FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

California’s One-Action Rule May Apply to Federal Lenders

June 09, 2016 — Anthony J. Carucci – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
California’s one-action rule provides that “[t]here can be but one form of action for the recovery of any debt or the enforcement of any right secured by mortgage upon real property or an estate for years therein . . . .” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 726(a). In other words, the one-action rule prescribes that the only process for recovery of a debt secured by a mortgage or deed of trust is to foreclose on the lien. The rule aims to prevent a multiplicity of actions and vexatious litigation, and to force a beneficiary to look to all of the security as the primary fund for payment of a debt before looking to the trustor’s other assets. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony J. Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

---

Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence

August 17, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Miller v. Lankow that Mr. Miller was within his rights to remediate his home, even though doing so destroyed the evidence of water intrusion.



Linda Lankow built a home in 1992. In 2001 or 2002, Lankow discovered a stucco problem at the garage which she attributed to moisture intrusion. She asked the original contractor to fix the wall. In 2003, Lankow attempted to sell her home, but the home inspection revealed fungal growth in the basement. Lankow made further repairs, including alterations to the landscaping.



In 2004, Lankow put her house on the market once again and entered into an agreement with David Miller. Miller declined to have an independent inspection, as the home had been repaired by professional contractors.



In 2005, Miller put the house on the market. A prospective buyer requested a moisture inspection. The inspection firm, Private Eye, Inc. found “significant moisture intrusion problems.”



Miller hired an attorney who sent letters to the contractors and to Lankow and her husband. Lankow’s husband, Jim Betz, an attorney, represented his wife and sent a letter to Miller’s attorney that Miller had declined an opportunity to inspect the home.



In 2007, Miller’s new attorney sent letters to all parties that Miller had decided to begin remediation work on the house. All stucco was removed. Miller then filed a lawsuit against the prior owners, the builders, and the realtors.



Two of the contractors and the prior owners moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Miller had spoliated evidence by removing the stucco. They requested that Miller’s expert reports be excluded. The district court found for the defendants and imposed sanctions on Miller.



The Minnesota Supreme court found that “a custodial party’s duty to preserve evidence is not boundless,” stating that “it may be particularly import to allow remediation in cases such as the one before us.” Their reasoning was that “remediation of the moisture intrusion problem in the home may be necessary, even essential, to address immediate health concerns.”



Given that Miller needed to remediate the problem in order to continue living there, and that he had given the other parties a “full and fair opportunity to inspect,” the court found that he was within his rights. The court reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded it to them for review.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Court Finds No Coverage for Workplace “Prank” With Nail Gun

April 04, 2022 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In the recent case of Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Burby, 2022 NY Slip Op 22070, ¶ 1 (Sup. Ct.) Justice Richard M. Platkin of the Supreme Court of Albany County, New York examined a homeowners insurance policy and determined that a duty to defend was triggered in a case seeking recovery for injuries sustained when the insured, Burby allegedly discharged a nail gun in the bathroom of a work facility at which both Burby and the underlying plaintiff worked. Burby pled guilty to assault in the third degree for recklessly causing physical injury. MetLife, Burby’s carrier, disclaimed coverage based on lack of an occurrence, the business activities exclusion and the intentional loss exclusion, which bars coverage for injuries expected or intended by the insured or injuries that are the result of the insured’s intentional and criminal acts or omissions. Justice Platkin initially reviewed the intentional loss exclusion and lack of an occurrence and found that, from a duty to defend perspective, neither provided a dispositive coverage defense. However, the court found that the broadly worded business activities exclusion, which was not the subject of MetLife’s motion and instead was the subject of a cross motion by Burby, applied to bar coverage. In doing so, the court searched the record and granted summary judgment on the issue, despite MetLife not moving for relief under the exclusion. With respect to the expected or intended prong of the intentional loss exclusion, the court found that, even if Burby did intend to pull the trigger of the nail gun, it was not pled in the underlying complaint that the harm that resulted to the plaintiff was expected or intended. As such, the court concluded that MetLife did not prove that there was no possible factual or legal basis upon which it could be found that Burby did not reasonably expect or intend to cause injury to the plaintiff. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

---

Toronto Contractor Bondfield Wins Court Protection as Project Woes Mount

May 27, 2019 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
A Toronto area contractor at the center of a series of delays to major projects in Ontario, including a $139-million hospital expansion, has won court protection from its creditors. The Ontario Superior Court earlier this month granted Bondfield Construction Co.’s application for protection, court records show. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, ENR

---

Hunton Insurance Recovery Lawyers Ranked by Chambers as Top Insurance Practitioners

May 27, 2019 — Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews Kurth
Hunton Andrews Kurth insurance recovery partner, Lorie Masters, received a top “Band 1” ranking by Chambers and Partners in the Insurance: Policyholder category for the District of Columbia, and a “Band 2” ranking in the Insurance: Dispute Resolution: Policyholder – USA – Nationwide category. Hunton Andrews Kurth insurance recovery associate, Andrea DeField, also was recognized by Chambers in the Associate to Watch: Insurance: Florida category. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com

---

Poor Pleading Leads to Loss of Claim for Trespass Due to Relation-Back Doctrine, Statute of Limitations

April 13, 2017 — Brett G. Moore & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co. (No. C070770, Filed 4/6/2017), the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District held that the relation-back doctrine could not save a property owner’s trespass claim against an adjacent neighbor where the property owner’s original complaint was factually devoid and was later amended to include the trespass claim after the statute of limitations had run. The relation-back doctrine is a well-settled legal principle which allows a plaintiff to amend a complaint to add a cause of action which would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. As long as the factual allegations “relate back” to the those alleged in the original complaint, an additional cause of action will not be subject to the applicable statute of limitations. The policy behind statutes of limitation is to put a defendant on notice of the need to defend against a claim in time to prepare an adequate defense. On May 21, 2007, a fire broke out at defendant Lambirth Trucking Company’s (“Lambirth”) soil enhancement facility adjacent to plaintiff Vincent Scholes’ (“Scholes”) property. Scholes had previously notified Lambirth that wood chips and rice hulls were accumulating on his property as a result of Lambirth’s operations. Local authorities also warned Lambirth of the hazards presented by storage of those materials. Reprinted courtesy of Brett G. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moore may be contacted at bmoore@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Plaza Construction Negotiating Pay Settlement for Florida Ritz-Carlton Renovation

August 31, 2020 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
Lionstone Development, owner of the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Miami Beach's South Beach section, began a $90-million renovation in 2017 after damage by Hurricane Irma forced the property's closing. The company reopened the hotel this past January to considerable acclaim in the hospitality industry press. Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Conflicts of Laws, Deficiency Actions, and Statutes of Limitations – Oh My!

May 10, 2017 — Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
What law governs a deficiency action if the choice-of-law provisions in the note and deed of trust conflict? The Arizona Court of Appeals answered that very question in ZB, N.A. v. Hoeller, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0071 (Ct. App. April 15, 2017). It turns out, the note controls. The Facts In ZB, ZB, N.A. (ZB), a Utah bank, lent money to the Hoellers to purchase a commercial property in Missouri. The note included a choice-of-law provision stating that Utah law governed the debt. The deed of trust securing the commercial property, however, provided that Missouri law controlled “procedural matters related to the perfection and enforcement of [ZB’s] rights and remedies against the [p]roperty.” In 2012, the Hoellers defaulted, and the bank recovered the property through a trustee’s sale. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

---