Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Insurer’s Duty to Defend: When is it Triggered? When is it Not?

February 18, 2015 — Zach McLeroy – Colorado Construction Litigation
In Colorado it is well recognized that an insurer has a broad duty to defend its policyholder against pending claims. An insurer’s duty to defend is triggered when the underlying complaint against the insured alleges any set of facts that might fall within the coverage policy. Greystone Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance, Co., 661 F.3d 1272, 1284 (10th Cir. 2011). Even if the insurer’s duty to defend is not clear from the pleadings filed against the insured, the insurer’s duty to defend is triggered if the claim is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage. Id. If there is any doubt as to whether a theory of recovery falls within the policy coverage, such doubt is decided in favor of the insured and the insurer’s duty to defend is triggered. Id. In order to avoid this duty to defend, an insurer must show that an exemption to the policy applies and that no other basis exists for coverage under the policy. In Cornella Brothers, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 2014 WL 321335 (D. Colo. Jan. 29, 2015), the Court was to determine whether Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”) had a duty to defend a lawsuit filed against its insured, Cornella Brothers, Inc. (“Cornella”). The underlying lawsuit alleged construction defects at a recharging facility. Upon being named a party to the underlying litigation, Cornella provided notice to Liberty Mutual and demanded that Liberty Mutual defend Cornella. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zach McLeroy, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLeroy may be contacted at mcleroy@hhmrlaw.com

Eighth Circuit Affirms Judgment for Bad Faith after Insured's Home Destroyed by Fire

January 21, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment that the insurer acted in bad faith when it denied the insured's claim based upon misrepresentations in the application after destruction of his house by fire. Hayes v. Metropolitan Pro. and Cas. Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31813 (8th Cir. Nov. 9, 2018). Hayes' home was insured by Met under a homeowner's policy. Hayes used the detached garage as part of a home base for his plumbing business. He also rented out the second and third levels of the residence to a tenant and her two children. When Hayes applied for the policy in 2007, Met argues he indicated on the application that the premises were not used to conduct business, and were not used as rental property. 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

Is Arbitration Final and Binding?

July 02, 2018 — Jeanne M. Harrison - Smith Currie
Parties involved in a dispute may face a choice between arbitration and litigation. Previous articles in this series have discussed various factors that can influence that choice. One generally perceived advantage of arbitration is finality. But how final and binding is an arbitration award? The answer is governed primarily by the Federal Arbitration Act. The Federal Arbitration Act

Valid
Irrevocable; and
Enforceable, except on legal or equitable grounds for the revocation of a contract.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeanne M. Harrison, Smith Currie
Ms. Harrison may be contacted at jmharrison@smithcurrie.com

Caterpillar Said to Be Focus of Senate Overseas Tax Probe

March 26, 2014 — Richard Rubin and Jesse Drucker - Bloomberg
A U.S. Senate investigative panel is examining Caterpillar Inc. (CAT) and whether the company improperly avoided U.S. taxes by moving profits outside the country, said three people familiar with the inquiry. The Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will hold a hearing in early April, said two of the people. They spoke on condition of anonymity before an official announcement. Rachel Potts, a spokeswoman for Caterpillar, declined to comment. Two staff members for the subcommittee declined to comment. In 2009, Daniel Schlicksup, an employee who had worked on tax strategy, alleged in a lawsuit in federal court that Caterpillar used a “Swiss structure” to shift profits to offshore companies and avoid more than $2 billion in U.S. taxes. He also alleged that Caterpillar used a “Bermuda structure” involving shell companies to return profits to the U.S. without paying required taxes. Mr. Rubin may be contacted at rrubin12@bloomberg.net; Mr. Drucker may be contacted at jdrucker4@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Rubin and Jesse Drucker, Bloomberg

Singer Ordered to Deposition in Construction Defect Case

December 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The pop singer Rihanna has sued the former owners of her Los Angeles home and the firm that inspected it before her purchase alleging water intrusion problems that were supposed to be fixed before close of escrow. The lawsuit was filed under the singer’s legal name, Robyn Fenty. According to Gregory Pyfrom, the attorney for LaRocca Inspection Associates, he has tried to depose her over the last two years, without success. He is seeking $7,500 in compensation to his clients for the singer’s failure to schedule a deposition. Rihanna’s attorney, Miles Cooley, described this as “a smear campaign,” and claims that the parties had agreed not to depose her “until after the matter was mediated.” Mr. Cooley says that mediation has been delayed by Mr. Pyfrom’s vacation plans. LaRocca Inspection Associates has countersued Rihanna, claiming that if she had alerted them earlier to problems they would have performed an additional inspection. The judge in the case has now ordered that the parties agree to a date on which to depose Ms. Fenty. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SB800 Not the Only Remedy for Construction Defects

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
“We anticipate an increase in residential construction defect litigation in response to this ruling,” David Frenznic, a construction defect lawyer at Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney LLP told the Central Valley Business Times. Mr. Frenznic was responding to an August ruling by the California Court of Appeals that found that SB800 does not create the only remedy for homeowners with construction defects. “Homeowners who suffer actual damage as a result of construction defects have a choice of remedies,” said Mr. Frenznick. SB800 established a shorter statute of limitations for construction defect claims, however, “the ruling makes clear that common law claims are still governed by the longer statues of limitations.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

10 Haight Lawyers Recognized in Best Lawyers in America© 2023 and The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2023

August 22, 2022 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Four Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys were selected for Best Lawyers in America© 2023. Congratulations to:

Bruce Cleeland – Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Peter Dubrawski – Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Denis Moriarty – Insurance law
Ted Penny – Workers’ Compensation Law – Claimants

Six Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys were selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2023. Congratulations to:

Courtney Arbucci – Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants; Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Frances Brower – Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Kyle DiNicola – Transportation Law
Arezoo Jamshidi – Appellate Practice; Transportation Law
Kristian Moriarty – Transportation Law
Bethsaida Obra-White – Construction Law; Insurance Law; Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage

July 20, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled on July 8 in the case of Rollander Enterprises, Inc. v. H.C. Nutting Co. Judge Baily wrote the opinion affirming the decision of the trial court.

The case involved an unfinished condominium complex, the Slopes of Greendale, in Greendale, Indiana. Rollander is a real estate development company incorporated in Ohio. One of the issues in the case was whether the case should be settled in the Indiana courts or be tried in Ohio. The project was owned by a special purpose entity limited liability corporation incorporated in Indiana.

Rollander hired Nutting to determine the geological composition of the site. Nutting’s report described the site as “a medium plastic clay containing pieces of shale and limestone.” The court summarized this as corresponding with “slope instability and landslides.” Rollander then hired Nutting to design the retaining walls, which were constructed by Scherziner Drilling.

After cracking was discovered on State Route 1, the walls were discovered to be inadequate. More dirt was brought in and a system of tie-backs was designed to anchor the walls. Not only were the tie-backs unsightly, local officials would not approve the complex for occupancy. Further, the failure of the wall below one building lead to damage of that building.

The court concluded that since almost all events occurred in Indiana, they rejected Rollander’s contention that the case should be tried in Ohio. Further, the court notes “the last event making Nutting potentially liable on both claims was an injury that occurred in Indiana and consequently, under the lex loci delicti analysis, Indiana law applies.”

Nor did the court find that Nutting was responsible for the damage to the rest of the project, citing an Indiana Supreme Court ruling, that “there is no liability in tort to the owner of a major construction project for pure economic loss caused unintentionally by contractors, subcontractors, engineers, design professionals, or others engaged in the project with whom the project owner, whether or not technically in privity of contract, is connected through a network or chain of contracts.”

The court concluded:

Because Rollander was in contractual privity with Nutting, and Indy was connected to Nutting through a chain of contracts and no exception applies, the economic loss rule precludes their recovery in tort. Damage to Building B was not damage to "other property," and the negligent misrepresentation exception to the economic loss rule is inapplicable on these facts. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by entering judgment on the evidence in favor of Nutting on the Appellants' negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims.

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES