ConstructionRisk.com Report (Nov 2010)

A1 - Expert Testimony Found Insufficient to Establish Standard of Care against Engineering Firm
A2 - Where Mold Damage was Expressly Excluded from Coverage, the Fact it Resulted from a Covered Concurrent Cause Did not Bring it Back Within Coverage
A3 - Developer’s Assignee Can Bring Suit against Engineer for Redesign Costs but Economic Loss Rule Prevents Original Developer (Assignor) from Bringing Negligence Action against Engineer
A4 - Agreeing to Pay Reasonable Attorneys Fees as Part of Indemnification May Create Uninsurable Loss
A5 - The Duty to Defend as part of Indemnity Agreement is Alive and Well in California: Don’t be fooled by Favorable Commentary on California SB 972

ConstructionRisk.com Report (Oct 2010)

A1 - Economic Loss Doctrine Bars Contractor Suit against Engineer
A2 - Expert Testimony is Required to Prove Construction Management Failed to Meet the Standard of Care
A3 - Professional Services Exclusion of Engineer’s CGL Policy Properly Applied to Bar Coverage for Wrongful Death Action Resulting from Trench Collapse
A4 - Unlicensed Contractor forced to Refund all Payments back to the Homeowners

A1 - Liquidated Damages Enforced Against Road Re-Striping Contractor on Federal Highway Project
A2 - Subcontractor Barred from Appealing Federal Government Decision on a Prime Contract Dispute Even though it was 3rd Party Beneficiary
A3 - Expert Witness Adequately Testified to Consensus Opinion on Applicable Standard of Care
A4 - Limitation of Liability Clause in Engineer’s Contract Enforced in Georgia
A5 - Contractor Entitled to Equitable Adjustment on Navy Contract for Constructive Change that Resulted from Navy’s Interpretation of Ambiguous Specification
A6 - Bodily Injuries and Property Damage from Garage Collapse are Excluded from Coverage under Design Professional’s CGL Policy

A1 - Construction Manager is Immune from a Contractor’s Employee Personal Injury Suit pursuant to the Workers Compensation Statute
A2 - Arizona Supreme Court Reaffirms Economic Loss Doctrine
A3 - Design Professionals Should not Agree to Defend Clients
A4 - $26.9 Million in Liquidated Damages Not a Windfall to Power Plant Owner

A1 - Consultant’s Duty to Defend Under a Contract with Developer Arises At the Time of Tender Despite the Lack of a Finding of Negligence Against the Consultant
A2 - Contractor Can Sue Architect on Quantum Meruit Basis Where no Contract Exists
A3 - Statute of Limitations for Negligence Actions Bars Suit against Engineer that was based on Breach of Contract Allegations
A4 - When Does a Notice from Client Become a Claim that Must be Reported to Insurance Carrier?
A5 - Economic Loss Doctrine in Pennsylvania Bars Owner’s Negligence Claim against Designers and Construction Subcontractors