalOSHA Appeals Board, They Can Say it Any Way They Please

January 08, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
We lawyers do a fair amount of reading. Documents. Court decisions. Passive aggressive correspondence from opposing counsel. As well as statutes, regulations and administrative guidance. And you might be surprised how often words can be ascribed very different meanings depending on who is reading it. Such, I suppose, is the nature of language. When it comes to public agency interpretations of its own regulations, however, you would be well to heed that authors are often the best interpreters of their own works, or at least that’s how the courts tend to view it, as in the next case L & S Framing Inc. v. California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board, Case No. C096386 (July 24, 2023). The L & S Framing Case Martin Mariano, an employee of L & S Framing, Inc., suffered a brain injury when he fell from the “second floor” while working on a single family house. What, exactly, this “second floor” was, was a point of a contention in the legal case that followed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

No Coverage for Additional Insured

December 17, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Two insurers disputed who was responsible for coverage the additional insured contractor. Endurance Am. Spec. Ins. Co. v. Century Sur. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19194 (2nd Cir. Nov. 4, 2015). The district court granted summary judgment to Endurance, finding there was coverage for the additional insured general contractor after being sued by an employee of a subcontractor. Century's policy included an Action Over Exclusion clause, which excluded insurance coverage for injury to certain employees as follows: Exclusions: . . . e. Employer's Liability "Bodily injury" to: (1) an "employee" of the named insured arising out of and in the course of:

(a) Employment by the named insured; or
(b) Performing duties related to the conduct of the named insured's business.

The named insured was Pinnacle Construction & Renovation Corp. 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

Corvette museum likely to keep part of sinkhole

June 26, 2014 — Bruce Schreiner – Bloomberg
A massive sinkhole that swallowed eight prized sports cars at the National Corvette Museum has become such a popular attraction that officials want to preserve it — and may even put one or two of the crumpled cars back inside the hole. The board of the museum in Bowling Green, Kentucky, said Wednesday it is in favor of preserving a large section of the sinkhole that opened up beneath the museum in February. It happened when the museum was closed, and no one was injured. What started as a tragedy has turned into an opportunity to lure more people off a nearby interstate to visit the museum, which struggled in prior years to keep its doors open, museum officials said. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bruce Schreiner, Bloomberg

Insurance for Large Construction Equipment Such as a Crane

July 30, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Many, many projects require the use of a crane. The skyline is oftentimes filled with the sight of cranes—one after the other. Most of the time, the cranes are leased from an equipment supplier. What happens if the crane (or any large, leased equipment) gets damaged? I wrote an article regarding a builder’s risk carrier NOT covering damage to a crane from a storm based on a common exclusion. Another case, Ajax Bldg. Corp. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 358 F.3d 795 (11th Cir. 2004), had a similar result. In this case, a prime contractor leased a crane from an equipment supplier. The crane was used by the structural concrete subcontractor. The crane collapsed during the subcontractor’s work. The supplier sued both the contractor and subcontractor. The prime contractor was defended under a contractor’s equipment liability policy and the subcontractor was defended under a general liability policy it procured for its work on the project. Ultimately, a settlement was reached where the subcontractor’s liability insurer paid a bulk of the damage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

School District Settles Over Defective Athletic Field

December 11, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Hillsboro, Oregon School District has settled a lawsuit with Mahlum Architects of Portland, one of the four companies sued by the school district over problems with a soccer field. The total lawsuit was for $1.7 million. The architects have settled for $25,000. The manufacturer of Astro Turf also settled with the school for an as-yet undisclosed amount. What the school describes as the “primary defendants” have yet to settle. The school had to close the soccer field when drainage problems lead to large holes in the playing field. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Award Doubled in Retrial of New Jersey Elevator Injury Case

February 14, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Richard Tufaro, a New Jersey carpenter who suffered injuries from an elevator accident in 2005, had lost a $4 million award on appeal, but has recently “won $8million on retrial” according to The New Jersey Law Journal. In March of 2012, during the first trial, the “jury awarded $2.8 million for pain and suffering, $233,000 in medical expenses and $950,000 per quod to Tufaro's wife, totaling about $4 million.” In March 2013 the ruling was reversed by the Appellate Division who found “the verdict sheet and Coburn's jury instructions ‘together created a misleading and ambiguous deliberative environment, fully capable of engendering an unjust result.’" On February 11th, at the conclusion of the retrial, the jury “found Schindler Elevator and Escalator Co.'s negligent maintenance of an elevator led to a two-and-a-half-story plunge that left Richard Tufaro with neck and back injuries” and awarded Tufaro “$5.5 million for pain and suffering, $2.25 million per quod and $250,000 in medical expenses.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Be Careful With Construction Fraud Allegations

April 06, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Here at Construction Law Musings we have discussed the intersection of contracts, construction and fraud on several occasions. We’ve even discussed how such fraud can bleed over from the civil to the criminal. Recently, the Virginia Supreme Court weighed in again on the question of construction fraud and criminal allegations. In O’Connor v. Tice, the Court discussed a malicious prosecution action brought by a contractor against owners of a commercial building. In O’Connor, the owners and the contractor got into a disagreement over alleged damage to the roof of the owners’ building and who was responsible. In response to this disagreement, the owners contacted the local sheriff’s office, accusing the contractor of construction fraud, and then wrote a “15 day letter” to the contractor outlining the criminal consequences should he fail to pay the damages sought in the owners civil lawsuit. Subsequently, a criminal warrant was issued against the contractor based solely upon the word of the owners. This last occurred at the insistence of the owners (who did not inform the sheriff’s deputy or the Commonwealth Attorney that they’d had this conversation or that the contractor had partially performed) after they discussed the matter with the contractor’s attorney and were informed that any claim that they may have had was civil in nature. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Construction Law Musings
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES