FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Pennsylvania: When Should Pennsylvania’s New Strict Products Liability Law Apply?

February 05, 2015 — Robert Caplan and Timothy Carroll – White and Williams LLP
Pennsylvania has maintained its own peculiar brand of strict products liability law ever since the Supreme Court decided Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.[1] in 1978. Maligned by many as “absurd and unworkable,”[2] if “excessively” orientated towards plaintiffs,[3] Azzarello’s unique approach to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965)[4] has recently been judicially consigned to the dustbin of history. In Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.,[5] decided on November 19, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court expressly overruled Azzarello leaving in its place a new alternative standards approach to proving a Section 402A claim. An injured worker or subrogated insurer[6] must still prove that the seller, whether a manufacturer or a distributor, placed the product on the market in a “defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer.”[7] But now, under Tincher, a plaintiff must use either a “consumer expectation test” or a “risk-utility test” to establish that criterion.[8] Reprinted courtesy of Robert Caplan, White and Williams LLP and Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Quick Note: Insurer Must Comply with Florida’s Claims Administration Act

September 14, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
As an insured, know YOUR rights under Florida’s Claims Administration Act (Florida Statute s. 627.426). I wrote an article on this exact topic. If a third-party claim is asserted, or in the process of being asserted, against you, do yourself a favor and consult a lawyer that can assist you with preserving your insurance coverage rights. You pay liability insurance premiums for a reason so make sure you are not doing anything that could jeopardize rights under applicable insurance policies. A liability insurer must comply with the Claims Administration Act if it wants to deny coverage based on a coverage defense (e.g., the insured’s failure to cooperate with the insurer). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

---

Index Demonstrates Increase in Builders’ Sentiment

September 17, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The National Association of Home Builders’ Eye on Housing reported that “[b]uilders’ sentiment jumped four points to 59, the highest level since November 2005, according to the September NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index.” Furthermore, builders mentioned “renewed interest by potential home buyers and higher traffic in their models and through their phone calls.” Eye on Housing also reported that the “inventory of new home for sale has increased to over 200,000.” While still lower than the 300,000 typical in 1990s and early 2000s, “the steady increase has provided a better selection for consumers.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Supreme Court Building Opening Delayed Again

September 24, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
SI Live reported that the opening of the new state Supreme Court building in St. George, New York is delayed again due to problems with the air-conditioning and elevator systems. Delay, however, is not new to this project, which was originally expected to be completed over a decade ago. Initial delay was introduced “with the finding of remains from a 19th-century burial ground at the site, a former municipal parking lot, and more recently, with construction set-backs and other tie-ups,” according to SI Live. When completed, the new “building will boast 14 courtrooms, jury assembly, hearing and deliberation rooms, judges' chambers and court offices. There will also be holding cells for prisoners.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California’s One-Action Rule May Apply to Federal Lenders

June 09, 2016 — Anthony J. Carucci – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
California’s one-action rule provides that “[t]here can be but one form of action for the recovery of any debt or the enforcement of any right secured by mortgage upon real property or an estate for years therein . . . .” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 726(a). In other words, the one-action rule prescribes that the only process for recovery of a debt secured by a mortgage or deed of trust is to foreclose on the lien. The rule aims to prevent a multiplicity of actions and vexatious litigation, and to force a beneficiary to look to all of the security as the primary fund for payment of a debt before looking to the trustor’s other assets. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony J. Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

---

Time to Update Your Virginia Mechanic’s Lien Forms (July 1, 2019)

May 01, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In a few of my recent posts here at Construction Law Musings, I’ve discussed a few bills that were considered and/or passed in the General Assembly this year. One of the bills is one close to my heart and a subject much discussed here, namely mechanic’s liens. HB2409 passed both houses of the General Assembly and has been signed by the Governor. This bill reconciled the language found in Virginia Code Sec. 43-4 with the various forms for general contractor, subcontractor and sub-subcontractor/supplier forms found in later sections of the code. As you will see if you download the .pdf of the bill as signed, this involved some tweaks to 43-4 and some updates to the mechanic’s lien forms that are in the code. The recent Desai case from the Virginia Supreme Court made it clear that such action was necessary. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrissghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Other Colorado Cities Looking to Mirror Lakewood’s Construction Defect Ordinance

October 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Denver Post reported that some Colorado metro communities “say they are ready to take a hard look at modifying Colorado's law on builder defects, which they blame for hampering new condominium construction amid the buildout of the region's 122-mile commuter-rail system.” Lone Tree has “scheduled a study session for Tuesday to discuss drafting its own construction-defects ordinance while a city councilmember in Englewood has put in a request that the city take up the topic.” According to the Denver Post, “Brighton, Broomfield and Centennial…also want to give the issue more attention.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The US District Court of Washington has issued a ruling in the case of Ledcor Industries v. Virginia Surety Company, Inc. Ledcor was the builder of a mixed-use real estate project in Seattle called the Adelaide Project. Ledcor purchased an insurance policy from Virginia Surety covering the project. After the completion of the project, Ledcor received complaints of construction defects from the homeowners, which they forwarded to Virginia Surety.



Virginia Surety denied coverage on several grounds. Absent any lawsuit, Virginia claimed that there was “not yet any duty to defend or indemnify.” Further, as the policy commenced ten days after work on the project was substantially completed, Virginia cited a provision in the policy that excluded coverage for damage that occurred before the policy began. As problems included water intrusion, Virginia noted an exclusion for fungal damage. Finally, Virginia noted that it was not clear whether damage was due to Ledcor’s own actions.



The homeowners sued over the construction defects. Ledcor settled these suits before trial. In this, they were defended by, and settlements were paid by American Home, another of Ledcor’s insurers. Ledcor claims that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith by denying coverage and by its failure to investigate the ongoing nature of the work at the project.



The judge determined that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith when it invoked the fungus exclusion. Virginia noted that fungal damage “‘would have been’ referenced in the list of construction defects,” however, the HOAs claimed only “water stains” and “water damage,” and made no mention of mold or fungus. The court found that Virginia Surety “was not entitled to deny coverage simply because it may have suspected that mold or fungus damage existed.” The court noted that further proceedings would be needed to determine what portion of the settlement Virginia is obligated to pay.



The court found that there were matters of fact to be determined on the further issues in the case. The judge wrote that although Virginia acted in bad faith in invoking the fungus exclusion, it still had to be determined if they were in breach of contract by failing to defend Ledcor. Ledcor still needs to show that the damages claimed by the HOA were due to work actually covered by Virginia Surety.



Ledcor made an additional claim that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s laws concerning the insurance industry. Here, the court noted that the improper exclusion for fungus issues “constitutes a per se unfair trade practice.” Six other claims were made under this law. The court found that Virginia Surety did not misrepresent “pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions.” It also issued its denial letter promptly, satisfying the fifth provision. However, Virginia Surety did violate the second provision, in that it failed “to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims.” Two other issues could not be determined.



Judge Martinez’s decision granted a summary judgment to Ledcor on the issue of bad faith. An additional summary judgment was granted that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act. Judge Martinez did not grant summary judgment on any of the other issues Ledcor raised.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---