Tag Archives: Construction

Insurance – CGL Policy – Duty to Indemnify – Construction – Slab – ‘Your Work’ & ‘Professional Liability’ Exclusions (access required)

Penn National Security Insurance Co. v. Design-Build Corp. The defendant-engineering and contracting firm (the firm) designed and installed the slab for the defendant-owners’ building. A commercial general liability policy issued to the firm does not provide coverage for damage to or loss of use of the building arising from defects in the slab.

Read More »

Insurance – Duty to Indemnify – CGL – Construction – Retaining Walls & Foundations (access required)

Builders Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lacey Construction Co. A builder’s commercial general liability insurance policy may cover the cost of repairing sink holes in a resident’s yard if the builder’s faulty construction of a retaining wall led to the sink holes, but the policy does not cover any defects in the wall itself.

Read More »

Contract – Real Property – Construction – Mechanic’s Lien – Too Early – No Amount Stated – No Demand for Payment (access required)

Ferguson Fire & Fabrication, Inc. v. Preferred Fire Protection, LLC Before it finished providing materials for the defendant-owner’s improvement project, the plaintiff-supplier sent the owner a notice that it was providing such materials. However, the notice did not include an end-date, a final value of materials furnished, or a demand for payment. Therefore, no lien attached to the owner’s property.

Read More »

Contract – Construction – Unsatisfactory Performance – Brick Mason (access required)

Tetra Tech EX/Tesoro Joint Venture v. Sam Temples Masonry, Inc. The plaintiff-general contractor made payments to the defendant-mason for work which closer inspection might have shown to be defective. This was not a material variation from the compensation provisions of the subcontract. Neither could any failure to inspect the mason’s work constitute a failure to satisfy a duty owed to the mason. Any inadequacy in the general contractor’s inspections did not constitute a failure of a condition precedent to performance of the mason’s bond.

Read More »