Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

July 31, 2013 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
An issue that has plagued builders in Colorado construction defect litigation is the difficulty of getting additional insured carriers to fully participate in the builder’s defense, oftentimes leaving the builder to fund its own defense during the course of the litigation. Many additional insurers offer a variety of positions regarding why they will not pay for fees and costs during the course of a lawsuit. Some insurers argue that, until after trial, it is impossible to determine its proper share of the defense, and therefore cannot make any payments until the liability is determined as to all of the potentially contributing policies. (This is often referred to as the “defense follows indemnity” approach.) Others may make an opening contribution to defense fees and costs, but fall silent as fees and costs accumulate. In such an event, the builder may be forced to fund all or part of its own defense, while the uncooperative additional insured carrier waits for the end of the lawsuit or is faced with other legal action before it makes other contributions. Recent orders in two, currently ongoing, U.S. District Court cases provide clarity on the duty to defend in Colorado, holding that multiple insurers’ duty to defend is joint and several. The insured does not have to go without a defense while the various insurers argue amongst themselves as to which insurer pays what share. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Board of Directors Guidance When Addressing Emergency Circumstances Occasioned by the COVID-19 Pandemic

May 11, 2020 — Marc Casarino, Lori Smith & Gwenn Barney - White and Williams LLP
The COVID-19 pandemic has sent massive shockwaves throughout the global economy. This crises requires business leaders to confront a host of deleterious effects on an emergency basis – the likes of which many companies have never experienced. Boards of directors must remain cognizant of their oversight responsibilities in these trying times. This post offers guidance to directors of Delaware companies for addressing emergency circumstances occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic. Board Oversight – Lessons from Marchand V. Barnhill Directors should consider the lessons learned from the recent Delaware Supreme Court case Marchand v. Barnhill, a ruling we addressed in a previous blog post, when considering board oversight during the COVID-19 pandemic. Marchand centered on a lawsuit brought by shareholders in an ice cream manufacturing company against the company’s board of directors. The shareholders claimed that the directors violated their duty of loyalty[1] to the company when they failed to provide sufficient oversight and compliance-monitoring during a listeria outbreak that led the company to recall all products, temporarily cease product production at all plants and lay off more than one-third of the company’s workforce. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Marc Casarino, Lori Smith and Gwenn Barney Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Barney may be contacted at Barneyg@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

More Hensel Phelps Ripples in the Statute of Limitations Pond?

February 03, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As is always the case when I attend the Virginia State Bar’s annual construction law seminar, I come away from it with a few posts on recent cases and their implications. The first of these is not a construction case, but has implications relating to the state project related statute of limitations and indemnification issues for construction contracts brought out in stark relief in the now infamous Hensel Phelps case. In Radiance Capital Receivables Fourteen, LLC v. Foster the Court considered a waiver of the statute of limitations found in a loan contract. The operative facts are that the waiver was found in a Continuing Guaranty contract and that the default happened more than 5 years prior to the date that Radiance filed suit to enforce its rights. When the defendants filed a plea in bar stating that the statute of limitations had run and therefore the claim was barred, Radiance of course argued that the defendants had waived their right to bring such a defense. The defendants responded that the waiver was invalid in that it violated the terms of Va. Code 8.01-232 that states among other things:

an unwritten promise not to plead the statute shall be void, and a written promise not to plead such statute shall be valid when (i) it is made to avoid or defer litigation pending settlement of any case, (ii) it is not made contemporaneously with any other contract, and (iii) it is made for an additional term not longer than the applicable limitations period.

The Circuit Court and ultimately the Supreme Court agreed with the defendants. In doing so, the Virginia Supreme Court rejected arguments of estoppel and an argument that a “waiver” is not a “promise not to plead.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2020 Southern California Super Lawyers List

April 27, 2020 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Seven Haight attorneys have been selected to the 2020 Southern California Super Lawyers list. Congratulations to:

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

Mitigation, Restructuring and Bankruptcy: Small Business Tools in the Era of COVID-19

June 08, 2020 — Hannah Kreuser - Porter Law Group
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been sudden and severe. Worldwide, populations are dealing with a public health crisis, which has abruptly impacted the economy. As cases continue to increase across the United States, both the federal government and state governments, including California, are directing people to “shelter in place” and “socially distance” from each other in an attempt to curb the spread of the virus. These orders have generally shut down daily life except for “essential” businesses. As a direct result, the economy has come to an abrupt halt and many businesses have been forced to close or significantly reduce their operations. Concern for this economic impact is, in part, due to the speed and severity with which it has affected so many industries. With the current economic conditions, there is much speculation that bankruptcy filings, among not only individuals, but small businesses, will see a sudden increase in the coming months. Experts agree that filings will increase, the only question is when. Because of COVID-19’s economic impact, it is important that businesses make an assessment now, regarding their needs, assets, and liabilities, so they can best prepare to survive COVID-19, or to take proactive steps in preparing to enter bankruptcy or wind down. In making this assessment, one of the questions to ask is whether the business can survive with quick financing, to help bridge the gap between the current operating conditions and their return to normal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hannah Kreuser, Porter Law Group
Ms. Kreuser may be contacted at hkreuser@porterlaw.com

Fundamental Fairness Trumps Contract Language

September 24, 2014 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled that a “no-damages-for-delay” clause would not be enforced where the delay was caused by the owner. The court’s ruling flies squarely in the face of the contract language that attempted to insulate the owner from any delay claims, even those it caused. In the case of Zachary Construction v. Port of Houston underlying contract, proposed by the Port of Houston, was heavy handed, to say the least. The contract provided: “[Contractor] shall receive no financial compensation for delay or hindrance to the Work. In no event shall the Port Authority be liable to [Contractor] … for any damages arising out of or associated with any delay or hindrance to the Work, regardless of the source of the delay or hindrance, including events of Force Majeure, AND EVEN IF SUCH DELAY OR HINDRANCE RESULTS FROM, ARISES OUT OF OR IS DUE IN WHOLE OR IN PART, TO THE NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR OTHER FAULT OF THE PORT AUTHORITY. [Contractor’s] sole remedy in any such case shall be an extension of time.” Wow, that’s some one-sided language. If the contract was enforced, the contractor could not get any damages for delay, even those damages caused by the active interference of the Port of Houston. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

The Cost of Overlooking Jury Fees

February 07, 2022 — Nicholas B. Brummel, Arezoo Jamshidi & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
On January 21, 2022, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two (Los Angeles), certified for publication a 2-1 decision that serves as an important reminder to California attorneys to post jury fees in a timely manner and to use appropriate channels and consult with appellate counsel in seeking appellate relief from contested rulings. In TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Nathaniel Fonnegra, (B303300, Jan. 21, 2022), a construction defect dispute, the trial court set a jury trial at defendant’s request. However, on the day trial was set, defendant waived jury trial. Plaintiff objected and made an oral request for jury trial. The trial court denied the request finding that plaintiff waived its right to a jury trial by failing to timely post jury fees. The matter proceeded to a bench trial, and the court ruled in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appealed, having failed to seek a writ of mandate, which the appellate court noted “is the proper remedy to secure a jury trial allegedly wrongfully withheld.” Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas B. Brummel, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Mr. Brummel may be contacted at nbrummel@hbblaw.com Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Delayed by Discovery of Bones

June 28, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Work stopped on a $7 million construction project in Oak Harbor, Washington, after three sets of Native American remains were found. The Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation had suggested that the project employ an archaeologist. City, state, and tribal officials are determining what will happen next. The Seattle Times reports that Jim Slowik, Oak Harbor’s mayor, has asked for a review of why no archaeologist was part of the project.

Read the full story…

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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES