Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

No Coverage Under Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause

October 02, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The policy's anti-concurrent causation clause blocked coverage for damage to the home caused by wind and flood. Clarke v. Travco Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104267 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2015). The insured's home was located about twenty feet from the Hudson River. Hurricane Sandy caused the river to rise, creating damage to the insured's home. The insured did not have flood insurance. During the storm, water flooded the lower level of the house to a level of about four feet. Further, a wooden dock from another property, approximately fifteen feet by ten feet, entered the property and came to rest within the lower level. The insured submitted a claim under his homeowner's policy to Travco Insurance Company. An investigator concluded that the cause of damage to the home was flood/water. The claim was denied. 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

The Proposed House Green New Deal Resolution

February 27, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
A Resolution has been proposed to the House for consideration that would recognize the Federal Government’s duty “to create a Green New Deal.” It sets forth a very ambitious 10-year program to mobilize and transform every aspect of American life to combat the threats of climate change by transitioning to an economy based upon 100% clean and renewable energy. In doing so, millions of new jobs would be created, and everyone who wants a job would be guaranteed a job. The sponsors’ talking points declare that there is no time to lose, that Americans love a challenge, and “this is our moonshot.” The obvious goal is to eliminate the generation and use of fossil fuel and nuclear energy—they are simply not part of the solution. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

D.C. Decision Finding No “Direct Physical Loss” for COVID-19 Closures Is Not Without Severe Limitations

August 24, 2020 — Michael S. Levine & Michael L. Huggins - Hunton Andrews Kurth
On August 6, 2020, in Rose’s 1 LLC, et al. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Civ. Case No. 2020 CA 002424 B, a District of Columbia trial court found in favor of an insurer on cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether COVID-19 closure orders constitute a “direct physical loss” under a commercial property policy. At its core, the decision ignores key arguments raised in the summary judgment briefing and is narrowly premised on certain dictionary definitions of the terms, “direct,” “physical,” and “loss.” Relying almost entirely on those definitions – each supplied by the insureds in their opening brief – the court set the stage for its ultimate conclusion by finding “direct” to mean “without intervening persons, conditions, or agencies; immediate”; and “physical” to mean “of or pertaining to matter ….” The court then apparently accepted the policy’s circular definition of “loss” as meaning “direct and accidental loss of or damage to covered property.” Importantly, however, despite recognizing the fundamental rule of insurance policy construction that the court “must interpret the contract ‘as a whole, giving reasonable, lawful, and effective meaning to all its terms, and ascertaining the meaning in light of all the circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made,’” the court apparently ignored the insureds’ argument that the term “property damage” is specifically defined in the policy to include “loss of use” without any specific reference to physical or tangible damage. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Compliance Doesn’t Pay: Compliance Evidence Inadmissible in Strict Liability Actions

February 05, 2024 — Kyle Rice - The Subrogation Strategist
In Sullivan v. Werner Co., No. 18 EAP 2022, 2023 Pa. LEXIS 1715 (Dec. 22, 2023), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Supreme Court) clarified that in light of its decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 628 Pa. 296 (2014), evidence that a product complied with industry standards is inadmissible in an action involving strict product liability. In Tincher, the Supreme Court overruled prior case law and reaffirmed that Pennsylvania is a Second Restatement Jurisdiction. As stated in Sullivan, discussing Tincher, under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, a “seller of a product has a duty to provide a product that is free from ‘a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer or [the consumer’s] property.’ To prove breach of this duty, a ‘plaintiff must prove that a seller (manufacturer or distributor) placed on the market a product in a “defective condition.”” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Rice, White and Williams
Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricek@whiteandwilliams.com

Navigating Threshold Arbitration Issues in Construction Contracts

April 29, 2024 — Daniel D. McMillan and TJ Auner - The Dispute Resolver
Including an arbitration clause in your construction contract may not mean that your dispute will be confined to arbitration. Instead, parties often find themselves in court litigating threshold issues related to the existence and/or enforceability of an arbitration clause. Common issues include whether the underlying contract containing the arbitration clause is valid, whether the dispute falls within the scope of the clause, whether the parties complied with contractual prerequisites to arbitration, whether issues related to arbitrability are decided by the court or arbitrator, and whether one of the parties has waived their right to arbitrate. This blog post highlights two recent construction cases addressing threshold issues that a party seeking to enforce—or oppose enforcing—an arbitration clause might face. Seifert v. United Built Homes, LLC: Delegating Issues of Arbitrability to the Arbitrator In Seifert, an owner sued a homebuilder in Texas federal court for breach of contract and sought damages and declaratory relief. No. 3:22-CV-1360-E, 2023 WL 4826206 (N.D. Tex. July 27, 2023). The builder moved to compel arbitration. The owner opposed and argued that: (1) there was no agreement to arbitrate because the underlying contract was null and void, and (2) its claim for declaratory relief fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause. The court did not address the merits of either argument. Instead, it determined that these were issues for the arbitrator to decide. Reprinted courtesy of Daniel D. McMillan, Jones Day and TJ Auner, Jones Day Mr. McMillan may be contacted at ddmcmillan@jonesday.com Mr. Auner may be contacted at tauner@jonesday.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Wendel Rosen Attorneys Named as Fellows of the Construction Lawyers Society of America

October 26, 2017 — Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP - California Construction Law Blog
Wendel Rosen is proud to announce that two of its attorneys, Garret Murai and Quinlan Tom, have been named as Fellows of the Construction Lawyers Society of America. CLSA, an invitation-only honors society, is limited to 1,200 construction attorneys worldwide. Garret and Quinlan serve as co-chairs of Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP

Quick Note: Subcontractor Payment Bond = Common Law Payment Bond

February 16, 2017 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
What is a common law payment bond? A common law payment bond is a bond not required or governed by a statute. For example, if a prime contractor provides the owner a payment bond, that bond will be a statutory payment bond. On the other hand, if a subcontractor provides the general contractor with a payment bond, that bond will be a common law payment bond. Why? Because there is not a statute that specifically governs the requirements of a subcontractor’s payment bond given to a general contractor. The subcontractor’s payment bond is aimed at protecting the general contractor (and the general contractor’s payment bond) in the event the subcontractor fails to pay its own subcontractors and suppliers. The subcontractor’s payment bond will generally identify that claimants, as defined by the bond, are those subcontractors and suppliers the subcontractor has failed to pay. This common law payment bond is not recorded in the public records so sometimes it can be challenging for a claimant (anyone unpaid working under the subcontractor that furnished the bond) to obtain a copy of the bond. With that said, an unpaid claimant should consider pursuing a copy of this bond in certain situations, particularly if it may not have preserved a claim against the general contractor’s statutory payment bond. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

A Funny Thing Happened to My Ground Lease in Bankruptcy Court

November 25, 2024 — Christopher F. Graham & Morgan A. Goldstein - White and Williams LLP
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ground leases are an important – if somewhat unusual – part of the real estate finance industry. Because they typically cover large expensive properties like Rockefeller Center and The Empire State Building, to name two, and last a long time (99 years and up to start) the likelihood of something unexpected or unintended happening is high. This likelihood increases dramatically if, as highlighted below, one or both of the lease parties’ files for bankruptcy. Accordingly, real estate professionals should take note and take care when entering into any transaction involving a ground lease. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher F. Graham, White and Williams LLP and Morgan A. Goldstein, White and Williams LLP Mr. Graham may be contacted at grahamc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Goldstein may be contacted at goldsteinm@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES