FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

No Coverage For Construction Defect Under Illinois Law

January 28, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court followed precedent in Illinois and upheld the insurer's denial of coverage for construction defects that did not damage other property. Design Concrete Founds., Inc. v. Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co., 2014 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2684 (Ill Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2014). In 2005, the homeowners contracted with the general contractor to build a home. The general contractor hired Design to do the foundation work. Design performed its work in August 2005. After the work was completed, cracks formed in the foundation, allowing water to enter the basement and an inward shifting of the foundation. The homeowners sued the general contractor and Design. The complaint alleged that Design failed to build the foundation in a workmanlike manner, resulting in the development of cracks in the foundation. 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

---

Court of Appeals Finds Additional Insured Coverage Despite “Care, Custody or Control” Exclusion

September 30, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
When things go wrong on a construction project it’s often a scramble of finger pointing. In McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Case No. D074219 (June 5, 2019), the California Court of Appeals for the 4th District considered whether an additional insured exclusion, excluding “property in the care, custody or control of the additional insured,” precluded a duty to defend by an insurer. McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. was the developer and general contractor on a residential project known as Auburn Lane in Chula Vista, California. McMillin subcontracted with Martin Roofing Company, Inc. to perform roofing work. Under the subcontract, Martin was required to obtain commercial general liability insurance naming McMillin as an additional insured. The commercial general liability insurance policy secured by Martin was issued by National Fire and Marine Insurance Company. As is typical, the policy covered “property damage” and “personal injury” arising out of an “occurrence” during the policy period. McMillin was covered as additional insured under ISO endorsement form CG 20 09 03 97. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Update: Supreme Court Issues Opinion in West Virginia v. EPA

August 03, 2022 — Anne Idsal Austin, Shelby L. Dyl & Sheila McCafferty Harvey - Pillsbury
Takeaways

• The Supreme Court sided with a coalition of states and coal mining companies constraining EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.
• The Supreme Court’s deployment of the “major questions doctrine” could have far-reaching implications for agencies’ authority to take actions that are politically and economically significant.
• The Court also announced a broad interpretation of standing, finding that the challengers could bring their suit notwithstanding EPA’s announced nonenforcement of the Clean Power Plan and intent to engage in a rulemaking to replace it.

Introduction On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in West Virginia v. EPA, invalidating the 2015 Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP). Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court, holding that Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to devise emissions caps based on “generation shifting”—the approach EPA took in the CPP wherein power plants would be required to transition from higher-emitting (e.g., coal) to lower-emitting (e.g., natural-gas) to then even lower-emitting (e.g., wind and solar) electricity production. The Court’s holding that the case was justiciable despite the Biden administration’s stated intent to repeal the Clean Power Plan and engage in a new rulemaking, as well as its deployment of the “major questions doctrine,” is likely to have far-reaching implications for legal challenges to all administrative agency actions. Reprinted courtesy of Anne Idsal Austin, Pillsbury, Shelby L. Dyl, Pillsbury and Sheila McCafferty Harvey, Pillsbury Ms. Austin may be contacted at anne.austin@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Dyl may be contacted at shelby.dyl@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Harvey may be contacted at sheila.harvey@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Not Remotely Law as Usual: Don’t Settle for Delays – Settle at Remote Mediation

May 25, 2020 — Victor J. Zarrilli, Robert G. Devine & Michael W. Horner - White and Williams LLP
The emergence and rapid spread of COVID-19 has created extraordinary circumstances that have significantly impacted how we go about living, working and interacting with one another. The practice of law is no exception. While most cases have been postponed and some extended indefinitely, the issues and disputes that first triggered the litigation remain. In fact, the burdens created by social distancing and other responses to the COVID-19 outbreak have served to only increase these disputes and create an urgent need in some for quick resolution. In our previous article, we summarized some of the best practices that should be applied when taking and defending depositions in a remote, virtual setting. That technology can also offer the same benefits for alternative dispute resolutions. If planned properly, the use of technology allows remote mediations to be conducted as seamlessly as in-person mediations and, in some circumstances, affords additional benefits that can achieve the best possible resolution for all sides. This article summarizes the opportunities technology has created by which parties can attempt to resolve their disputes through alternative dispute resolution methods, even in a time of social distancing. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Victor J. Zarrilli, Robert G. Devine and Michael W. Horner Mr. Zarrilli may be contacted at zarrilliv@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Horner may be contacted at hornerm@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Congratulations to our 2019 Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Stars

July 30, 2019 — John Arbucci, Frances Brower, Lisa Hsiao, Kristian Moriarty & Michael Parme - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Congratulations to attorneys John Arbucci, Frances Brower, Lisa Hsiao, Kristian Moriarty and Michael Parme who were selected to the 2019 Southern California Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys T. Giovanni “John” Arbucci, Frances Brower, Lisa Hsiao, Kristian Moriarty and Michael Parme Mr. Arbucci may be contacted at jarbucci@hbblaw.com Ms. Brower may be contacted at fma@hbblaw.com Ms. Lisa may be contacted at lhsiao@hbblaw.com Mr. Kristian may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

April 25, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

After the insurer denied coverage in a homeowner’s policy for construction defects under various exclusions, the court found the ensuing loss provision was ambiguous.Kesling v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38857 (D. Colo. March 22, 2012).



After purchasing a home from the sellers, the insureds noticed problems with the deck of the home. Massive cracking appeared, causing lifting and leaking on the deck and water running through the exterior foundation wall into the home. There was also damage to the roof and crawlspace.



The insureds had a homeowner’s policy with American Family, which covered accidental direct physical loss to property described in the policy unless the loss was excluded. They requested coverage for "conditions, defects and damages." American Family denied coverage because wear and tear, as well as damage to foundations, floors and roofs were excluded. The policy did provide coverage, however, for "any resulting loss to property described . . . above, not excluded or excepted in this policy.



When coverage was denied, the insureds sued American Family.



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Several Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2022 Top Lawyers!

October 03, 2022 — Wilke Fleury LLP
Wilke Fleury is extremely proud of its incredibly talented attorneys! Congratulations to Steve Williamson, Dan Egan, Neal Lutterman, Danny Foster, George Guthrie, Mike Polis, Ron Lamb, and David Frenznick, who are all featured in this year’s Sacramento Magazine’s List of Top Lawyers 2022! Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury LLP Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Judgment Stemming from a Section 998 Offer Without a Written Acceptance Provision Is Void

March 22, 2021 — Arezoo Jamshidi, Stevie B. Newton & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Mostafavi Law Group, APC v. Larry Rabineau, APC (B302344, Mar. 3, 2021), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (Los Angeles), addressed an issue of first impression: whether the purported acceptance of a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (“section 998”) offer lacking an acceptance provision gives rise to a valid judgment. The appellate court held that a section 998 offer to compromise (“998 Offer”) without an acceptance provision is invalid and any judgment stemming from it is void. In Mostafavi Law Group, plaintiffs sued defendants for defamation per se, among other claims, which was litigated at-length over several years. Defendants served plaintiffs with a written 998 Offer, offering to settle the action for the sum of $25,000.01. The 998 Offer did not specify the manner in which plaintiffs were to accept the offer. Within the statutory time period for acceptance, plaintiffs’ counsel hand-wrote the following onto the 998 Offer: “Plaintiff Mostafavi Law Group, APC accepts the offer.” That day, plaintiffs also filed a notice of acceptance of the 998 Offer, along with proof thereof, and sent a copy to defendants. The next day, having received the notice of acceptance, defendants advised plaintiffs that they would “draft and send . . . a settlement agreement for . . . signature” before paying the settlement funds. Reprinted courtesy of Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, Stevie B. Newton, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com Mr. Newton may be contacted at snewton@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---