Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Liability Coverage For Construction Claims May Turn On Narrow Factual Distinctions

March 25, 2024 — Scott S. Thomas - Payne & Fears
In a recent trial court decision, a Montana federal court reminds us how fragile insurance coverage can be for construction-related insurance claims. Specifically, this case illustrates how seemingly small factual nuances can make or break coverage. The case turned on the application of policy provisions familiar to all who deal with these kinds of cases. (See Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Farrens, No. CV 22-193-M-DWM, 2024 WL 885109 (D. Mont. Mar. 1, 2024)) First, the court rebuffed the insurer’s argument that damage resulting from defective workmanship (in this case, the flawed design and installation of an elaborate floating-floor pool system) is not “caused by an occurrence.” The court correctly applied the test followed by most states: if either act causing injury is unintentional or the resulting injury is unexpected or unintended, the “occurrence” requirement is met. Fortunately, the court distinguished sloppy language from earlier Montana federal court decisions suggesting otherwise. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com

When “Substantially Similar” Means “Fundamentally Identical”: Delaware Court Enforces Related Claim Provision to Deny D&O Coverage for Securities Class Action

August 10, 2021 — Geoffrey B. Fehling, Lawrence J. Bracken II & Lorelie S. Masters - Hunton Andrews Kurth
A company faces two class action lawsuits—filed by different plaintiffs, complaining of different allegedly wrongful conduct, asserting different causes of action subject to different burdens of proof, and seeking different relief based on different time periods for the alleged harm. Those facts suggest the suits are not “fundamentally identical,” but that is what a Delaware Superior Court recently concluded in barring coverage for a policyholder seeking to recover for a suit the court deemed “related” to an earlier lawsuit first made outside the policy’s coverage period. First Solar Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., No. N20C-10-156 MMJ CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. June 23, 2021). The decision, which is not on all fours with some of the authority upon which it relies, underscores the inherent unpredictability of “related” claim disputes and need for careful analysis of the policy language against the factual and legal bases of the underlying claims. Underlying Shareholder Class Actions and D&O Claims Shareholders of solar panel manufacturer First Solar sued the company and its directors and officers in a class action lawsuit (the “Smilovits Action”) for the class period April 2008 to February 2012. The Smilovits Action asserted federal securities violations arising from First Solar’s alleged misrepresentations about the company’s business strategies, product design, financial strength, and ability to offer solar electricity at comparable rates to conventional energy producers (i.e., achieving “grid parity”), artificially inflated stock price, insider trading, manipulation of solar power metrics, and violations of GAAP accounting standards. First Solar submitted a claim to its D&O insurer, National Union, which provided coverage for the Smilovits Action and exhausted the policy. Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Landlords, Brace Yourselves: New Law Now Limits Your Rental Increases & Terminations

March 02, 2020 — Kyle Janecek – Newmeyer Dillion
California can be an especially expensive place to live. While this is the common wisdom, residents of the state are also painfully aware that location is an equally important factor. Yet, to curb unscrupulous actions in certain areas and expansive rental increases, Governor Gavin Newsom has signed AB-1482, which is a state-wide limitation on yearly rental increases, prompting potential additions to leases, and additional notices that landlords are required to give to tenants. Failure to do so may cost landlords unnecessary costs and unforeseen complications around the termination of a tenancy. How Does the Rental Cap Work? The law sets forth three ways that rental increases may be limited: (1) a cap of 5% plus the percent change in the cost of living; (2) a cap of 10%; or (3) where local rent or price control that restricts annual increases in the rental rate to an amount less than the state law. The cap that applies is the one that is the most restrictive on the landlord. For example, if the cost of living has gone up by 6%, and there is a local law that restricts rental increases by 15%, then the state law would cap the landlord to a rental increase of 10%. Notably, this doesn't count any discounts or incentives that are applied to the rent, if they are (a) listed separately and (b) clearly stated within the residential lease agreement. Thus, even if the effective increase would be beyond the applicable cap, the landlord is not obligated to cap rent using the discounted rental fees. Finally, this does not prohibit the landlord from freely setting a rent for new tenants. The cap only applies to existing tenants. Exempt Properties from the Law Certain properties are also exempt from the rental cap law, allowing landlords to increase rents without limitation for the residential properties below:

Housing restricted by deed for purposes of affordable housing.
New housing with a certificate of occupancy that has been granted within the previous 15 years.
Condominiums or townhouses provided that the owner is not (a) a real estate investment trust; (b) a corporation, or (c) a limited liability trust.
A duplex in which one of the units is owner-occupied as the owner's primary residence.

'Just Cause' for Terminations Is a Necessity Notably, AB-1482 is not limited to rent restrictions. AB-1482 also restricts the ability of a landlord to evict tenants after the tenant has been occupying the property for over 12 months without just cause. Just cause includes items typical to an ordinary eviction action, such as a failure to pay rent or a default of a material term of the lease, or nuisance actions. Importantly, the legislature provided "no-fault just cause" such as the intent to occupy the real property by the owner or one of their family members, withdrawal of the property from the rental market, compliance with a government agency or an intent to substantially remodel the property. In the event that the just cause is "no-fault," then the owner must either (a) assist the tenant in relocating by providing a direct payment of a full month's rent to the tenant within 15 calendar days of the notice; or (b) waive the payment of the last month's rent. Effectively, this puts a cost on the landlord to terminate a tenancy. Importantly, an owner's failure to do either of those actions will render the termination of tenancy void, and cannot be contractually waived. This does not apply to any of the housing types exempt under the rental cap provision, or (a) transient and tourist hotel occupancy; (b) housing accommodations in a nonprofit hospital, religious facility, extended care facility, licensed residential care facility for the elderly, or in an adult residential facility; (c) housing accommodations in which the tenant shares bathroom or kitchen facilities with the owner; (d) single-family owner-occupied residences where the owner leases no more than two units or bedrooms; or (e) student housing for kindergartens or grades 1 to 12. Notwithstanding, landlords must also provide additional language within their lease giving notice of the rental cap law and the tenant's rights regarding termination. This language is stated within the law, and must be given in 12 point font. What Landlords Must Do Right Now Ultimately, landlords will have to show more care towards termination processes and rental increases moving forward. At a bare minimum, landlords will have to revise their form leases for new tenants and prepare addendums for any tenancies continuing in 2020. While the bare minimum is the new, state-mandated language to inform tenants of their rights, other language may be required if the landlord wishes to reserve a right to terminate in order to take occupancy for themselves. Furthermore, for any leases going forward, any landlord that wants to provide a temporary discount or incentive to rent their units will have to include language outlining and specifically stating the presence of the discount or incentive, or chance that a tenant may contest the increase in rent as a violation of the rental cap portion of the law. Similarly, the changes above will have to be implemented as an addendum to any leases being renewed. A failure to do any of these actions risks that a tenant may contest either the termination for being improper or an increase in rent, as an excessive rent hike. Kyle Janecek is an associate on the firm's Transactional team, and has experience with drafting leases for landlords and tenants, real estate purchase and sale agreements, and loans secured by real estate. For more information on how Kyle can help, contact him at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com. About Newmeyer Dillion For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's success and bottom line. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

EPA Issues New PFAS Standard, Provides $1B for Testing, Cleanup of 'Forever Chemicals'

April 29, 2024 — Tom Ichniowski & Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-Record
The Biden administration has announced a two-pronged initiative aimed to reduce exposure, through drinking water, to the “forever chemicals”—perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, which have been linked to cancer and other health problems. Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record and Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Meet BWBO’s 2024 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

April 29, 2024 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
BWB&O is proud to announce San Diego Partner Johnpaul Salem, and Associates Christina Matian and Angelo Perillo have been selected in the 2024 San Diego Super Lawyers list as Rising Stars for their work in Civil and Personal Injury Litigation. To read Super Lawyers’ digital publication, please click here. SELECTED AS RISING STARS Johnpaul Salem: 2023-2024 Christina Matian: 2024 Angelo Perillo: 2024 Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The objective of Super Lawyers’ patented multiphase selection process is to create a credible, comprehensive, and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys that can be used as a resource for attorneys and consumers searching for legal counsel. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Job Gains a Positive for Housing

October 15, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The National Association of Home Builders’ Eye on Housing reported that there were 248,000 net jobs created in September, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS): “August gains were revised from a disappointing 142,000 to a slightly better 180,000, while July’s tally was also revised from 212,000 to 243,000.” Furthermore, “September was a promising month for residential construction employment. The BLS data reveal that home builders and remodelers added 11,800 positions last month. Over the last year, residential construction employment has expanded by 129,000 jobs.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Texas covered versus uncovered allocation and “legally obligated to pay.”

April 27, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Markel American Ins. Co. v. Lennar Corp., No. 14-10-00008-CV (Tex. Ct. App. April 19, 2011), insured homebuilder Lennar filed suit against its insurer Markel seeking recovery of costs incurred by Lennar to repair water damage to homes resulting from defective EIFS siding. Following a jury trial, judgment was entered in favor of Lennar and against Markel. On appeal, the intermediate appellate court reversed. Applying Texas law, the court first held that Lennar failed to satisfy its burden of allocating damages between covered and uncovered. In a prior decision, the court had held that, while the costs incurred by Lennar for the repair of the resulting water damage

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

One to Watch: Case Takes on Economic Loss Rule and Professional Duties

June 28, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

According to the Supreme Court of Washington Blog, The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jackowski v. Hawkins Poe on Thursday, June 16, 2011. The court’s synopsis of the case can be found on the Washington State Court website.

In short, two home purchasers brought a lawsuit against the home’s sellers, the sellers’ agent and the purchasers’ own agent, alleging claims of fraud, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation and breach of common law and statutory duties. The trial court dismissed the buyers’ claims on the basis of the economic loss doctrine and Division II reversed, opining that the ELR does not apply to professional duties. The Supreme Court will now look at applying the Independent Duty Doctrine established last year, and whether professional duties (those of the real estate agents) should be reviewed under a different light.