FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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

---

Protecting Your Business From Liability Claims Stemming From COVID-19 Exposure

June 01, 2020 — Andrew Hamelsky, Jenifer Scarcella & Joshua Tumen - White and Williams
Businesses of every nature – including grocery stores, banks, daycares, gyms and restaurants – may face increasing liability claims from customers and third parties claiming to have been exposed to the novel coronavirus, or COVID-19, while at their location. The novel virus raises issues as to whether businesses have a heightened duty of care to their customers, and what type of exposure businesses face if a customer claims to have been exposed to COVID-19 while at their premises. Recently, a lawsuit was filed against Princess Cruise lines for gross negligence in allowing passengers to be exposed to COVID-19 on a cruise ship. The lawsuit alleges that the cruise ship was allowed to go out to sea knowing that it was infected from two previous passengers who came down with symptoms of COVID-19. It further claims that the passengers were not warned of the potential exposure either before or after they boarded the ship. In other news reports around the country, business owners have reported taking extraordinary precautions to prevent customers’ risk of contracting COVID-19. For example, one grocery store recently reported that it discarded $35,000 worth of food after a customer coughed on fresh produce. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Andrew Hamelsky, Jenifer Scarcella and Joshua Tumen Mr. Hamelsky may be contacted at hamelskya@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Scarcella may be contacted at scarcellaj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Tumen may be contacted at tumenj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Blog Completes Seventeenth Year

January 07, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Insurance Law Hawaii reaches the end of its seventeenth year this month. We began posting long ago, in December 2007. We seek to keep readers apprised of developments in insurance-related cases from Hawaii and across the country. Coverage issues surrounding the Maui fires have been top of mind this year. We will continue posting on important coverage developments in the next year. 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

---

Florida Legislative Change Extends Completed Operations Tail for Condominium Projects

December 10, 2024 — Holly A. Rice - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Florida Legislature recently passed House Bill 1021 which amended Florida Statute § 718.124. The July 1, 2024 amendment changes Florida’s statute of repose (“SOR”) trigger date for condominium projects. Now, the SOR trigger for existing condominium projects will be governed by Florida Statute §718.124, not Florida Statute § 95.11. Most critically, Florida Statute § 718.124 changes the trigger events for when the “clock” starts running and impacts how long the SOR runs. Notably, Florida Statute § 718.124 already governed the trigger event for the statute of limitations (“SOR”) for condominium projects. One important overarching takeaway for contractors to carefully assess is that the change in the “trigger” event may result in the SOR concluding at a later date than originally planned – affecting time on the risk and, critically, the availability of insurance. The standard approach of using a static 10-year completed operations tail on a condominium construction insurance program may now be insufficient in certain circumstances. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Holly A. Rice, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Rice may be contacted at HRice@sdvlaw.com

---

Insurance Client Alert: Mere Mailing of Policy and Renewals Into California is Not Sufficient Basis for Jurisdiction Over Bad Faith Lawsuit

January 28, 2015 — Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Greenwell v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (No. C074546, filed 1/27/15), a California appeals court held that the use of a mailing address to send policies and renewals into California did not support jurisdiction for a California resident's bad faith lawsuit against a Michigan insurer over property coverage for a fire loss to a building in Arkansas. In Greenwell, the insured was a California resident engaged in real estate investment. He purchased an apartment building in Little Rock, Arkansas. Using the services of an insurance broker in Little Rock, he purchased a package of general liability and commercial property insurance for the building from Auto-Owners Insurance Company, a Michigan insurer not licensed in California. The policy listed the insured's business address in California, the policy was mailed there, and renewed three times via the insured's California address. 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

---

Sub-Limit Restricts Insured's Flood Damage Recovery

March 15, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured's recovery for flood damage was controlled by the policy's sub-limit. David S. Brown Enters. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 239208 (D. Md. Dec. 18, 2020). Roughly 6.6 inches of rain fell in Ellicott City, Maryland, causing extensive flooding. During the storm, a water main broke on Main Street, in relatively close proximity to the insured's two properties on Main Street. The foundations of the two properties washed away. The insured, David S. Brown Enterprises (DSB), had a business owners' policy with Affiliated with covered 204 named locations. The Main Street Properties were not listed, but the policy also provided certain coverage for unnamed locations. The sub-limit applicable to unnamed locations was $1,000,000. The sub-limit for flood, however, was $50,000, annual aggregate "as respects Errors & Omissions, Off-Premises Service Interruption, Unnamed Locations and Supply Chain combined." Affiliated paid $50,000 for the loss based upon the $50,000 Flood annual aggregated Sub-Limit for Unnamed Locations. DSB disagreed that the $50,000 sub-limit applied and filed suit. 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

---

Remediation Work Caused by Installation of Defective Tiles Not Covered

August 19, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court applied California law to find there was no coverage when the subcontractor was sued for broken tiles on a project. Am. Home Assur. Co. v. SMG Stone Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75910 (N. D. Cal. June 11, 2015). The subcontractor installed stone floor tiles at the project. The developer discovered fractures in some of the tiles. The fractured tiles were removed and replaced. This remediation process required the removal and replacement of portions of drywall and concrete subfloor installed by other subcontractors. The developer sued the subcontractor, who tendered the defense to its insurer. The insurer denied coverage and filed for a declaratory judgment that there was no coverage for the floor tile fracture claims. 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

---

Hawaii Court of Appeals Finds Insured AOAO Not Liable for Securing Inadequate Insurance

March 04, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed the trial court's finding that the insured Association of Apartment Owners (AOAO) was not liable for securing a policy with inadequate coverage. AOAO Queen Emma Gardens, et al v. Wa, 2023 Haw. App. LEXIS 400 (Haw. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2023). In October 2002, the Was purchased a condominium located in the Queen Emma Gardens Condominium. The AOAO's bylaws provided that it would procure and maintain insurance "to insure the Board, the Association, and each apartment owner against claims for personal injury, death, and property damage arising out of the condition of the property or activities thereon . . ." The AOAO secured a CGL policy from Insurance Association, Inc., with coverage limits for bodily injury at $1,000,000 and an umbrella policy providing an additional $5,000,000 of coverage. Each of the policies "insured each individual insurance owner of the insured condominium, but only with respect to liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or repair of that portion of the premises which is not reserved for that unit owner's exclusive use or occupancy." 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

---