Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

New York Instructs Property Carriers to Advise Insureds on Business Interruption Coverage

April 13, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) took the unusual step last week of instructing all property/casualty insurers to provide information on commercial property insurance and details on business interruption coverage in light of the COVID-19 outbreak. The notice is here. The notice recognizes that policyholders have urgent questions about the business interruption coverage under their policies. Insurers must explain to policyholders the benefits under their policies and the protections provided in connection with COVID-19. The explanation to policyholders is to include the following relevant information.

What type of commercial property insurance or otherwise related insurance policy does the insured hold?

Does the insured's policy provide "business interruption" coverage? If so, provide the "covered perils" under such policy. Please also indicate whether the policy contains a requirement for "physical damage or loss" and explain whether contamination related to a pandemic may constitute "physical damage or loss." Please describe what type of damage or loss is sufficient for coverage under the policy.

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

Insured's Experts Excluded, But Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment Denied

October 26, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Despite barring the insured's expert witnesses from testifying as to the cause of the loss, lay witnesses were still available, making the district court's award of summary judgment to the insurer improper. Greater Hall Temple Church of God v. Southern Mut. Church Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 21934 (11th Cir. July 15, 2020). Hurricane Matthew damaged the Greater Hall Temple Church of God's (Church) roof. Leaks occurred, causing water damage to the Church's interior. A claim was submitted to Southern Mutual. The policy did not cover loss caused by water. Nor did it cover loss to the interior of buildings unless the rain entered through openings made by a specified peril. An independent adjuster found that the damage was caused not by wind, but by pre-exisiting structural issues. Southern Mutual denied the claim. The Church filed suit. Southern Mutual moved for summary judgment and also moved to strike three of the Church's expert witnesses. The district court agreed that none of the witnesses could qualify as experts. Two of the witnesses did not have the requisite experience nor had they used a sufficiently reliable methodology formulating their opinions. A third expert was barred because his expert opinion had not been timely disclosed. Thereafter, Southern Mutual's motion for summary judgment was granted because the Church had not provided admissible evidence that damage to the Church's roof was caused by Hurricane Matthew. 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

Claim for Collapse After Demolition of Building Fails

January 09, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
After several city citations and the eventual demolition of the insureds' apartment building, their claim for coverage based on collapse was unsuccessful. Barker v. AmGuard Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202069 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 7, 2022). The plaintiffs purchased a three-story multi-family apartment building on March 9, 2009. Prior to the purchase, steel beams were installed in the basement along the east and south walls. By 2013, the south and east walls were leaning. On March 13, 2017, the city building inspector observed "the foundation failing in several areas and deflection in the south wall." The building inspector issued a citation for a pubic nuisance in violation of the City Code. This was followed by several more citations against plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' inspector reported the basement walls were experiencing "extensive lateral deflections primarily due to the inadequate design of the basement walls." Plaintiffs understood the issues to be "cosmetic.'" They had no work done on the property besides aesthetic upgrades. After additional citations were entered, the building was ordered demolished. 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

Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law

November 13, 2023 — Yaron Shaham - Kahana Feld
In order for a plaintiff to prove a defendant is negligent, the plaintiff must prove the defendant (1) owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) breached that duty, (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the resulting monetary damage. However, for both plaintiffs and defendants it is not an all or nothing game in California. This is because California is a pure Comparative Negligence state. California’s Comparative Negligence law provides that even if a plaintiff is deemed 99% at fault, the plaintiff can still recover 1% in damages from a defendant. Thus, even if a plaintiff is deemed to be more than 50% (or even 99%) at fault for the incident, the plaintiff could still recover some monetary amount, or the defendant will still have to pay plaintiff, depending on how you see it. In most instances, a jury decides what percentage of fault to assign to each party. Just as a plaintiff must prove he/she/its negligence case against a defendant, if the defendant claims plaintiff was partially responsible for the incident, the defendant must prove plaintiff was also negligent and said negligence contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. The total amount of monetary responsibility distributed among all defendants and plaintiffs must equal 100%. As crazy as it may sound, a plaintiff found to be 99.9% at fault, is still entitled to recover 0.01% from a defendant in California. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Yaron Shaham, Kahana Feld
Mr. Shaham may be contacted at yshaham@kahanafeld.com

More Details Emerge in Fatal Charlotte, NC, Scaffold Collapse

January 17, 2023 — Derek Lacey & Jim Parsons - Engineering News-Record
Details have emerged in the Jan. 2 scaffold collapse at an under-construction apartment high-rise in Charlotte, N.C. that killed three workers and injured two. A work suspension continues during an investigation led by the North Carolina Dept. of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Division. Reprinted courtesy of Derek Lacey, Engineering News-Record and Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record Mr. Lacey may be contacted at laceyd@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Inspectors Hurry to Make Sure Welds Are Right before Bay Bridge Opening

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Each of the 20 welds at the base of the tower of the Bay Bridge took more than four hours to complete, with the lengthy welds forming at one-and-a-half inches per minute. They’ve been finished for two years now, but inspectors are just now checking the welds for defects. Any defects found will have to be removed and repaired. Mazen Wahbeh, an engineer on the project, assumes that less than 5 percent of the total welded area will have to be repaired. According to Wahbeh, the bridge can open before the welds are thoroughly checked and repaired, and so “the contractor is prioritizing the remaining work.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

N.J. Appellate Court Applies Continuous Trigger Theory in Property Damage Case and Determines “Last Pull” for Coverage

November 15, 2017 — K. Alexandra Byrd – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, published an important decision addressing several fundamental issues regarding how a commercial general liability (CGL) policy applies to long-term property damage. The court held that: (1) a continuous trigger theory of coverage may be applied to third-party liability claims involving progressive property damage caused by an insured’s allegedly defective work; (2) the “last pull” (i.e., the cutoff point) of the continuous trigger is when the “essential nature and scope” of the property damage first becomes known or could reasonably be known; and (3) the “last pull” is not when the property damage is “attributed” to the insured’s faulty work. The underlying action in Air Master & Cooling Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co., et al. 1 concerned property damage arising out of the construction of a seven-story, 101-unit condominium building in Montclair, New Jersey. The project’s construction manager hired Air Master & Cooling, Inc. (Air Master) to perform HVAC work on the project, including installing individual HVAC equipment in each resident’s unit from 2005 to 2008. In early 2008, unit owners began complaining about water infiltration and damage to their windows, ceilings, and other portions of their units. The general contractor and developer began assessing the damage and making repairs. Eventually, in April 2010, an expert consultant performed a moisture survey of the roof and discovered 111 areas that were damaged by water infiltration. The expert report indicated that “it [was] impossible to determine when [the] moisture infiltration occurred.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Byrd may be contacted at kab@sdvlaw.com

Disgruntled Online Reviews of Attorney by Disgruntled Former Client Ordered Removed from Yelp.com

June 30, 2016 — Renata L. Hoddinott & David W. Evans – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The Court of Appeal of the State of California – First Appellate District in Hassell v. Bird (6/7/16 – Case No. A143233) affirmed an order from a judgment in favor of an attorney and her firm and against a disgruntled former client directing non-party Yelp.com to remove defamatory reviews posted to its site. Attorney Dawn Hassell (“Hassell”) filed suit against Ava Bird (“Bird”) arising out of Hassell’s brief legal representation. The attorney/client relationship lasted a total of 25 days after which Hassell withdrew from the representation because of difficulties communicating with Bird and Bird expressed dissatisfaction with Hassell. When legal representation terminated, Bird had 21 months before the expiration of the statute of limitations on her personal injury claim. Reprinted courtesy of Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES