Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Sewage Treatment Agency Sues Insurer and Contractor after Wall Failure and Sewage Leak

January 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Trial preparations continue over the failure of a wall at a sewage treatment plant and the failure of the insurer to provide coverage. The Binghamton-Johnson City Joint Sewage Treatment Plant sued its insurer, American Alternative Insurance Corp., in March 2012 over insurance coverage. AAIC claimed that the wall failure, which released hundreds of thousands of gallons of sewage, was due to structural defects which preceded the policy. AAIC did pay more than $300,000 for covered losses, although officials claim that coverage should be a further $3.5 million. Additionally, the board is suing the contractor who constructed the wall. Here, the operators of the sewage plant are seeking $20 million. The wall was built as part of a $67 million improvement project between 2004 and 2006. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Idaho Supreme Court Address Water Exclusion in Commercial Property Exclusion

March 09, 2020 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In ABK, LLC v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 2019 WL 7046393 (Idaho Dec. 23, 2019) an insured gas station owner sued its property insurance carrier for breach of contract and bad faith after the carrier denied coverage for loss caused by water contamination of the insured’s underground storage tanks. Mid-Century had denied coverage because the underground storage tanks were damaged by water -- which was an excluded peril under the policy. Mid-Century issued Business Owners Special Property Coverage to the insured which provided all-risk coverage for physical loss or damage. The policy contained a number of exclusionary provisions including a water exclusion which provided that the policy did not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by:

Flood, surface water, waves, tides, tidal waves, overflow or any body of water, or their spray, all whether driven by wind or not; ...
Water under the ground surface pressing on, or flowing or seeping through:

Foundations, walls, floors or paved surfaces:
Basements, whether paved or not; or
Doors, windows or other openings.

In upholding the District Court’s ruling in favor of Mid-Century, the Idaho Supreme Court held that a clear reading of the unambiguous policy provides damage caused by surface water or water under the ground when flowing or seeping through other openings is excluded from coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

Anatomy of a Construction Dispute- An Alternative

February 05, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Over the past three weeks, I’ve discussed three “stages” of a construction dispute from the claim, to how to increase the pressure for payment, to the litigation. While these three steps are all too often necessary tools in your construction collection arsenal, they are expensive and time consuming. No well run construction business can or should budget for litigation. The better practice would be to engage a construction attorney early in the process and avoid the dispute altogether if possible. Unfortunately, even the best of planning can lead to the need to hire a construction lawyer for the less pleasant task of assisting you in getting paid. This post is about an alternative to the scorched earth of stage 3 of the process that can and should be at least considered either before or after the complaint or demand for arbitration has been filed. I am of course speaking about voluntary mediation. Why did I emphasize “voluntary?” Because to me mandatory mediation (as required in many construction contracts) is a bit like forced volunteerism, it is something that the parties will go through to “check a box” but will not have their hearts in it. Remember, by the time the mandatory mediation clause kicks in, the parties are likely at an impasse in their construction dispute and are ready to fight. Being forced to mediate, especially from the party seeking payment, can (and in my experience often does) make the parties just go through the motions at best and be hostile to the process at worst. Neither of these attitudes are conducive to resolving a dispute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Subcontractors Must be Careful Providing Bonds when General Contractor Does Not

April 05, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
After I wrote the title to this post, I thought, “Well, that says it all, doesn’t it?” I also considered the fact that for those that read this construction law blog on a regular basis, I am likely stating the obvious. I then thought about the fact that there can be confusion regarding the purpose of bonds versus insurance. Couple this with the fact that Murphy was an optimist, and I thought this would be a good reminder. Bonds and insurance have one fundamental difference between them. When your construction company buys insurance, that insurance is meant to protect your company. When your company provides a payment and/or performance bond, that bond is there not to protect your company but to protect everyone else on the job and the project itself. Where insurance will pay for your company’s qualifying errors so that that money does not come out of the bottom line, a bond contract will have an indemnification agreement whereby anything paid by the surety will then be reimbursed by you and your company dollar for dollar (as opposed to just the premium). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: The Duty to Defend

February 28, 2022 — Lorelie S. Masters, Patrick M. McDermott & Rachel E. Hudgins - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
This post in our Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series discusses the Montana Supreme Court’s consideration of an insurer’s duty to defend in National Indemnity Co. v. State, 499 P.3d 516 (Mont. 2021). For 67 years, W.R. Grace & Company’s mining operations spread asbestos through the town of Libby, Montana, causing elevated rates of asbestosis and asbestos-related cancer in Libby residents – even among those who never worked in the mine. The Environmental Protection Agency deemed the Libby Mine the “most significant single source of asbestos exposure” in US history. In 2000, Libby residents began filing lawsuits against the State of Montana, alleging that the State had failed to warn them about the mine’s danger, and this failure contributed to their bodily injuries. Id. at 521-22. The Libby plaintiffs’ asbestos exposures and related injuries had occurred decades earlier, and so the State searched its storage units for records of any potentially applicable insurance policies. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Maryland Finally set to Diagnose an Allocation Method for Progressive Injuries

February 18, 2020 — William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Maryland’s highest court recently heard arguments regarding the proper method of allocation of the covered damages from a slowly progressing asbestos injury amongst insurance policies in place over a period of years. Rossello v. Zurich American Insurance Company, Case No. 2436 (Md. 2019). The court may also be forced to determine what the proper trigger of coverage is for latent bodily injury claims, although the plaintiff has not framed the issue in that manner. In Rossello, the plaintiff, Patrick Rossello, worked for a period of years for the now-defunct Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc. (“Mitchell”), a construction company operating until 1976. In 1974 he was exposed to and inhaled asbestos fibers. He was ultimately diagnosed in 2013 with malignant mesothelioma as a result of that exposure. Rossello obtained a judgment for approximately $2,700,000 against Mitchell and secured the right to pursue its insurance. As relevant to this dispute, Mitchell carried liability insurance policies, which provide coverage for asbestos related claims, from 1974 to 1977. Rossello seeks to hold Zurich, as successor to Maryland Casualty Company, accountable for the full value of his award, based on the 1974 policy. Although this contention actually implicates two separate issues, plaintiff’s counsel passed over the initial trigger of coverage issue and focused instead on the issue of allocation of coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

Tighter Requirements and a New Penalty for Owners of Vacant or Abandoned Storefronts in San Francisco

June 18, 2019 — Matt Olhausen - Gravel2Gavel
Ordinance 52-19 became effective in April 2019 and expands upon existing San Francisco Building Code registration requirements for “Vacant or Abandoned” “Commercial Storefronts.” A storefront becomes “Vacant or Abandoned” once it has been unoccupied for 30 days (among other earlier triggers for blighted or unsecured storefronts). A “Commercial Storefront” is broadly defined as “any area within a building that may be individually leased or rented for any purpose other than Residential Use as defined in Planning Code.” (See § 103.A.5.1 of the San Francisco Building Code.) So, a building that is 97% leased could still contain a Vacant or Abandoned Commercial Storefront, which would technically require registration under the Building Code. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matt Olhausen, Pillsbury
Mr. Olhausen may be contacted at matt.olhausen@pillsburylaw.com

Nine Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Recognized as Southern California Super Lawyers

February 11, 2019 — Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that nine of its Newport Beach attorneys have been selected to the 2019 Southern California Super Lawyers list. Each year, no more than 5 percent of lawyers are selected to receive this honor. Attorneys named to the Southern California Super Lawyers list include: Michael Cucchissi Jeff Dennis Greg Dillion Joseph Ferrentino Charles Krolikowski John O'Hara Jane Samson Michael Studenka Paul Tetzloff Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. About Newmeyer & Dillion For almost 35 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES