Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes

September 07, 2020 — Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
The Court of Appeal closed out 2019 by ruling that an additional insured can be bound to the arbitration clause in a policy when a coverage dispute arises between that additional insured and the carrier. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 837.) In 2009, Future Farmers of America (“Future Farmers”) entered into a license agreement with SMG Holdings Incorporated (“SMG”) to use the Fresno Convention Center. As part of the agreement, Future Farmers was required to secure comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) coverage and name SMG and the City of Fresno as additional insureds (“AI”) on its policies. Future Farmers purchased a general liability policy from Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Neither SMG nor the City of Fresno were added as AIs, but the policy contained a “deluxe endorsement” which extended coverage to lessors of premises for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. The policy also contained an endorsement that extended coverage where required by a written contract for liability due to the negligence of the named insured. Philadelphia’s policy also stated that if the insurance company and insured “do not agree whether coverage is provided . . . for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.” A patron to Future Farmer’s event at the Fresno Convention Center was seriously injured after he tripped over a pothole in the parking lot and hit his head. He sued both Fresno and SMG. In turn, Fresno and SMG tendered their defense to Philadelphia. Philadelphia denied coverage finding that the incident did not arise out of Future Farmer’s negligence, and that SMG had the sole responsibility for maintaining the parking lot. Consequently, Philadelphia concluded that neither Fresno nor SMG qualified “as an additional insured under the policy” for the injury in the parking lot. The coverage dispute continued, and in 2016, Philadelphia issued a demand for arbitration which was rejected by SMG. Philadelphia then petitioned the state court to compel arbitration arguing that SMG could not avoid the burdens of the policy while seeking to obtain policy benefits. SMG used Philadelphia’s conclusion that it did not qualify as an AI under the policy to argue that Philadelphia was “estopped from demanding arbitration”. In other words, SMG argued that it could not be held to the burdens of the policy without being provided with the benefits of the policy. The trial court sided with SMG finding that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that while third party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitration there was no evidence that applied here, and Philadelphia could not maintain its inconsistent positions on the policy as its respects SMG. Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that SMG was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. The AI obligations in the license agreement and the deluxe endorsement in the Philadelphia policy collectively establish an intended beneficiary status. The Court saw SMG’s tender to Philadelphia as an acknowledgement of that status. Relatedly, the Court found that SMG’s tender to Philadelphia – its demand for policy benefits – equitably estopped them from avoiding the burdens of the policy. The Court stated it defied logic to require a named insured to arbitrate coverage disputes but free an unnamed insured demanding policy coverage from the same requirement. Conversely, the Court found no inconsistency in Philadelphia’s denial of coverage to SMG and its subsequent demand for arbitration. Philadelphia did not outright reject SMG’s status as a potential insured, but rather concluded that there was no coverage because the injury occurred in the parking lot. In other words, the coverage determination turned on the circumstances of the injury not SMG’s status under the policy. In short, the Court concluded that the potential insured takes the good with the bad. If one seeks to claim coverage as an additional insured, they can be subject to the restrictions of the policy including arbitration clauses even if they did not purchase the policy. Securing additional insurance has become increasingly more difficult and limited over the years, and this holding presents yet another hurdle to attaining AI coverage. For those seeking coverage, it is important to note that the Court’s ruling may have turned out differently had the carrier outright denied SMG’s AI status, rather than concluding that the injury was not covered. Your insurance scenario may vary from the case discussed above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
Ms. Ward may be contacted at dward@bph-law.com

Can a Non-Union Company Be Compelled to Arbitrate?

August 02, 2017 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
Some of the most viewed topics on this blog are those concerning double breasted company. That is a two separate firms, commonly owned, one that is a signatory to a union and the other that is merit shop. An issue frequently encountered with double breasted construction companies is an union arbitrator’s jurisdiction over the non-signatory firm. The issue usually goes something like this. A signatory employer’s collective bargaining agreement contains language prohibiting double breasting (which could be invalid). The collective bargaining agreement also contains an arbitration provision requiring all disputes concerning a breach of the agreement (a grievance) be decided by an arbitrator in private arbitration. The union files a demand for arbitration claiming that the union signatory has breached the collective bargaining agreement’s anti-dual shop provision. The union names the non-union firm as a party to the arbitration based on its status as an alleged “single employer.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Full Extent of Damage From Turkey Quakes Takes Shape

February 20, 2023 — Jeff Rubenstone - Engineering News-Record
Nearly two weeks after a pair of severe earthquakes rocked central Turkey and northern Syria, the full extent of damage to buildings and other structures is beginning to emerge. With the magnitude 7.8 and 7.5 epicenters located hundreds of kilometers apart, the area affected is vast. Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, Engineering News-Record Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Replacement of Defective Gym Construction Exceeds Original Cost

January 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Austin, Texas has torn down a school gym, the Turner-Roberts Recreation Center at the Overton Elementary School, due to structural problems which became evident after the gym was completed four years ago. The cost of the new gym is $6.4 million, more than the cost of building the gym in the first place. The city is paying $3 million in repair costs with the rest of the money coming from the companies that designed and built the now demolished gym. According to the Austin Statesman, the total cost to the city will be about $8.6 million. The Turner-Roberts Recreation Center cost $5.6 million to build, but soon after it opened, structural problems were discovered. Cracks formed in walls and glass doors buckled. The settlement with the designer, contractor, and engineering firm did not require the firms to admit fault as they paid $3.4 million to fix the situation. The Statesman was unable to get a breakdown of how much each firm paid. Tom Cornelius, president of the GSC, the architectural firm on the project told the Statesman that "the foundation issues were not caused by design defects." Initially, the city sought to repair the gym, but early excavation determined that the defects were too extensive. In addition to the structural flaws, it was also determined that the HVAC system was faulty. Excavation also damaged plumbing work. Tearing down the gym turned out to be the most cost-effective response. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Oregon Duty to Defend Triggered by Potential Timing of Damage

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Oregon Supreme Court has concluded that if it is possible that damage could have occurred prior to the completion of the project, then the policies in effect at that time are triggered. John Green of Farella Braun + Martel LLP writes that “we have long argued that, since the duty to defend exists if there is any ‘potential’ of covered liability, there is a potential that damage happened before that project was completed, or at any time after completion, triggering all policies in that time frame.” The Oregon court concluded that if property damage could have happened during construction, the insuerer had a duty to defend and “the insured had no burden to establish any additional facts to support that potential.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Toll Brothers to Acquire Shapell for $1.6 Billion

November 08, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Toll Brothers is purchasing the home-building business of Shapell Industries for $1.6 billion. This will increase Toll Brother’s presence in California, where it has been building homes since 1994. After the acquisition, Toll Brothers will have about 9,200 lots in California, while it currently has about 4,000. Toll Brothers is not purchasing the commercial development arm of Shapell. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Claim for Consequential Damages Survives Motion to Dismiss

November 14, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured's claim for consequential damages survived the insurer's motion to dismiss. Tiffany Tower Condominium, LLC v. Ins. Co. of the Greater N.Y., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5783 (N.Y. App. Div. Aug. 22, 2018). Tiffany Tower submitted a claim in November 2012 with Insurance Company of the Great New York for damages sustained by its building during Superstorm Sandy. The insurer paid the original claim in December 2012. Then, in September 2014, Tiffany Tower submitted a supplemental claim for additional losses which it asserted were caused by the storm. The insurer denied the supplemental claim. 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

Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania

February 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Douglas E. Cameron, Jay M. Levin, and Traci S. Rea look at the implications of a pair of Pennsylvania court decisions from 2012. The judge in both cases, Judge Wettick of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas held that comprehensive general liability policies do not cover any claims that arise from faulty workmanship. The three conclude that "these holdings may preclude coverage for any tort claims asserted against your company if the allegations involve construction defects, even if you are sued for property damage or personal injury by a third party to your construction contract." They note that both decisions have been appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES