Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Determining the Cause of the Loss from a Named Windstorm when there is Water Damage - New Jersey

March 23, 2020 — Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Water damage, while one of the leading causes of loss under a property policy, often results in some of the most complex claims due to the intersection of exclusions, sublimits, and complex wording within the policy. One particularly difficult issue is whether water damage caused by a storm surge is covered by the flood sublimit, or under the general policy or water limit. In New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s (“NJTC v. Lloyd’s”), the New Jersey Appeals Court found that the “flood” sublimit of the policy should not apply as the cause of the loss was a “named windstorm” and not a “flood.” In NJTC v Lloyd's the court was asked to determine whether a flood sublimit applied to losses sustained during Superstorm Sandy. The court found that although there was “flooding,” the water damage was more closely related to the “named windstorm”, and therefore, the $400 million policy limits should apply. The court focused its analysis on the definitions for “flood” and “named windstorm” and by applying the efficient proximate cause doctrine to determine which would apply. When reviewing the definitions within the property policies, the court determined that although the loss would qualify under the definition of “flood,” the policy also contained a definition for “named windstorm” which “more specifically encompasses the wind driven water or storm surge associated with a ‘named windstorm’”1. In addition, the policy did not specifically state that “storm surge” associated with a “named windstorm” should be considered a “flood” event and fall under the “flood” sublimit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Perry may be contacted at amp@sdvlaw.com

Connecticut Federal District Court Again Finds "Collapse" Provisions Ambiguous

March 22, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Federal District Court for the District of Connecticut has issued several decisions of late finding coverage for collapse despite the building not being reduced to rubble. The latest decision in this series is Metsack v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24062 (D. Conn. Feb. 21, 2017). The Metsack's property was insured by Allstate under policies issued from June 27, 1991 to September 9, 2009. From September 2009 to present, Liberty Mutual issued property policies to the insureds. Mr. Metsack built the insureds' home in 1992. The concrete basement walls used concrete supplied by JJ Mottes Company. 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

Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Policyholder Can “Stack” the Limits of Each Primary Policy After Asbestos Claim

December 19, 2018 — Michael S. Levine & Alexander D. Russo - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A Georgia Court of Appeals judge recently ruled that Scapa Dryer Fabrics was entitled to $17.4 million worth of primary coverage from National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA for claims of injurious exposure to Scapa’s asbestos-containing dryer felts. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc., No. A18A1173, 2018 WL 5306693, at *1 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2018). Scapa sought coverage under five National Union policies issued from 1983–1987. The 1983, 1984 and 1985 National Union policies had limits of $1 million per occurrence and $1 million in the aggregate. The liability limits for the 1986 and 1987 renewal policies were amended by endorsement to $7.2 million. Scapa sought to recover the full $17.4 million from all five policies. National Union argued that a “Non-Cumulative Limits of Liability Endorsement” in the 1986 and 1987 policies limited Scapa’s recovery to only $7.2 million. Scapa sued National Union and its sister company, New Hampshire Insurance Company (from which Scapa purchased excess liability coverage), in Georgia state court. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Alexander D. Russo, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Russo may be contacted at arusso@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Building Safety Month Just Around the Corner

May 07, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
For every week in May, the International Code Council (ICC) will spotlight a specific area of building safety. The theme this year is “Resisient Communities Start with Building Codes.” ICC’s first week focus is “Don’t Get Burned – Build to Code,” and the second week the focus changes to “Bounce Back Faster from Disaster – Build to Code.” Next, the ICC will present “Water Safe, Water Smart – Build to Code,” and conclude with “$save Energy – Build to Code.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Toolbox Talk Series Recap – Best Practices for Productive Rule 26(f) Conferences on Discovery Plans

May 13, 2024 — Douglas J. Mackin - The Dispute Resolver
In the April 4, 2024 edition of Division 1’s Toolbox Talk Series, Julian Ackert and Steve Swart presented on how to prepare for and structure Rule 26(f) conferences to be more effective. While Swart and Ackert focused on the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) regarding the requisite conference of the parties prior to a scheduling conference or scheduling order, it is worth noting that many states have substantially similar requirements. Rule 26(f) requires the parties to (i) discuss the nature and basis of their claims or defense; (ii) make or arrange for mandatory disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1); (iii) discuss issues about preserving discoverable information (including Electronically Stored Information – “ESI”); and (iv) develop a proposed discovery plan. Swart and Ackert’s presentation focused on the preservation of ESI and the proposed discovery plan. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas J. Mackin, Cozen O’Connor
Mr. Mackin may be contacted at dmackin@cozen.com

Construction Recovery Still Soft in New Hampshire

May 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The latest building news out of New Hampshire is somewhat mixed. Yes, there has been an increase of seventeen percent in the value of future residential construction on the state. But that’s not enough to offset the general slide in the value of future construction overall. The New Hampshire Business Review reports that the state saw a four percent drop in the cost of planned construction, comparing March 2012 to March 2013. The total value of the drop was shared between the twelve percent drop in nonresidential construction and the fifty-two percent drop in infrastructure building, each of which were more than $4 million less than in the prior year. The rise in residential construction could not make up the loss in other areas. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Excess Carrier's Declaratory Judgment Action Stayed While Underlying Case Still Pending

June 11, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court determined the excess carrier's declaratory judgment action to establish it had no coverage obligations should be stayed while the underlying case was still pending. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Ortiz & Assocs., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64286 (D. Ore. May 9, 2014). The subcontractor's employee was killed on the job site when struck by a dump truck owned by the general contractor, Inland Asphalt Co. Island was sued for wrongful death. Island was an additional insured under the subcontractor's primary policy and excess policy with Scottsdale. Inland put Scottsdale on notice of the underlying wrongful death lawsuit, but did not tender its defense to Scottsdale. 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

Breaking Down Homeowners Association Laws In California

April 03, 2019 — Lauren Hickey - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Purpose of HOAs Property ownership often combines elements of individual and common ownership interests. For example, a property owner may individually own his or her living quarters, but also own a common interest in amenities that are considered too expensive for a single homeowner to purchase individually (such as a pool, gym, or trash collection service). Properties with such elements usually take the form of apartments, condominiums, planned developments, or stock cooperatives (together known as “common interest developments” or “CIDs”). Whenever a CID is built, California law requires the developer to organize a homeowner association (or “HOA), which can take several different names, including “community association”. Initially, the developer relies on the HOA to market the development to prospective buyers. Once each unit in the development is sold, management of the HOA is passed to a board of directors elected by the homeowners. At that point, the primary purpose of the HOA shifts to maintenance of common amenities and enforcement of community standards. Dues/Assessments HOAs generally charge each homeowner monthly or annual dues to cover the cost of their services. HOAs may also charge special assessments to cover large, abnormal expenses, such as the cost of upgrades or improvements. The amount charged in dues and assessments is established by the HOA’s board of directors, within the limits set by the HOA’s governing documents and California Civil Code section 1366. Section 1366 provides that HOA dues may not be increased by more than 20 percent of the amount set in the previous year, and the total amount of any special assessments charged in a given year generally may not exceed 5 percent of the HOA’s budgeted expenses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lauren Hickey, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES