FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Trial Court Abuses Discretion in Appointing Unqualified Umpire for Appraisal

April 25, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Texas Court of Appeals agreed with the insurer that the trial court abused its discretion in appointing an attorney as umpire in a property damage dispute. In re State Farm Lloyds, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 966 (Tex. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2023). The insured filed an application for the appointment of an umpire regarding his insurance claim for property damage to his residence. The home was damaged by a hurricane on July 25, 2020, and the parties disagreed regarding the full extent of the property damage to the residence. The appraisers appointed by the insured and State Farm disagreed on the damages, leading to the insured asking the trial court to appoint a competent and disinterested umpire. The trial court appointed Derek Salinas, an attorney, as umpire. State Farm challenged the appointment because the policy required the umpire to be either an engineer, architect, adjuster, public adjuster, or a contractor with experience and training in the construction, repair and estimating the type of property damage in dispute. State Farm argued that Salinas met none of the criteria. The trial court rejected State Farm's motion for reconsideration. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Georgia Court Clarifies Landlord Liability for Construction Defects

June 02, 2016 — Chadd Reynolds - AHHC Construction Law Blog
In Cowart v. Schevitz, the Georgia Court of Appeals clarified the instances in which an out-of-possession landlord can be liable in a premises liability claim. No. A15A2036, 2016 WL 563114, at *4 (Ga. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2016). In this case, the plaintiff was leaving a restaurant and injured herself stepping down off of a sidewalk near the bottom of a ramp. The plaintiff filed a premises liability claim against the owner of commercial property (the “landlord”) and the operator of the restaurant (who later settled), seeking medical expenses and costs of litigation. An expert testifying on behalf of the plaintiff stated that the ramp was required to have railings pursuant to building codes and, had the railings been installed on the ramp, the plaintiff’s fall more than likely would not have occurred. The landlord moved for summary judgment, arguing that as an out-of-possession landlord, his liability to third persons for the use of the property by his tenant was precluded under O.C.G.A. § 44-7-14. The trial court denied the motion without comment, and the owner subsequently appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

---

Insureds' Experts Insufficient to Survive Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment

October 17, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The magistrate recommended that insurer's motion for summary judgment be granted due to the insureds' expert's inability to present genuine issues of material fact. Walker v. Century Sur. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142408 (E.D. Texas July 17, 2023). The insureds' property sustained damage from Hurricane Laura. Colonial Claims inspected the property for Century and reported that a portion of the roof was damaged by the hurricane. Century paid insureds $2,212,34. Van Fisher, an engineer with Envista Forensics, then inspected the interior of the property on Century's behalf. Fisher reported that there was some covered interior damage caused by a leak from a storm-created opening in the roof. However, Fisher further reported that there was other interior damage caused by existing water leaks not attributed to the hurricane and thus not covered by the policy. Century then paid the insureds an additional $485.05 based on Fisher's inspection. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

New Jersey Firm’s Fee Action Tossed for not Filing Substitution of Counsel

August 13, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Even though their client had terminated their services by email, a “New Jersey appeals court has tossed out a firm’s fee action” finding that the firm had “remained counsel of record because it did not file a substitution of counsel until almost a year later,” the New Jersey Law Journal reported. In Arturi, D’Argenio, Guagliardi & Meliti v. Sadej, Jesse and Carla Sadej had retained the firm, Arturi, D’Argenio, Guagliardi & Meliti, “to defend them in the underlying land use litigation brought in 2002 by the borough of Seaside Park, N.J.” The case had been dismissed, but was reinstated in 2009 by an appeals court. At that time, Arturi D’Argenio told the Sadejs that they would need to sign a new retainer agreement in order to continue representation. On July 18, 2010, the Sadejs emailed the firm stating that they were “officially terminated,” according to the opinion as quoted by the New Jersey Law Journal. The firm sued the Sadejs “for about $100,000 in fees it was allegedly owed from the Seaside Park case and other matters on behalf of Jesse Sadej.” However, a substitution of attorney wasn’t filed until months later. The case went to the appeals court, which stated that the firm should have withdrawn immediately after receiving the email notification from their client: “Because it failed to do so, it remained counsel of record and therefore was precluded from initiating the collection action at that point,” the judges said, as quoted by the New Jersey Law Journal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Doctrine of Merger Not a Good Blend for Seller of Sonoma Winery Property

April 15, 2015 — Kristen Lee Price and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Ram’s Gate Winery, LLC v. Joseph G. Roche, et al. (No. A139189 & A141090, filed 4/9/15) (Ram’s Gate), the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held the doctrine of merger did not extinguish a seller’s contractual duty to disclose potentially hazardous seismic conditions on a Sonoma winery property. In Ram’s Gate, the buyer of the property filed a lawsuit alleging the seller failed to disclose information relating to earthquake issues prior to the close of escrow. In the parties’ “Purchase and Sales Agreement” (Purchase Agreement) the seller agreed to disclose any information known to it regarding “known geological hazards . . . soil reports . . . geotechnical reports” and other facts “having effect on the value of the ownership or use of the property.” The seller, however, argued this disclosure warranty did not survive the escrow period because it did not expressly provide for survival while other provisions in the Purchase Agreement did. Reprinted courtesy of Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

If You Purchase a House at an HOA Lien Foreclosure, Are You Entitled to Excess Sale Proceeds?

February 03, 2020 — Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
That pesky excess sale proceeds statute, A.R.S. § 33-727, is making waves again. We previously blogged about this statute here. In the prior post, we explained that excess sale proceeds (i.e., a foreclosure sale price greater than the lien being foreclosed) must be used to pay other lien creditors, in full, before the owner receives anything. Recently, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that creditors also take excess sale proceeds before the person who purchased the property at foreclosure. The case, Vista Santa Fe Homeowners Association v. Millan, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0609 (Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2019), is discussed below. The Facts In Vista Santa Fe, an individual bought a home secured by a first and second deed and trust. The homeowner defaulted on assessments owed to the Vista Santa Fe Homeowners Association (the “HOA”), and the HOA commenced an action to foreclose the resulting assessment lien. At the time, the HOA was owed approximately $14,000. Patterson Commercial Land Acquisition & Development, LLC (“Patterson”) purchased the property at the HOA’s sheriff’s sale for $42,000. After satisfying the HOA’s lien, the sheriff deposited the excess sale proceeds, in the amount of approximately $28,000, with the clerk of the court. Both Patterson and the second deed of trust holder, Bank of New York Mellon (“Bank”), submitted claims for the excess sale proceeds.[1] The trial court awarded the money to the Bank, and Patterson appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer

---

Appellate Court Endorses Discretionary Test for Vicarious Disqualification of Law Firms Due To New Attorney’s Conflict

February 07, 2018 — David W. Evans and Stephen M. Tye – Publications & Insights
In California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund et al. v. The Superior Court of Orange County (1/26/2018 – No. G054981), the Fourth Appellate District considered whether vicarious disqualification of a law firm is mandatory or discretionary where an attorney with a conflict joins a firm and the firm enacts an ethical screen to prevent transmission of confidential information between the new attorney and the rest of the firm. This case arose from an effort by the California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund (the “Fund”) to be reimbursed for workers’ compensation benefits advanced on behalf of the Healthcare Industry Self-Insurance Program (the “Program”). The Fund hired Nixon Peabody LLP (“Nixon Peabody”) to represent it in connection with this matter. In November 2013, represented by members of Nixon Peabody’s San Francisco office, the Fund filed a lawsuit naming 304 members of the Program as defendants. Approximately 170 defendants have since settled. Two of the non-settling defendants (“Moving Parties”), were represented by Michelman & Robinson, LLP (“M&R”). From approximately 2009 until February 1, 2017, attorney Andrew Selesnick served as Chair of M&R’s Health Care Department at the firm’s Los Angeles office, managing a team of attorneys who represented clients in the healthcare industry. Commencing in 2014, a team of four attorneys at M&R, including Selesnick, represented the Moving Parties and four other defendants, the latter of whom have since settled. Selesnick was actively involved, including participating in a confidential discussion pertaining to Moving Parties’ liability and damages and receiving many e-mails containing communications about the common defense of the remaining 170 defendants. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown Bonesteel and Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown Bonesteel Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 6: Ensuring Availability of Insurance and State Regulations

August 03, 2022 — Scott P. DeVries & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Because of the potential exposure associated with wildfires, many insurers have attempted to withdraw from the property coverage market in various states. In this post in the Blog’s Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, we discuss the challenges businesses and individuals face in obtaining wildfire insurance coverage, and the regulatory scheme that is intended to help them secure adequate coverage. Given the increasing exposures associated with climate change, numerous insurers have sought to withdraw from the wildfire-related coverage market or increase rates to a level where they are effectively unavailable. States have been resistant to their doing so. As one commentator reports, “[e]ven where insurers have tried to withdraw policies or raise rates to reduce climate-related liabilities, state regulators have forced them to provide affordable coverage anyway, simply subsidizing the cost of underwriting such a risk policy or, in some cases, offering it themselves.” At least 30 states have developed regulation, referred to as “Fair Access to Insurance Requirements” (FAIR), to ensure the continued availability of insurance. The FAIR plan provides a channel to insurance for property owners who would be stuck without any reasonable access to insurance without state intervention. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---