Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Appraisal Process Analyzed

August 19, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Court of Appeal offered a primer in the appraisal process in reversing the trial court's confirmation of the appraisal award. Lee v. California Capital Ins. Co., 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 530 (Cal. Ct. App. June 18, 2015). A fire damaged an apartment building owned by the insured. The fire started in unit 3 on the ground floor. The insurer argued the fire did not extend beyond unit 3. The insured claimed that the fire damaged six of the 12 apartments with fire or smoke. The insured's public adjuster submitted a claim to the insurer that exceeded $800,000. The statement of loss included costs for cleaning, asbestos abatement, reconstruction of affected apartments, and loss of rent. The public adjuster said the loss consisted of burn damage to unit 3 and some damage to the "common" walls located between the apartments on the two floors above unit 3. All of the interior rooms of five apartments other than unit 3 would need to be completely dismantled and then replaced. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

COVID-19 Response: California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board Implements Sweeping New Regulations to Prevent COVID-19 in the Workplace

December 14, 2020 — Peter Shapiro, Drake Mirsch & Jade McKenzie - Lewis Brisbois
On November 19, 2020, the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (OSHSB) proposed sweeping and significant new emergency standards to reduce employee exposure to COVID-19. These standards have been accepted by the Office of Administrative Law and are effective as of November 30, 2020. Accordingly, it is critical that employers familiarize themselves with these new requirements and begin to implement these standards as quickly as possible. The standards include COVID-19 prevention in the workplace, multiple COVID-19 infections and outbreaks in the workplace, “major” COVID-19 outbreaks in the workplace, prevention in employer provided housing, and prevention in employer-provided transportation to and from work. They apply to all California employers and places of employment, except places with one employee who does not have contact with others, employees working from home, or employees in specified health care facilities, services or operations when covered by section 5199. COVID-19 Prevention Program Employers are required to establish, implement, and maintain an “effective” written COVID-19 Prevention Program. Under the Program, an employer is responsible for developing a system for communicating about COVID-19, identifying and evaluating COVID-19 hazards, investigating and responding to COVID-19 cases, correcting COVID-19 hazards, providing training and instructions to employees regarding COVID-19, ensuring all employees are physically distanced, providing face coverings, implementing policies regarding personal protective equipment and recordkeeping, ensuring COVID-19 cases are excluded from the workplace, and prohibiting symptomatic employees from returning to work unless certain requirements are met. Reprinted courtesy of Peter Shapiro, Lewis Brisbois, Drake Mirsch, Lewis Brisbois and Jade McKenzie, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Shapiro may be contacted at Peter.Shapiro@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Mirsch may be contacted at Drake.Mirsch@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. McKenzie may be contacted at Jade.Mckenzie@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Important Information Regarding Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Rights.

November 07, 2012 — David McLain, Colorado Construction Litigation
With payment problems in the construction economy having accelerated over the past few years, there has been a substantial increase in mechanic’s lien activity and associated litigation. The typical mechanic’s lien claimant is a material supplier, a trade subcontractor, or even a general contractor that has not been paid by the developer/owner of the construction project. The reason for filing a mechanic’s lien claim is that it offers the prospect in many cases to make the unpaid construction professional a priority creditor, with a lien on the real estate that is superior to the construction lender. One of the primary rules governing a mechanic’s lien claim is that the creditor’s formal written “Notice of Intent to File a Mechanic’s Lien” (hereafter “Lien Notice”) must be (1) served on the owner of the property for which the work was done or the materials used, and (2) served at the same time on the general contractor who has handled the construction project. After the creditor has made service of the lien claim by USPS certified mail (using the green return receipt card for proof of service) or separate personal delivery of the notice to the property owner and general contractor, ten full days must pass (not including the date of mailing of the notices) before the lien notice is filed in the public records. After ten days have expired following the date of mailing using certified mail, or personal delivery of the notice to the property owner and the general contractor, the lien notice can be filed to make the lien valid. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Product Defect Allegations Trigger Duty To Defend in Pennsylvania

August 31, 2020 — Stacy M. Manobianca - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently concluded, in Nautilus Insurance Co. v. 200 Christian Street Partners, LLC., that a duty to defend is triggered when product-related allegations are pled in connection with a claim for defective construction. In Nautilus, the coverage dispute arose out of two independent underlying lawsuits in which homeowners alleged that the homes built by 200 Christian Street Partners (“Christian Street”) were defectively constructed. Christian Street tendered the claim to its insurer, Nautilus Insurance Co. (“Nautilus”), for defense and indemnity.1 Nautilus filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to defend Christian Street in the underlying actions.2 Specifically, Nautilus asserted that it was not required to provide a defense in the underlying actions because Pennsylvania law does not consider faulty workmanship to constitute an “occurrence” and, therefore, to trigger the policy’s insuring agreement and the insurer’s duty to defend.3 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stacy M. Manobianca, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Manobianca may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com

'There Was No Fighting This Fire,' California Survivor Says

September 14, 2020 — The Associated Press (Brian Melley & Terence Chea) - Bloomberg
Berry Creek, Calif. (AP) -- John Sykes built his life around his cabin in the dense woods of Northern California. He raised his two children there, expanded it and improved it over time and made it resilient to all kinds of disaster except fire. So when the winds started howling Tuesday and the skies became so dark from smoke that he had to turn on his lights at midday, he didn’t hesitate to leave it all behind in an instant before any evacuation order. With the disaster two years ago in nearby Paradise, in which 85 people perished in the deadliest and most destructive fire in modern state history, still fresh on his mind, Sykes got his wife and a friend into his car and left with only a change of clothes each. “All I could do is look in the rear view mirror and see orange sky and a mushroom cloud and that told me it was hot and to keep going,” Sykes said Friday. “It was a terrifying feeling.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

Potential Pitfalls Under the Contract Disputes Act for Federal Government Contractors

February 28, 2018 — Sarah K. Carpenter – Smith Currie Publications
The Contract Disputes Act (CDA) governs monetary and non-monetary disputes arising out of contracts or implied-in-fact contracts between the federal government and contractors. Because the CDA is an exclusive remedy, it is important that contractors be wary of the many pitfalls that may be encountered by a contractor seeking to assert a claim against the government under the CDA. The pitfalls faced by a contractor under the CDA can arise before a contractor becomes aware of a potential claim. Pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 43.204(c), a contracting officer should include in any supplemental agreement, including any change order, a Contractor’s Statement of Release which requires a contractor to execute a broad release of the government from any and all liability under the contract. As a result of this FAR provision, in executing a routine change order, a contractor may inadvertently release its right to pursue a potential claim under the CDA. A contractor should always review any release language prior to executing a supplemental agreement or change order with the government. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sarah K. Carpenter, Smith Currie
Ms. Carpenter may be contacted at skcarpenter@smithcurrie.com

Pollution Exclusion Found Ambiguous

May 23, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Mississippi Supreme Court found the pollution exclusion ambiguous under the facts presented. Omega Protein, Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 2022 Miss. LEXIS 90 (Miss. March 31, 2022). Omega Protein, Inc., entered a contract with Ascu-fab to perform welding and other fabrication work at their facility. Accu-fab was required to have CGL coverage naming Omega as an additional insured. Accu-fab purchased a $1 million primer policy from Colony Insurance Company and a $5 million excess policy issued by Evanston Insurance Company. Accu-fab performed welding and other fabrication work on a large metal storage tank used for the temporary storage of stickwater, which was a liquid composed of water, fish oil, and fish solids. An explosion occurred at the Omega plant while Accu-fab workers were welding and grinding on a large metal tank that was used for the temporary storage of stickwater. One of Accu-fab's workers , Jerry Lee Tayler, was killed, another was seriously injured, and still others suffered less serous injuries. 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

Court Reminds Insurer that the Mere Possibility Of Coverage at the Time of Tender Triggers a Duty to Defend in a Defect Action

October 04, 2021 — Jatin Patel - Newmeyer Dillion
It has long been the law in California that an insurer’s duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and that the mere possibility of coverage triggers a duty to defend. Nevertheless, insurers still periodically ignore this clear principle and attempt to narrow the scope of the duty to defend. Recently, a Federal District Court issued a reminder to a wayward insurer. In Pacific Bay Masonry, Inc., v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company, (N.D. Cal., Sept. 16, 2021, No. C 20-07376 WHA, 2021 WL 4221747 (“Pacific”)), the Court was asked to assess whether a tender of defense by a concrete masonry subcontractor to its insurer for a construction defect action required a defense. Pacific Bay Masonry, Inc. (“PBM”) installed concrete masonry units (also known as “CMUs”) at a new retail shopping center in Oakland, California. The subsequent owner of the retail center filed suit against the general contractor for alleged construction defects, including “efflorescence of roof deck at CMU wall” and “improper waterproofing and flashing of the CMU block wall." The general contractor filed a cross-complaint against PBM. PBM tendered the defense of the case to Navigators Specialty Insurance Company (“Navigators”) along with copies of a preliminary defect list, a description of defects, interrogatory responses and an expert witness damage analysis. Navigators denied coverage and a duty to defend citing to the work product exclusion of the policy. PBM asked Navigators to reconsider. Navigators held firm on its denial. Two years later, PBM filed suit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jatin Patel, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Patel may be contacted at jatin.patel@ndlf.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES