Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Understanding the California Consumer Privacy Act

March 02, 2020 — Kevin Bonsignore - Wilke Fleury
The recently enacted California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA” or the “Act”) goes into effect on January 1, 2020 and with it comes enhanced consumer protections for California residents against businesses that collect their personal information. Generally speaking, the CCPA requires that businesses provide consumers with information relating to the business’ access to and sharing of personal information. Accordingly, businesses should determine whether the CCPA will apply to them and, if so, what policies and procedures they should implement to comply with this new law. Application of the CCPA Importantly, the CCPA does not apply to all California business. The requirements of the CCPA only apply where a for-profit entity collects Consumers’ Personal Information, does business in the State of California, and satisfies one or more of the following: (1) has annual gross revenues in excess of twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000); (2) receives for the business’s commercial purposes, sells, or shares for commercial purposes the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices; or (3) derives 50 percent or more of its annual revenues from selling consumers’ personal information. (California Code of Civil Procedure § 1798.140(c)(1)(A)-(C).) Thus, as a practical matter, small “mom and pop” operations will likely not be subject to the CCPA, but most mid-size and large companies should review their own books or consult with an accountant to determine whether the CCPA applies to their business. Rights Granted to Consumers “Consumers,” as the term is used in the CCPA, means “any natural person who is a California resident…” (California Code of Civil Procedure § 1798.140(g).) This broad definition makes no carve-outs or exclusions for a business’s employees and, despite the traditional definition of the term “consumer,” does not seem to require that the resident purchase any goods or services. This definition seems intentional and was likely designed to prevent businesses from attempting to circumvent the requirements of the CCPA by arguing that the personal information they collect does not belong to “consumers” under the traditional meaning of the word. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Bonsignore, Wilke Fleury
Mr. Bonsignore may be contacted at kbonsignore@wilkefleury.com

KY Mining Accident Not a Covered Occurrence Under Commercial General Liability Policy

December 04, 2018 — Phillip A. Perez - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In Am. Mining Ins. Co. v. Peters Farms, LLC,1 the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that a mining error was not a covered accident under a commercial general liability insurance policy. The central issue was whether an insured mining company’s unauthorized removal of minerals from a neighboring property was an “occurrence” that unintentionally caused “property damage” as defined by the mining company’s commercial general liability policy (“CGL Policy”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Phillip A. Perez, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Perez may be contacted at pap@sdvlaw.com

Anti-Concurrent Causation Endorsements in CGL Insurance Policies: A Word of Caution

August 29, 2022 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
While I have not performed exhaustive research into the origin of anti-concurrent causation (“ACC”) endorsements on insurance policies, or how or when they migrated from first-party property policies to commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies, they have done so. The result for Colorado’s construction professionals may rear its ugly head as an unwelcome and surprise outright declination of coverage for construction defect claims. ACC endorsements state that if there are two causes of damage: one of which is covered by a policy and one of which is not, the carrier can invoke the ACC endorsement to disclaim coverage for all of the damage. An exemplar ACC endorsement is ISO Form CG 21 67, entitled “Fungi or Bacteria Exclusion.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Nevada Insureds Can Rely on Extrinsic Facts to Show that An Insurer Owes a Duty to Defend

November 15, 2021 — Sarah J. Odia & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & Fears
On Oct. 28, 2021, the Nevada Supreme Court in Zurich American Insurance Company v.. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 66, held that an insured can rely on extrinsic facts to show that an insurer has a duty to defend the insured, as long as the facts were available to the insurer at the time the insured tendered the claim. The court also held that an insured has the burden of proving that an exception to an exclusion in an insurance policy applies to create a duty to defend. In Zurich, Ironshore refused to defend to its insured against multiple property damage claims arising out of construction defects, claiming that its policies’ continuing and progressive damage exclusions barred coverage. The underlying lawsuits made no specific allegations describing when or how the property damage occurred. Ironshore claimed that the property damage had occurred due to faulty work that predated the commencement of its policies. Two different federal trial courts came to conflicting conclusions in the underlying cases. One held that Ironshore had a duty to defend because Ironshore failed to show that an exception to the exclusion did not apply. The second granted summary judgment in favor of Ironshore holding that the insured failed to meet its burden of proving that an exception to the exclusion applied. Reprinted courtesy of Sarah J. Odia, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Ms. Odia may be contacted at sjo@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment On Ground Not Asserted By Moving Party Upheld

December 17, 2015 — Laura C. Williams & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Marlton Recovery Partners, LLC v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (filed 11/20/15), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants County of Los Angeles, the County Treasurer-Tax Collector and Board of Supervisors (collectively the “County”) despite the fact summary judgment was granted on grounds not raised by the County. The Court of Appeal determined that because the plaintiff could not have shown a triable issue of material fact on the ground of law relied upon by the trial court, summary judgment was proper. In the underlying case, plaintiff sought cancellation of penalties on delinquent property taxes for 26 parcels under Revenue and Taxation Code §4985.2, which allows the tax collector to cancel such penalties under certain circumstances. The County denied the request prompting plaintiff to challenge the denial on a petition for peremptory writ of mandate to the trial court. Reprinted courtesy of Laura C. Williams, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Coverage for Home Damaged by Falling Boulders

March 08, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The policy's earth movement exclusion barred coverage for the home damaged by large boulders rolling down from the hillside above. Sullivan v. Nationwide Affinity Ins. Co. of Am., 2021 U.S. App. LEZXIS 628 (10th Cir Jan. 11, 2021). Plaintiffs' home sustained extensive damage when two or three large builders rolled down a steep hillside and struck the home. The insurer, Nationwide, hired an engineering firm that determined the boulders were not influenced by meteorological conditions such as torrential rain or high winds. The report noted that rockfall hazards existed primarily due to an undercut sandstone outcrop, and evidenced by numerous rocks from rockfall events that scattered Plaintiffs' property. Based on the report, Nationwide denied coverage under the earth movement exclusion. The exclusion provided Nationwide did "not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by . . . Earth Movement" and regardless of "whether or not the loss event results in widespread damage or affects a substantial area." The policy further defined "earth movement" to include "landslide . . . or any other earth movement including earth sinking, risking or shifting." 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

Luxury Villa Fraudsters Jailed for Madeira Potato Field Scam

September 25, 2018 — Franz Wild - Bloomberg
Four men and a woman convicted of conning people to invest in a fraudulent luxury villa construction scheme on a potato field in the Portuguese island of Madeira were sentenced to as long as 5 1/2 years in a U.K. jail. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Franz Wild, Bloomberg

D&O Insurer Must Cover Mortgage Broker’s $15 Million Settlement of Alleged False Claims Act Violations

November 15, 2022 — Michael S. Levine, Geoffrey B. Fehling & Matthew J. Revis - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A Delaware court recently granted summary judgment to a mortgage broker targeted in a federal government investigation for alleged False Claims Act violations, holding that the company’s directors and officers liability (“D&O”) insurer was required to indemnify more than $15 million in settlement costs with the U.S. Department of Justice. Guaranteed Rate, Inc. v. ACE American Insurance Company, No. N20C-04-268 MMJ CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 6, 2022). We previously reported on the policyholder’s earlier victory in this case, in which the court held that a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from federal authorities triggered the insurer’s obligation to pay defense costs under the D&O policy. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Matthew J. Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Mr. Revis may be contacted at mrevis@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES