Photo of Tred R. Eyerly

Tred once again was selected by his peers for inclusion in the 2025 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America® for his work in Commercial Litigation, Insurance Law and Litigation-Insurance. He was also named Best Lawyers® 2022 Litigation Insurance “Lawyer of the Year” in Honolulu. A designation given to a single attorney in each practice group by metropolitan area.

    The Federal District Court in Virginia found that allegations of faulty workmanship could arise from an occurrence. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Strongwell Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79163 (W. D. Va. June 4, 2013).

   Strongwell supplied certain fiberglass reinforced plastic materials to a subcontractor of Black & Veatch for a construction

   The Seventh Circuit found that an "Injury to Employees, Contractors, and Employees of Contractors" exclusion was not applicable to bar coverage for injuries to a construction worker. Atlantic Casualty Ins. Co. v. Paszko Masonry, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11561 (7th Cir. June 7, 2013).

   The underlying plaintiff was an employee of a waterproofing

   The Maine Supreme Court found a homeowner's policy did not cover damages for loss of investment, undisclosed physical problems with the property, and emotional distress. Langevin v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2013 LEXIS Me 54 (Me. June 4, 2013).

   The underlying plaintiffs sued the insured after purchasing his home for $315,000. The insured

   The U.S. District Court in Alabama certified a question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: Is damage to a project caused by faulty workmanship "property damage" resulting from an "occurrence"? With some qualification, the Connecticut Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. Capstone Building Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., SC 18886 (Conn. June 11, 2013).

   The federal district court assumed there was "property damage" caused by an "occurrence," but found the business risk exclusions barred coverage for construction defect claims. Hubbell v. Carney Bros. Constr., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68331 (D. Colo. May 13, 2013).

   The plaintiffs entered a construction contract with the insured general contractor to build