Key Lease Work Letter Issues When the Landlord Is Doing the Work
Law Brief®: David Pfeffer and Richard Schoenstein Discuss the Legal Implications of Infrastructure Collapses
Contractual Notice Requirements: Do You Really Need Them?
Construction Defects: Lessons Learned
California Court of Appeal Opens Doors for Construction Defect Claims Outside of the Right to Repair Act
In this month’s update, we discuss Russian-seized planes, Starbucks-caused traffic jams, a squabble over the use of a family name, a restaurant’s pandemic-based loss, a poorly built house, and whether insurance covers any of...more
Should a contractor’s Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance policy cover the expense of uncovering defective work causing damage to the owner’s property as well as the costs of exposing or accessing damaged building...more
The Connecticut Appellate Court recently provided guidance on what does not constitute property damage under a typical contractor’s Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance policy in Westchester Modular Homes of Fairfield...more
As a contractor, you are familiar with working together with subcontractors — delegating project scope as part of the overall job. However, when a subcontractor’s work is defective, who is liable for the damage?...more
With very limited exceptions, liability policies provide insureds with two primary benefits: a defense paid for by the insurance carrier and indemnity for covered claims. These benefits to the insured are purchased with...more
On November 30, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC, et al., 2023 IL 129087 with significant implications for insurance coverage of construction defects under...more
On 30 November 2023, Illinois joined the majority of states that recognize that commercial general liability (CGL) insurance covers damage to one part of a construction project caused by construction defects in other parts of...more
On July 29, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Southern Owners Ins. Co. v. MAC Contractors, of Fla., LLC, --- Fed. Appx. ---, 2020 WL 4345199 (11th Cir. July 29, 2020). While claiming to follow...more
The proper trigger of coverage in construction defect disputes has been addressed on several occasions by New Jersey courts. Most notably, in Air Master & Cooling, Inc. v. Selective Insurance Company of America, 452 N.J....more
A year ago, we wrote about a rapidly emerging area of insurance litigation in Connecticut: crumbling foundations. As a quick recap, tens of thousands of homes in northeastern Connecticut built over a span of more than 30...more
On October 9, 2018, in Ohio N. University v. Charles Constr. Servs., Inc., Slip Opinion 2018-Ohio-4057, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that property damage caused by a subcontractor’s allegedly defective work was not covered...more
A federal judge in Connecticut recently dismissed claims against insurers related to their denial of a claim by two homeowners whose home’s foundation was crumbling. The case, Hyde v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 3:18-cv-00031 (D....more
Two recent cases from separate California state courts correctly interpret the phrase “that particular part” and apply it in its intended narrow sense. This is good news for contractors and is in contrast to some recent...more
Ohio has joined the majority of jurisdictions in holding that a general liability policy may provide coverage for claims made by a project owner for property damage allegedly caused by the defective work of a subcontractor....more
One of the principal points of contention between insurers and insureds is whether defective construction work is, or can be, an occurrence, thereby triggering coverage. Originally published in ConsensusDocs (Vol. 3,...more
The South Carolina Supreme Court recently took a firm stance on what constitutes a sufficient reservation of rights letter in Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc., et al., — S.E.2d — , No. 2013-001281,...more
It’s said that “defeat is an orphan,” but insurable losses often have multiple, concurrent causes. In some cases, one or more of those causes might be outside the scope of coverage, either by omission or exclusion. In Sebo v....more