Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Recent Environmental Cases: Something in the Water, in the Air and in the Woods

July 22, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
State of Texas, et al. v. US EPA. The revised regulatory definition of “Waters of the U.S.” continues to generate litigation in the federal courts. On May 28, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas held that the 2015 rulemaking proceedings used by EPA and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to redefine this important component of the Clean Water Act were flawed in that the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) were violated because insufficient notice was provided by these agencies that “adjacent” waters newly subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of these agencies, can be determined on the basis of specific distances, which was a change in the agencies’ thinking, and insufficient notice of this change was provided to the public. In addition, the final rule “also violated the APA by preventing interested parties from commenting on the scientific studies that served as the technical basis” for the rule. However, the court did not vacate the new rule, but remanded the matter to the “appropriate administrative agencies” to give them an opportunity to fix this problem. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma v. US EPA and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. A day later, on May 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma rejected arguments that the new redefinition should be preliminarily enjoined.While this case was filed in 2015, intervening litigation in the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, caused a substantial delay in the disposition of this case. The court, noting that the tests for granting such an injunction against the federal government are fairly exacting, held that the plaintiffs, the State of Oklahoma and a number of industry groups and associations, failed to convince the court that the harm they would suffer if the rules remained effective would be irreparable. Presumably, this case will be going to trial in the near future. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Five-Year Statute of Limitations on Performance-Type Surety Bonds

December 01, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The statute of limitations on a claim against a performance-type bond is 5 years from the breach of the bond, i.e., the bond-principal’s default (based on the same statute of limitations that governs written contracts / obligations). See Fla. Stat. s. 95.11(2)(b). This 5-year statute of limitations is NOT extended and does NOT commence when the surety denies the claim. It commences upon the default of the bond-principal, which would be the act constituting the breach of the bond. This does not mean that the statute of limitations starts when a latent defect is discovered. This is not the case. In dealing with a completed project, the five-year statute of limitations would run when the obligee (beneficiary of the bond) accepted the work. See Federal Insurance Co. v. Southwest Florida Retirement Center, Inc., 707 So.2d 1119, 1121-22 (Fla. 1998). This 5-year statute of limitations on performance-type surety bonds has recently been explained by the Second District in Lexicon Ins. Co. v. City of Cape Coral, Florida, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2521a (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), a case where a developer planned on developing a single-family subdivision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Insurance Telematics and Usage Based Insurance Products

October 29, 2014 — Robert Ansehl – White and Williams LLP
The New York State Department of Financial Services (the "DFS") issued Insurance Circular Letter No. 4 on May 27, 2014 (the “Circular Letter”). The purpose of the Circular Letter was to alert stakeholders of the DFS’ interest in obtaining information about products that use embedded telematic devices, including usage-based insurance products (“UBI”) that provide benefits to insurers and policyholders. As data capture and transmission technology become more advanced, and as user interfaces become increasingly sophisticated, many insurers are considering UBI and other programs that rely upon telematic devices to monitor the behavioral patterns, tendencies and habits of insureds. For example, when these devices are installed in an insured's vehicle, a telematic device can gather driving data, including miles driven, the time of day the driver used the vehicle, and his/her speed, acceleration and braking patterns. This data can be captured and transmitted on a real-time basis that allows insurers to make more effective underwriting determinations and to better align pricing with an insured’s driving tendencies and the resulting attendant risks. Other insurers have applied UBI to homeowner’s insurance where, for example, smoke and other alarms and monitoring devices can monitor and transmit details regarding the resident's risk-based activities (for example, whether and how often and how long the insured uses ovens and stoves on an attended and unattended basis). This data can be used to facilitate an insurer’s ability to correlate insurance coverage decisions with the insured’s actual behavior (as opposed to self-reported behavior) as measured by sophisticated home-based telematic devices. In addition, UBI and other programs provide the data on a real-time basis, as opposed to collecting information via traditional means, principally based upon post-claim reporting. Tempering increased UBI usage are countervailing privacy and data protection concerns and risks. Regulators, insurers and consumers have significant stakes in the availability, access and applications of this information. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert Ansehl, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ansehl may be contacted at ansehlr@whiteandwilliams.com

Construction Defect Coverage Barred Under Business Risk Exclusion in Colorado

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A federal court in Colorado recently applied the business risk exclusion to a construction defect case. Aaron Mandel and Stevi Raab of Sedgwick Law discuss this in Construction Defect Coverage Quarterly. The court found that the business risk exclusion barred coverage for an underlying construction defect. In the construction defect case, the Creek Side at Parker homeowners association sued the developer and builder. One such alleged defect was that “the plumbing contractor’s faulty installation of sewer and water lines damaged the lines themselves, caused surrounding asphalt and concrete to crack and deteriorate, and resulted in water intrusion.” The court concluded that this damage to non-defective work was an occurrence, but the exclusion in the contract covered only property damage that occurred “while the work is ongoing.” The court concluded that the business risk exclusion barred coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Home Construction Thriving in Lubbock

December 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The 2013 numbers for home construction aren’t ready yet, but the January through November numbers for Lubbock, Texas show a 42% increase over the number of construction permits issued for single-family homes in the first 11 months of 2012. The number look even better compared to 2011’s totals, according to KFYO. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Lay Testimony Sufficient to Prove Diminution in Value

September 25, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The trial court erred in excluding lay testimony on diminution of value of the insured's property and by requiring expert testimony. Woodrum v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS 429 (Ga. Ct. App. June 27, 2018). During a thunderstorm, a large tree fell onto the roof the insured's house, causing significant damage. The damage was reported to their insurer, Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company. When there was disagreement on the amount of the loss, an appraisal was invoked. An award was agreed to and payment was made by Georgia Farm. 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

The Right to Repair Act Means What it Says and Says What it Means

December 18, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
A rather short case for a short week. In Gerlach v. K. Hovnanian’s Four Seasons at Beaumont, LLC, 82 Cal.App.5th 303 (2022), the 4th District Court of appeals examined provisions of the Right to Repair Act (Civ. Code §§895 et. seq), also known as “SB 800” after its original bill number, as it applies to roofs. The Gerlach Case Lynn Gerlach and Lola Seals are homeowners who purchased their homes in the Four Seasons at Beaumont adult community, for those 55 year old and older, located in Beaumont, California. Gerlach purchased her home when it was built in 2006. Seals purchased her home from the original owners in 2015. In 2015 and 2016, Gerlach and Seals served the developer, K. Hovnanian’s Four Seasons at Beaumont, LLC, with claim notices under the Right to Repair Act. The Right to Repair Act, as its name implies, provides notice requirements and repair rights by developers of new single-family homes. The Right to Repair Act also includes construction standards, the violation of which, provides homeowners with a statutory basis for bringing construction defect claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Property Owner’s Defense Goes Up in Smoke in Careless Smoking Case

September 23, 2019 — Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation Strategist
Property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to avoid causing harm to neighboring properties. When a property owner knows or should know about a condition that poses a risk of danger to neighboring properties, the property owner must exercise reasonable care to make the condition safe. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently held that, where hundreds of discarded cigarette butts had accumulated in a bed of mulch over an extended period of time prior to the fire at issue, the owner of the property with the mulch beds owed a duty of care to its neighbors to prevent a foreseeable fire. In Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 2019 Md. App. LEXIS 430 (May 30, 2019), a fire originated in a strip of mulch at property owned by the Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 (Union) and caused damage to neighboring properties. The fire occurred when an unknown person discarded a cigarette butt into the mulch. Following the fire, investigators found “hundreds, if not thousands of cigarettes” in the mulch where the fire originated. A representative for the Union acknowledged that there were more butts in the mulch “than there should have been” and that, “[i]n the right situation,” a carelessly discarded cigarette could cause a fire. The Union, however, had no rules or signs to prohibit or regulate smoking at the property, where apprentices would often gather prior to class. The insurance companies for the damaged neighbors filed subrogation actions alleging that the Union, as the property owner, failed to use reasonable care to prevent a foreseeable fire. A jury found in favor of the subrogating insurers and against the Union. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES