Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Failure to Timely File Suit in Federal Court for Flood Loss is Fatal

June 29, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Although the insureds timely filed their suit for denial of flood benefits in state court, the Fourth Circuit found the lawsuit against the Insurer was untimely because it was not filed in federal district court. Woodson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2017 U. S. App. LEXIS 7862 (4th Cir. May 3 , 2917). Hurricane Irene struck the insureds' house in August 27, 2011. Their property was flooded and for several hours, subjected to wave action, allegedly causing further damage to the home. The insureds contacted Allstate, who retained Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. to inspect the property. Rimkus found that, other than a substantial loss of soil washed away around the supporting portion of the house, there was no damage to the structure of the house. Rimkus recommended reimbursement of $1200 for the washed out soil. The insureds retained House Engineering, P.C., which submitted a report describing substantial damage caused by the hurricane, including movement to the pilings that caused the house to no longer be level. The insureds claimed $228,822 in damages. 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

Home Prices Up in Metro Regions

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Housing prices in the largest metro regions beat expectations, rising 12.8% in August as compared to a year before. Analysts were expecting weaker increases; instead these have been the fastest increases in seven years. The metropolitan area with the largest increase was Las Vegas, where houses increased in price by 29.2%. Three California regions — San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego — also saw increases of greater than 20%. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer Must Defend Claims of Alleged Willful Coal Removal

June 21, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found that the insured was entitled to a defense against claims for its alleged willful removal of coal from third parties' land. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bizzack Constr, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70285 (W.D. Va. April 27, 2017). The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) contracted with Bizzack to perform work in widening U.S. Route 460. VDOT notified coal owners that it had been "necessary to remove certain coal" from their land during the construction of Route 460. Some of the coal owners sued Bizzack, seeking compensation for lost coal. They alleged Bizzack had illegally removed and sold their coal, and "damaged the remaining coal in place on the property." Bizzack sought coverage from Liberty Mutual. Liberty Mutual filed suit seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Bizzack. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. Liberty Mutual argued: (1) there was no "occurrence"; (2) exclusion j (5) applied; and (3) the "expected or intended injury" exclusion applied. 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

Prevailing Payment Bond Surety Entitled to Statutory Attorneys’ Fees Even if Defended by Principal

January 09, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
For contractors involved in California public works projects the scenario is not uncommon: The general contractor awarded the public works project is required to obtain a payment bond for the benefit of subcontractors and suppliers and the payment bond surety issuing the payment bond requires the general contractor to defend and indemnify the surety from and against any claims against the payment bond. In Cell-Crete Corporation v. Federal Insurance Company, 82 Cal.App.5th 1090 (2022), the 4th District Court of Appeal examined whether a payment bond surety, who prevails in a claim against the payment bond, is entitled to statutory attorneys’ fees when the party actually incurring the attorneys’ fees was the general contractor, pursuant to its defense and indemnity obligations, as opposed to the surety itself. The Cell-Crete Case General contractor Granite Construction Company was awarded a public works contract issued by the City of Thermal known as the Airport Boulevard at Grapefruit Boulevard and Union Pacific Railroad Grade Separation Project. We’ll just call it the “Project.” Subcontractor Cell-Crete Corporation entered into a subcontract with Granite for lightweight concrete and related work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Cal/OSHA Approves COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards; Executive Order Makes Them Effective Immediately

July 11, 2021 — Leila S. Narvid - Payne & Fears LLP
On June 17, 2021, California's Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Standards Board) passed amended COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS). Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an Executive Order to make the amended ETS effective as soon as filed with the Secretary of State. The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) filed them, and the Secretary of State posted them, making the ETS effective immediately. These changes attempt to bring the ETS in alignment with recent changes to California Department of Public Health Order and the latest guidance from the Center for Disease Control (CDC). Highlights of the changes to the ETS can be found here. Face Coverings in the Workplace; Elimination of Physical Distancing Notably, fully vaccinated employees do not have to wear a face covering indoors except in limited circumstances. Unvaccinated workers will still need to wear face coverings indoors (unless they are alone in a room or eating and drinking) and in shared vehicles. All employees regardless of vaccination status do not have to wear masks outdoors. Unvaccinated employees must be trained that face coverings are recommended outdoors for individuals who are not fully vaccinated when six feet of physical distance cannot be maintained. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Leila S. Narvid, Payne & Fears LLP
Ms. Narvid may be contacted at ln@paynefears.com

Court Finds That SIR Requirements are Not Incorporated into High Level Excess Policies and That Excess Insurers’ Payment of Defense Costs is Not Conditioned on Actual Liability

April 22, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Deere & Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (No. A145170, filed 2/25/19), a California appeals court held that the insured was not required to pay additional self-insured retentions (SIRs) in order to trigger higher level excess coverage because the retained limits applicable to the first layer of coverage did not also apply to the higher-layer excess policies. In Deere, the insured was sued for injuries from alleged exposure to asbestos-containing assemblies used in Deere machines. In a declaratory relief action against its umbrella and excess insurers, the case was tried on: (1) whether the higher-layer excess policies were triggered once the first-layer excess policy limits, which were subject to an SIR paid by Deere, had been exhausted; and (2) whether the insurers’ indemnity obligation extended to Deere’s defense costs incurred in asbestos claims that had been dismissed. The trial court found in favor of the insurers, concluding that the retained limits in the first layer of coverage also applied to the higher-layer excess, which was not triggered until Deere paid additional SIRs. The court also concluded that the insurers were not obligated to pay defense costs when underlying cases were dismissed without payment to a claimant either by judgment or settlement. Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case

November 26, 2014 — Roger Hughes – California Construction Law Blog
On November 11, 2014, the California Supreme Court rejected the recent California Court of Appeals decision Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. v Eastern Municipal Water District, 228 Cal.App.4th 273 (2014) which we wrote about earlier by “decertifying” it (meaning that lawyers cannot cite to the case as legal precedent) The decertification removed a decision that added substantially to the confusion as to when an action on a payment bond is timely filed. Even though the decision was determined in accordance with pre-2014 statutes, the case was relevant precedent for construction attorneys when determining time deadlines for filing a claim on a bond. Background In July of this year, the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a trial court’s granting of summary judgment against a project subcontractor Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. (GSB) who sued Safeco Insurance Company (Safeco) for unpaid contract amounts on a project payment bond issued by Safeco. Both at the trial level and on appeal Safeco successfully argued that GSB’s action on its payment bond claim was time barred by former California Civil Code Sections 3249 (now Section 9558), because it was filed more than six month after the period in which stop notices may be filed as provided by California’s Civil Code Section 3184 (now Section 9558). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

Los Angeles Delays ‘Mansion Tax’ Spending Amid Legal Fight

April 25, 2023 — Laura Curtis - Bloomberg
Los Angeles plans to hold off spending most of the money collected from a voter-approved “mansion tax” until legal challenges against the initiative are resolved. Mayor Karen Bass revealed in her 2023-24 budget plans that the city intends to allocate just $150 million of the funds raised by Proposition ULA, a ballot initiative that took effect this month to fund the construction of more affordable housing. The decision will prevent the city from taking a loss if a lawsuit succeeds in reversing the tax, according to budget documents released this week. The city anticipates it would qualify for $150 million in federal reimbursements to make up the amount. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Laura Curtis, Bloomberg

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES