Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

A Court-Side Seat: “Inholdings” Upheld, a Pecos Bill Come Due and Agency Actions Abound

January 25, 2021 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Here are some significant environmental and regulatory rulings and administrative actions from December 2020. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Texas v. New Mexico On December 14, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a water rights controversy involving sharing the water of the Pecos River. The 1949 Pecos River Compact provides for the equitable apportionment of the use of the Pecos River’s water by New Mexico and Texas, and a “River Master’s Manual,” approved by the Court in 1988, implements the Compact. These are very dry areas, and access to this water is very important. In 2014, a rare tropical storm drenched the Pecos River Basin, and Texas asked New Mexico to temporarily store the water that would otherwise flow into Texas. A few months later, New Mexico released the water to Texas, but the quantity was reduced because some of the water held by New Mexico had evaporated. The River Master awarded a delivery credit to New Mexico, and after Texas objected, Texas “in response” filed the Original Jurisdiction of the Court, suing New Mexico and seeking a review of the River Master’s determination. The Court held for New Mexico, deciding that this dispute was subject to and resolved by the Manual. This case is important because it highlights the high value the states place on the equitable apportionment of water that flows through different states. 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

The End of Eroding Limits Policies in Nevada is Just the Beginning

August 28, 2023 — Payne & Fears LLP
On June 3, 2023, Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo signed into law AB 398 (the Act) which modifies the Nevada insurance code by restricting the types of liability policies that can be offered in the state. The End of Eroding Limits Policies in Nevada First, the Act prohibits liability insurers from issuing “eroding limits” or “burning limits” policies. These are insurance policies under which defense costs decrease policy limits. Most professional liability policies are eroding limits policies. As of Oct. 1, 2023, insurers in Nevada may no longer issue or renew any policy where policy limits are eroded by defense costs. This change may result in higher premiums on these types of policies to compensate for the higher payouts they will now have to provide in Nevada. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

Construction Litigation Roundup: “It’s None of Your Business.”

May 22, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
“It’s none of your business.” So said a construction surety resisting discovery of its underwriting file in the context of the surety’s affirmative $2 million indemnity claim (on a $25M bond), and a Missouri federal court agreed. In response to the surety’s indemnity suit, the defaulted principal contractor and additional corporate indemnitors offered up defenses of “lack of consideration and the doctrine of unclean hands, laches, waiver and/or estoppel, among others.” The indemnitors also issued written discovery to the surety seeking to obtain the surety’s underwriting file – which would reveal the underpinnings of the surety’s decision to issue the bond to the contractor – asserting “that the underwriting and due diligence documents are relevant to the[] lack of consideration defense. [Indemnitors] claim that ‘[t]his defense is based on Defendants' belief that Plaintiff did not conduct any reasonable inquiry into any Defendants' ability to pay or financial resources and therefore Plaintiff did not rely on the financial condition of each Defendant in determining whether to issue the bonds.’" Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Risk Protection: Force Majeure Agreements Take on Renewed Relevance

November 30, 2020 — Michael E. Carson - Construction Executive
Force majeure clauses have been standard in contracts dating back hundreds of years in the United States—and even longer in Europe. “Force majeure,” which is French for “greater force,” removes liability for unforeseen events that prevent parties from fulfilling contractual obligations. In a year defined by the COVID-19 pandemic, these clauses have gone from boilerplate basics to something worthy of further examination and attention in order to minimize risk for all parties involved in a construction project. Prior to COVID-19, drafters might have considered a localized or regional event that would lead to invoking a force majeure clause. It is doubtful, however, that anybody envisioned the impact on such a world-wide scale. UNDERSTANDING THE AGREEMENTS Force majeure clauses cover unforeseen events, a broad term that encompasses both acts of God and human-caused incidents. These range from natural disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes to acts of terrorism, strikes, political strife, government actions, war and other difficult- or impossible-to-predict disruptions. When such an event occurs, the force majeure clause attempts to remove, or at least reduce, uncertainty as to the rights and liabilities of the parties to the agreement. Reprinted courtesy of Michael E. Carson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Carson may be contacted at michael.carson@nationwide.com

Colorado Homebuyers Must be in Privity of Contract with Developer to Assert Breach of Implied Warranty of Suitability

May 03, 2017 — Maggie Stewart - Colorado Construction Litigation
On April 17, 2017, the Colorado Supreme Court announced its decision in Forest City v. Rogers, No. 15SC1089, 2017 CO 23 (Colo. Apr. 17, 2017). The Court held that privity of contract is necessary for a homebuyer to assert a claim for breach of implied warranty of suitability against a developer. In other words, one must be a party to a contract to pursue a claim for breach of any implied warranty of suitability therein. Defendant Forest City was the developer of a mixed use property in Stapleton. Forest City subdivided the land and sold the vacant lot at issue to a professional builder, Infinity. Infinity then built a residence and sold it to the plaintiff, Tad Rogers. After moving into the home, Rogers came to believe that the water table beneath the house along with calcite leaching from the road material led to a buildup of calcite in the foundation drain, making the basement uninhabitable and causing the sump pump to work overtime. Rogers sued Forest City on various theories, including breach of the warranty of suitability. In particular, Rogers alleged that Forest City impliedly warranted to him that his lot was suitable for a home with a finished basement, when in fact it was not. He prevailed on this claim at the trial court level. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Maggie Stewart, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Stewart may be contacted at stewart@hhmrlaw.com

Claims Litigated Under Government Claims Act Must “Fairly Reflect” Factual Claims Made in Underlying Government Claim

November 27, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Unlike horseshoes and hand grenades, close sometimes isn’t close enough. In the next case, Hernandez v. City of Stockton, 90 Cal.App.5th 1222 (2023), the Third District Court of appeal found that a pedestrian who sued a public entity for personal injuries caused by an “uplifted sidewalk” was barred from pursuing his claim when it was revealed that he had in fact injured himself by falling into a hole left by an “empty tree well” (i.e., a tree well that did not contain a tree”). According to the Court, the pedestrian’s claim was barred because the factual basis for recovery asserted in his complaint was not “fairly reflected” in his government claim. The Hernandez Case In April 2018, pedestrian Manual Sanchez Hernandez injured himself while walking on a public sidewalk in Stockton, California. He submitted a government claim with the City of Stockton claiming that his injuries, which included injuries to his knee, hands and back, was caused by a dangerous condition on public property. In his government claim, Hernandez alleged that he tripped on an “uplifted sidewalk” at or near 230 E. Charter Way in Stockton, California and that his injuries were due because the City “negligently and recklessly designed, maintained and operated the subject property so as to cause [his] injuries.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Board of Directors Guidance When Addressing Emergency Circumstances Occasioned by the COVID-19 Pandemic

May 11, 2020 — Marc Casarino, Lori Smith & Gwenn Barney - White and Williams LLP
The COVID-19 pandemic has sent massive shockwaves throughout the global economy. This crises requires business leaders to confront a host of deleterious effects on an emergency basis – the likes of which many companies have never experienced. Boards of directors must remain cognizant of their oversight responsibilities in these trying times. This post offers guidance to directors of Delaware companies for addressing emergency circumstances occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic. Board Oversight – Lessons from Marchand V. Barnhill Directors should consider the lessons learned from the recent Delaware Supreme Court case Marchand v. Barnhill, a ruling we addressed in a previous blog post, when considering board oversight during the COVID-19 pandemic. Marchand centered on a lawsuit brought by shareholders in an ice cream manufacturing company against the company’s board of directors. The shareholders claimed that the directors violated their duty of loyalty[1] to the company when they failed to provide sufficient oversight and compliance-monitoring during a listeria outbreak that led the company to recall all products, temporarily cease product production at all plants and lay off more than one-third of the company’s workforce. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Marc Casarino, Lori Smith and Gwenn Barney Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Barney may be contacted at Barneyg@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Tenants Who Negligently Cause Fires in Florida Beware: You May Be Liable to the Landlord’s Insurer

May 13, 2019 — Rahul Gogineni - The Subrogation Strategist
In Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Puccini, LLC, 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 1487, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D 383, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals considered whether a landlord’s carrier, Zurich American Insurance Company (Zurich), was precluded from pursuing a subrogation claim against the landlord’s tenant, Puccini, LLC (Puccini), for fire-related damages. After the fire, Zurich paid its insured, Lincoln-Drexel Waserstein, Ltd. (Lincoln), over $2.1 million. Zurich then proceeded with an action against Puccini. Puccini filed for summary judgment arguing that it was an additional insured under the Zurich policy. The trial court agreed with Puccini and dismissed the action. Zurich then appealed the case to Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals. Finding that the lease contemplated both liability on the part of the tenant and indemnification in favor of the landlord, the court held that the tenant was not an implied co-insured under Zurich’s policy. Thus, the court allowed Zurich’s subrogation action. The Sutton Doctrine Extension of the Anti-Subrogation Rule In the United States, most states have adopted an anti-subrogation rule either by statute or through common law. Under an anti-subrogation rule, an insurer may not pursue its insured for monies paid to the insured. While some states limit their anti-subrogation rule to apply only to the named insured, other states have expanded the rule to include parties listed as additional insureds, and even, in some instances, implied insureds (those parties not specifically listed, but still considered an insured under the applicable policy). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES