FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Signed, Sealed and (Almost) Delivered: EU Council Authorizes Signing of U.S. – EU Bilateral Insurance Agreement

August 02, 2017 — Stella Szantova Giordano - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
On July 14, 2017, the Trump administration released a statement indicating that the United States intends to sign the U.S. – EU bilateral insurance agreement. The announcement came several weeks after the Council of the European Union adopted a decision authorizing the signing of this agreement. The agreement attempts to “level the playing field for U.S. insurers and reinsurers operating in the EU.”[1] This U.S. – EU bilateral agreement is a direct response to EU’s January 2016 enactment of Solvency II. Solvency II is a legislative program implemented in all twenty-eight Member States, aimed at codifying EU insurance regulations in an attempt to protect policy holders and to incentivize risk management. We previously wrote about this comprehensive program of insurer regulatory requirements here. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stella Szantova Giordano, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Giordano may be contacted at ssg@sdvlaw.com

---

Changes and Extra Work – Is There a Limit?

October 09, 2018 — Joseph R. Young - Smith Currie
Design and construction changes can be a challenge for everyone involved in a construction project. Designers and contractors endeavor to deliver a project that meets the owner’s needs, budget, and aesthetic considerations. As a project comes to fruition, the project frequently changes, and the parties must address and resolve the financial considerations of those changes and implement the changes at the project level. Often times the most critical aspect of a contractor’s financial success or failure of a construction project is its ability to manage changes. Contractors are sometimes faced with changes that are beyond the reasonable expectation of the original undertaking and have significant planning, scheduling, and cost implications that may not be considered or addressed in the contract’s changes clause. Changes of this magnitude may be considered “cardinal changes” and provide the contractor with recourse beyond restrictions imposed by the contract’s changes clause. But cardinal change is a risky basis for a contractor to refuse to perform additional or changed work. Even major changes can probably be more safely handled within the terms of the contract’s changes clause. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joseph R. Young, Smith Currie
Mr. Young may be contacted at jryoung@smithcurrie.com

---

Your Contract is a Hodgepodge of Conflicting Proposals

January 06, 2016 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Ouch. That’s what a court called a contract to remediate petroleum contamination at a number of gas stations in New York. Sometimes, it’s hard to believe the contracts that get signed. Environmental Risk hired Science Applications to remediate petroleum contamination at 47 gas stations. Environmental Risk had previously entered into a Professional Services Master Agreement with Science Applications, but also required Science Applications to sign three separate, but basically identical, subcontracts called the Project Specific Scopes of Work. So, right from the start, there were four contracts that could apply to Science Applications’ work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---

Word of the Day: “Contractor”

September 16, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
What’s in a word? When it comes to insurance policies, a word, can potentially mean millions of dollars. In California Specialty Insulation, Inc. v. Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company, 102 Cal.App.5th 1 (2024), an insured and its insurer battled it out over the word “contractor,” and whether an exclusion from coverage of bodily injury to any employee or temporary worker “of any contractor or subcontractor,” excluded a personal injury claim brought by an employee of a general contractor against a subcontractor. The California Specialty Contractor Case In 2017, Air Control Systems, Inc. (“Air Control”) was contracted to perform improvements at a building in Los Angeles, California. Air Control in turn subcontracted with California Specialty Insulation, Inc. (“CSI”) to install duct insulation on the project. During construction, an employee of Air Control was injured when he fell 16 to 20 feet from a ladder that was struck by a scissor lift driven by an employee of CSI. Approximately two years later the Air Control employee filed a personal injury lawsuit against CSI. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

2017 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry

July 13, 2017 — Melinda S. Gentile – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
The 2017 Florida Legislative Session recently concluded, and a number of important construction-related House Bills (HB) and Senate Bills (SB) were presented during the Session, most notably SB 204/HB 377. These Bills may impact General Contractors and Construction Managers in a number of ways, not the least of which is the period of time that a cause of action may be initiated for the design, planning or construction of an improvement. The following construction-related Bills passed in both the House and Senate and will become law if approved by the Governor. Senate Bill (SB) 204/House Bill (HB) 377: Relating to the Statute of Repose for causes of action based on design, planning or construction of an improvement to real property. This bill passed both the House and the Senate and was approved by the Governor on June 14, 2017. This bill becomes effective on July 1, 2017. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melinda S. Gentile, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Gentile may be contacted at mgentile@pecklaw.com

---

Counsel Investigating Coverage Can be Sued for Invasion of Privacy

January 28, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Strawn v. Morris, Polich & Purdy (No. A150562, filed 1/4/19), a California appeals court held that policyholders could state a claim for invasion of privacy against an insurer’s coverage counsel and law firm, where the counsel had disseminated inadvertently produced tax returns to forensic accountants while evaluating coverage. In Strawn, a couple’s home was destroyed by fire and the husband was prosecuted for arson, but the criminal case was dropped. Notwithstanding, their insurance claim was denied on the ground that the husband intentionally set the fire and fraudulently concealed his actions. In addition to the insurance company, the insureds also named the carrier’s coverage counsel and his firm in the ensuing bad faith lawsuit, alleging causes of action for elder financial abuse and invasion of privacy. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Newark Trial Team Secures Affirmance of ‘No Cause’ Verdict for Nationwide Housing Manager & Developer

January 07, 2025 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Newark, N.J. (December 30, 2024) - Newark Partner Afsha Noran and Managing Partner Colin Hackett recently obtained a ruling by a New Jersey Appellate Division panel affirming a unanimous "no cause" defense verdict obtained on behalf of a nationwide housing developer and manager. In this case, the plaintiff and her two minor children brought suit against the firm's client. They appealed a unanimous no-cause jury verdict rendered in May 2023 that found the defendants not liable for mold exposure in their apartment. The plaintiffs argued that several trial errors, including improper jury instructions, a confusing verdict sheet, and prejudicial remarks by defense counsel led to an unjust result. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in handling the case. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Draft Federal Legislation Reinforces Advice to Promptly Notify Insurers of COVID-19 Losses

April 20, 2020 — James Hultz - Newmeyer Dillion
Insurers across the country are nearly universally denying claims for business interruption stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. Those denials have in turn been met with swift litigation and potential legislative action. The first business interruption coverage lawsuit related to COVID-19 was filed in New Orleans on March 16. There are now no less than 13 such cases nationwide and many more are likely to follow. Further, legislatures in at least seven states are considering legislation that would, to varying degrees, mandate business interruption coverage for COVID-19 losses, notwithstanding any seemingly contrary policy provisions. From the early stages of the pandemic, we have consistently advised our clients to promptly notify their insurers of all COVID-19 related losses, even where coverage appeared uncertain. The deluge of coverage litigation and contemplated legislation could drastically alter how insurers handle COVID-19 claims. But policyholders who have failed to satisfy policy notice requirements could miss out on the benefits of those changes. Therefore, policyholders would be ill-advised to sit on the sidelines and wait it out. Now, draft Federal legislation appears to add further impetus to instructions to “tender early.” The contemplated “Pandemic Risk Insurance Act of 2020” would reportedly devote billions of dollars of federal funds through a Department of Treasury administered reinsurance program designed to offset losses sustained by insurers who actually pay business interruption losses. The legislation is still taking shape but would reportedly create “a Federal program that provides for a transparent system of shared public and private compensation for business interruption losses resulting from a pandemic or outbreak of communicable disease.” President Trump is also reportedly pressuring insurers to provide business interruption coverage. The massive influx of federal funds and pressure from the White House could encourage insurers to reconsider denials of COVID-19 business interruption claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Hultz may be contacted at james.hultz@ndlf.com

---