FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Insurance Law Alert: Ambiguous Producer Agreement Makes Agent-Broker Status a Jury Question

September 10, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore & Christopher Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Douglas v. Fidelity National Ins. (No. A137645; filed 8/29/14), a California appeals court held that it was a jury question whether a retail insurance service with limited binding authority should be deemed a broker or an agent for the purpose of determining if application misrepresentations would void coverage. In Douglas, the homeowners needed insurance for a house they had used as a group home. They sought coverage from Cost-U-Less, which provided personal lines insurance from, among others, Fidelity National Insurance Company. According to the couple’s wife, she went to a Cost-U-Less office where she answered application questions from a person on the telephone, who was later identified as an employee of another company, InsZone. InsZone had a producer contract with Fidelity. In practice, InsZone would be contacted by Cost-U-Less via telephone, at which point an InsZone employee would verbally solicit information from the client, with the information being entered into a computer by the InsZone employee and then transmitted electronically to Fidelity. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Skipping Depositions does not Constitute Failure to Cooperate in New York

March 09, 2020 — Ryan G. Nelson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Insurance policies typically impose, on the insured, a duty to cooperate with the insurer during investigation and litigation of a claim. Non-cooperation can be grounds for denying coverage. This begs the question: what constitutes non-cooperation? Recently, a New York appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision that failure by an employee of the insured to show up for three court-ordered depositions did not rise to the level of “willful and avowed obstruction” and therefore, the insurer could not deny coverage on the basis of non-cooperation. See Foddrell v. Utica First Insurance Co., 178 A.D.3d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). In so holding, the Foddrell court applied the Thrasher test: “To effectively deny coverage based upon lack of cooperation, an insurance carrier must demonstrate (1) that it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) that the efforts employed by the insured were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) that the attitude of the insured, after his or her cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction.” Id.; see Thrasher v. U. S. Liab. Ins. Co., 19 N.Y.2d 159, 167 (1967). Thomas Foddrell’s suit against Utica First Insurance Company (“Utica First”) stemmed from his personal injury suit against Janey & Rana Construction Corporation (“J&R” (Utica First’s insured). During that lawsuit, J&R’s principal, Gardeep Singh, failed to appear for two court-ordered depositions. After his failure to appear at those depositions, Utica First sent an investigator to inform Singh that he was scheduled for a third deposition. Singh responded to the investigator that he would speak with J&R’s attorneys about the matter. Ultimately, Singh did not appear for the third court-ordered deposition. In response to Singh’s repeated failure to appear for the depositions, Utica First sent Singh a letter advising him that because of his lack of cooperation, Utica would no longer agree to indemnify J&R. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan G. Nelson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Nelson may be contacted at rgn@sdvlaw.com

---

Fourth Circuit Holds that a Municipal Stormwater Management Assessment is a Fee and Not a Prohibited Railroad Tax

April 22, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On February 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. City of Roanoke, et al.; the Chesapeake Bay Foundation was an Intervenor-Defendant. The Fourth Circuit held that a large stormwater management fee (stated to be $417,000.00 for the year 2017) levied by the City of Roanoke against the railroad to assist in the financing of the City’s permitted municipal stormwater management system was a permissible fee and not a discriminatory tax placed on the railroad. The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 specifically provides that states and localities may not impose any tax that discriminates against a rail carrier, 49 U.S.C. § 11501. Accordingly, the issue confronting the Fourth Circuit was whether the assessment was fee and not a tax. 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

---

Governor Signs Permit Extension Bill Extending Permit Deadlines to One Year

October 23, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s like that feeling you got when your teacher said you have another week to complete your group project. On September 21, 2018, Governor Brown signed AB 2913, which, for the first time, provides a uniform 12-month period across the state for work to commence before a building permit expires. Previously, the period was six months. In addition to doubling the expiration period, the statute includes a “justifiable cause” provision permitting local building departments to extend the time for one or more additional periods of not more than 180 days per extension upon written demonstration of “justifiable cause for the extension.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Court Concludes That COVID-19 Losses Can Qualify as “Direct Physical Loss”

September 28, 2020 — Lorelie S. Masters & Jorge R. Aviles - Hunton Andrews Kurth
In a victory for policyholders, a federal district court found that COVID-19 can cause physical loss under business-interruption policies. In Studio 417, Inc., et al. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Co., No. 20-cv-03127-SRB (W.D. Mo. Aug. 12, 2020), the court rejected the argument often advanced by insurers that “all-risks” property insurance policies require a physical, structural alteration to trigger coverage. This decision shows that, with correct application of policy-interpretation principles and strategic use of pleading and evidence, policyholders can defeat the insurance industry’s “party line” arguments that business-interruption insurance somehow cannot apply to pay for the unprecedented losses businesses are experiencing from COVID-19, public-safety orders, loss of use of business assets, and other governmental edicts. The policyholders in Studio 417 operate hair salons and restaurants asserting claims for business interruption. In suing to enforce their coverage, the policyholders allege that, over the last several months, it is likely that customers, employees, and/or other visitors to the insured properties were infected with COVID-19 and thereby infected the insured properties with the virus. Their complaint asserts that the presence of COVID-19 “renders physical property in their vicinity unsafe and unusable.” Unlike some other complaints seeking to enforce such coverage, it also alleges that the presence of COVID-19 and government “Closure Orders” “caused a direct physical loss or direct physical damage” to their premises “by denying use of and damaging the covered property, and by causing a necessary suspension of operations during a period of restoration.” Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Jorge R. Aviles, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Aviles may be contacted at javiles@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Deescalating Hyper Escalation

July 05, 2023 — Paul F. Williamson - Construction Executive
Recent years have seen the construction industry get hit by a perfect storm of rising costs, workforce shortages, delivery delays, supply-chain issues, inflation, interest-rate hikes and materials price escalation. The cost of construction has become more expensive, leaving all parties to grapple with the sufficiency of their risk-management strategies and the ramifications of contracts that are ill-equipped to deal with unprecedented cost increases. Of particular concern to industry participants are the volatile price fluctuations that construction materials have undergone and how to appropriately mitigate the risks they present. Although owners, general contractors and subcontractors may seek to mitigate future risks, many who are party to an existing contract all too often must scramble to divine how to absorb significantly more financial risk than they expected pre-pandemic. Contracts that were bid and entered into prior to the pandemic may have seen, in some instances, double- and triple-digit percent increases in prices due to hyper escalation, with little recourse to address such situations. While parties to private contracts are free to mitigate their risk through contract negotiations, parties to federal or state public procurements are somewhat more constrained. Reprinted courtesy of Paul F. Williamson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Iowa Apartment Complex Owners Awarded Millions for Building Defects

March 31, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The owners of a West Des Moines, Iowa apartment complex received an award of $12.4 million by a Polk County jury, according to The Des Moines Register, who declared that “[i]t’s believed to be one of the largest judgments of its kind in state history.” The owners had sued the builders “over leaks and mold the owners said took years to correct.” The verdict “marked the culmination of a nearly decade-long saga involving the construction of the Westlake apartments and condos, a 300-unit complex built at 1770 92nd St. on the Dallas County side of West Des Moines during the pre-recession housing boom.” Attorney Steve Eckley told The Des Moines Register that “the settlement covers about $3 million in previous repairs, about $6 million in expected repairs and maintenance and about $6 million in lost revenue.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Workers on Big California Bridge Tackle Oil Wells, Seismic Issues

February 02, 2017 — Aileen Cho - Bloomberg
Surrounded by workers, Nik Pecci, project safety manager with PMCM Consulting Engineers for the $1.5-billion Gerald Desmond Bridge replacement project—which is revitalizing a 50-year-old link in Long Beach—gestured in several directions: “I’ve got all these [port] tenants here, I’ve got a massive bridge over here. I have to build this thing intertwined with one of the busiest ports in the world. I constantly have commuters, cargo trucks and trailers and trains.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aileen Cho, ENR
Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com

---