FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

CA Supreme Court Permits Insurers to Bring Direct Actions Seeking Reimbursement of Excessive Fees Against Cumis Counsel Under Limited Circumstances

August 19, 2015 — David W. Evans & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The California Supreme Court held in Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. J.R. Marketing, L.L.C. (Squire Sanders) (8/10/2015 - #S211645) that if Cumis counsel, operating under a court order which such counsel drafted and which expressly provided that the insurer would be able to recover excessive fees, sought and received fee payments from the insurer that were fraudulent or otherwise manifestly and objectively useless and wasteful when incurred, Cumis counsel have been unjustly enriched at the insurer’s expense and the insurer will be permitted under such limited circumstances to seek reimbursement directly from Cumis counsel. Certain Hartford insureds who had been issued commercial general liability policies were sued in multiple proceedings for a variety of claims, including unfair competition, defamation and intentional misrepresentation. Hartford disclaimed a duty to defend or to indemnify the defendants on the grounds that the acts complained of occurred prior to Hartford’s policy, and that some of the defendants were not Hartford insureds. A coverage action was filed by some of the insureds against Hartford; they were represented by the Squire Sanders law firm. Although Hartford subsequently agreed to defend several of the defendants subject to a reservation of rights, it declined to pay defense expenses incurred prior to the date of such agreement. Some months later, the trial court entered a summary adjudication order, finding that Hartford had a duty to have defended the liability action on the date it was originally tendered; the order required Hartford to fund the insured’s defense with independent counsel (i.e., so-called “Cumis” counsel; see San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358). The insureds retained Squire Sanders as their Cumis counsel. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Washington Court Tunnels Deeper Into the Discovery Rule

July 09, 2019 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
Often times, properly analyzing when a statute of limitations begins to run – not just how long it runs – is crucial to timely pleading. In Dep’t of Transp. v. Seattle Tunnel Partners, 2019 Wash.App. LEXIS 281 (Was. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2019), Division Two of the Court of Appeals of Washington addressed when the discovery rule starts the statute of limitations clock on a negligence cause of action. The court held that the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows that the factual elements of the claim against the defendant exist. The clock starts to run even if the plaintiff wants to investigate the possibility of other contributing factors or the defendant identifies opposing viewpoints on the theory of the claim. In this matter, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) contracted with an engineering firm, WSP USA, Inc. (WSP), for an evaluation of the Alaskan Way Viaduct in 2001. As part of this project, WSP retained the services of Shannon and Wilson (S&W), another engineering firm, to conduct geological profile logs, groundwater-pumping tests, and prepare technical memoranda. In 2002, WSP and S&W installed a pumping well with an eight-inch steel casing (TW-2). In 2009, apparently based on the work done by WSP and S&W, WSDOT determined that a bored underground tunnel was the best option for replacing the viaduct. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Loose Bolts Led to Sagging Roof in Construction Defect Claim

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

Though the sagging roof is neither leaking nor a safety hazard, the town of Waynesville, North Carolina is suing the builder of its new fire station, as reported in the Smoky Mountain News. The engineers who examined the roof found a substantial number of loose bolts in the roof trusses. Additionally, the trusses themselves have become bent.



Tom Galloway, Waynesville’s Town Manager said “it needs to be remedied and fixed.” He said that the builder, Construction Logic, “never indicated a willingness to fix the roof.” The town is seeking the cost of repair, which Galloway estimated could be $400,000, and an additional $30,000 in damages. The suit states that Construction Logic failed to follow the plan specifications for the roof.

Read the full story…

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

---

Construction Problem Halts Wind Power Park

November 13, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Engineers have yet to determine why a blade on a wind turbine broke at a wind power plant in Michigan, but as part of their investigation they are halting work on the final 10 turbines. The already completed 60 turbines have been taken out of operation. As a result, the Echo Wind Park is no longer generating power. Scott Simons, a spokesperson for the project, said “we’re not going to put anyone or anything at risk until we get to the bottom of this.” However, Dennis Buda, the project manager, attributed the broken blade to a manufacturing defect. Construction was planned to end in November. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Nevada State Senator Says HOA Scandal Shows Need for Construction Defect Reform

November 13, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A Nevada State Senator sees the ongoing HOA scandal as a sign that the state’s construction defect laws need to be revised. State Senator Mike Schneider says that the law “is flawed and actually makes it too easy to do what these folks have done.” What these folks have done has, of course, lead to a number of indictments and guilty pleas in federal court. One problem that Senator Schneider points to in current Nevada construction defect law is that homeowner attorneys get 40% of any settlement, sometimes leaving homeowners without sufficient funds to repair the defects. “It’s gotten out of hand. We pay some outrageous costs and fees in this cases.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

A Bill for an Act Concerning Workers’ Compensation – 2014 Edition

January 13, 2014 — W. Berkeley Mann, Esq. - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Workers’ compensation (“WC”) costs are a significant portion of the labor costs experienced by construction companies. These costs have typically risen over time due to the “experience modification factor.” This term means the amortized cost of past claims recovered through future premiums charged by an insurer to an employer. As a company’s claims go up in both number of claims and total expense of claims over time, the experience modifier increases as a multiplier of the base WC premium. As with other general medical costs, the question is not whether the cost of claims with a medical component will go up, but rather the rate at which they will increase from year to year. It is with these facts of life in mind that it is reported that the Colorado legislature will take up a bill concerning WC benefits in the 2014 session. This bill, if passed, will have the likely effect of dramatically increasing the cost of WC claims to the construction industry - along with all other Colorado employers. The draft bill has three distinct changes for the current law, each of which serves to change the delicate balance of rights and obligations of employers and employees under existing law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of W. Berkeley Mann, Esq.
W. Berkeley Mann, Esq. can be contacted at mann@hhmrlaw.com

---

Wisconsin Court of Appeals Holds Economic Loss Doctrine Applies to Damage to Other Property If It Was a Foreseeable Result of Disappointed Contractual Expectations

January 15, 2019 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Kmart Corp. v. Herzog Roofing, Inc., 2018 Wisc. App. Lexis 842, the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin considered whether the economic loss doctrine barred the plaintiff’s negligence claims against the defendant roofer for damages resulting from the collapse of a roof. The Court of Appeals held that, while some of the plaintiff’s property damages were unrelated to the scope of the contract, the economic loss doctrine still applied to those damages because they were a foreseeable result of the defendant’s breach of the contract. This case establishes that in Wisconsin, the economic loss doctrine bars tort claims for damage to property unrelated to the contract if those damages were a reasonably foreseeable risk of disappointed expectations of the contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

2018 California Construction Law Update

January 10, 2018 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
The California State Legislature introduced 2,495 bills during the first year of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session. Of these, 859 were signed into law. While much political attention was focused on several California laws that could be viewed as California’s rebuke of Washington, including California’s legalization of marijuana, enactment of “sanctuary state” legislation, and bills focused on climate change, 2017 also saw the enactment of a package of bills intended to address the state’s housing affordability crises (for a great summary of these bills see Wendel Rosen’s Landuse Group’s recent article Slate of New Housing Bills Takes Effect January 1, 2018 ), as well as a range of other bills of interest to the construction industry including bills related construction financing, alternative project delivery methods, and solar construction. Each of the bills discussed below took effect on January 1, 2018, except as otherwise stated. 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

---