Attorney Patricia Noyes Corrigan defeated a motion for summary judgment brought by a general contractor who re-constructed a multi-unit condominium building that sustained substantial water damage after the alleged failure of a pipe fitting that was installed during the construction. Attorney Noyes Corrigan represented the insurer who had paid the property owner for the property damage and commenced this subrogation lawsuit against the responsible contractors. The Court concluded that the Defendant contractor was not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims for compensation based on “waiver of subrogation” language contained in the AIA contract between the property owner and the Defendant general contractor because their agreement contained a separate “Rider “A” with terms that were materially different from the boilerplate subrogation language in the AIA contract. The Court concluded that “Rider “A” created an ambiguity that precluded enforcement of the standard AIA subrogation waiver provisions by Defendant against Plaintiff in this summary judgment motion. Additionally, the Court concluded that there were material issues of fact that could not be decided on summary judgment on the question of whether the general contractor satisfied terms of an express contractual warranty. The Court also rejected Defendant’s claim that Plaintiff’s proffered expert testimony on the question of the cause of the pipe fitting separation was inadmissible or otherwise inadequate to raise a jury question on the issue as to the cause of the water damage. Arbella Protection Insurance Co., v. M. Holland & Sons Construction Co., Inc. et al., Suffolk Superior Court, C.A. No.: 2184 CV 00425. Decided by the Honorable Cathleen E. Campbell.
