Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Agreement Authorizing Party’s Own Engineer to Determine Substantial Compliance Found Binding on Adverse Party

August 30, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
When it comes to resolving construction disputes it’s a bit like the “31 Flavors” of Baskin Robins. There’s a flavor for nearly everyone. From mediation, to arbitration, to litigation, to dispute resolution boards (DRBs), to the architect as the “initial decision maker” under AIA contracts, parties and their counsel have developed numerous ways to resolve disputes on construction projects, including by expert review. But if you’re going to agree to a dispute resolution procedure, make sure it’s one you can live with, because if you don’t, it’s often going to be too late to go back to the proverbial drawing board as the parties in the next case discovered. The Coral Farms Case In December 2010, a mudslide impacted three properties in San Juan Capistrano, California. One of the properties was owned by Coral Farms, L.P., another by Paul and Susan Mikos, and the third by Thomas and Sonya Mahony. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Pennsylvania: Searching Questions Ahead of Oral Argument in Domtar

October 08, 2014 — Robert Caplan – White and Williams LLP
If you have been following our coverage of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Domtar Paper Co., you will recall that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided on May 29, 2014 to hear the subrogated insurer’s appeal,1 despite the Superior Court’s holding against the subrogated insurer—based primarily on its own defective case law2 —and its denial of reargument, presumably due to the insurer’s briefing follies.3 The parties in Domtar, as well as numerous amici curiae (friends of the court),4 have submitted their respective briefs over the last few months, and the Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument to take place on October 8, 2014 in Pittsburgh, Pa. The Court has framed the issue as: “Does Section 319 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 671, allow the employer/insurer to step into the shoes of the insured employee to subrogate against the tortfeasor?”5 There are three possible outcomes in Domtar. The first (and easiest) possible outcome for the Supreme Court would be to punt to the Pennsylvania General Assembly for a decision on the issue. Workers’ compensation legislation, perhaps more than any other type of legislation, “creates a highly structured balancing of competing interests.”6 It is basic civics that the legislature has a “superior ability to examine social policy issues and determine legal standards so as to balance competing concerns.”7 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert Caplan, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com

City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association: Clarifying the Application of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act

June 17, 2024 — David McLain - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
On June 17, 2024, the Colorado Supreme Court delivered a significant opinion in the case of City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association (Case No. 22SC293). This decision provides crucial guidance on the interplay between the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (“CGIA”) and the economic loss rule in the context of construction defect claims. Background of the Case The case arose from a construction defect dispute between the City of Aspen, which served as the developer and declarant for the affordable housing condominiums at issue, and the Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association, the HOA created by Aspen to manage the association after the period of declarant control. The Association alleged that Aspen breached various warranties related to the construction of affordable housing units, leading to structural deficiencies. Aspen argued that the CGIA barred these claims because they could lie in tort. The Lower Court’s Decision The district court initially agreed with Aspen, holding that the Association’s claims sounded in tort and were therefore barred by the CGIA. The court relied on the principle that governmental immunity protects public entities from liability for claims that ‘lie in tort or could lie in tort,’ as established by the CGIA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

SAFETY Act Part II: Levels of Protection

June 21, 2024 — Lorelie S. Masters, Kevin W. Jones & Charlotte Leszinske - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Part I of this series, SAFETY Act is Powerful Protection Against Emerging Liabilities, addressed the benefits of obtaining SAFETY Act coverage, including:

From a reputational perspective, SAFETY Act protection provides benefits even absent a security incident: it demonstrates that a knowledgeable federal agency has examined the relevant technology and determined that it is both safe and effective.
SAFETY Act protection can benefit companies taking steps to enhance the security of their physical premises and operations, or their cybersecurity defenses, to reduce their potential liability and enhance their reputation.
Other benefits include—depending on the level of protection—powerful liability protections including exclusive federal jurisdiction and choice of law for the venue where the incident occurred, caps on liability, prohibitions on punitive damages, and government contractor immunity.

This post will explain the levels of protection that a company can seek under the SAFETY Act. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Kevin W. Jones, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Charlotte Leszinske, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Jones may be contacted at kjones@HuntonAK.com Ms. Leszinske may be contacted at cleszinske@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Reinsurer Must Reimburse Health Care Organization for Settlement Costs

June 17, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Indiana Supreme Court reversed summary judgment issued to reinsurer Continental Casualty Company (CNA) and determined it must reimburse the insured for settlement costs under the E & O policy. Wellpoint, Inc., et al. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, et al., 2015 Ind. LEXIS 316 (Ind. April 22, 2015). Anthem, Inc. was a large managed health care organization. Anthem was its own primary and excess insurer for E&O liability. It had numerous excess reinsurers. Beginning in 1998, anthem was confronted by various lawsuits alleging it and other managed care organizations failed to pay claims in a full and timely manner, thereby breaching state and federal statutes. The various lawsuits alleged substantially the same wrongful conduct, namely that after promising to pay doctors in a timely manner for their services, Anthem sought to improperly deny, delay and diminish payments due. The cases were consolidated into a federal multi-district litigation proceeding in the Southern District of Florida. Claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of state prompt pay statutes were dismissed or dropped. Anthem then settled the underlying litigation in July 2005 without admitting and instead denying any wrongdoing or liability. The settlement called for both cash payments and implementation of specific business practices consistent with requested injunctive relief. 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

Bank of America’s Countrywide Ordered to Pay $1.3 Billion

July 30, 2014 — Patricia Hurtado – Bloomberg
Bank of America Corp.’s Countrywide unit was ordered to pay $1.3 billion in penalties for defective mortgage loans it sold to Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis, a little more than half of what the U.S. had requested. U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan issued the civil penalty against the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank today in the first mortgage-fraud case brought by the federal government to go to trial. Countrywide and Rebecca Mairone, a former executive with the mortgage lender, were found liable in October for selling thousands of bad loans to the two government-sponsored enterprises. Mairone was ordered today to pay $1 million. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg
Ms. Hurtado may be contacted at pathurtado@bloomberg.net

Despite Feds' Raised Bar, 2.8B Massachusetts Offshore Wind Project Presses On

November 04, 2019 — Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record
Developers of the 800-MW, 84-turbine Vineyard Wind offshore wind energy farm in Massachusetts, set to be the first and largest commercial-scale project in the U.S., say they are committed to pushing through its $2.8-billion construction despite a sudden Trump administration permitting setback. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurance Company Prevails in “Chinese Drywall” Case

June 17, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Louisiana Court of Appeals rejected an appeal to reverse a summary judgment granted to Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company. Terrence and Rhonda Ross contracted for a remodel of their home in which Chinese-made drywall was used. When the drywall emitted harmful gasses, the Rosses filed a claim under their insurance policy. This claim was rejected under four exclusions: for faulty materials, latent defect, loss by corrosion, and loss by pollution. After the claim was denied, the Rosses sued Louisiana Citizens.

In April 2010, the lower court granted a summary judgment, followed by a May, 2010 order dismissing the Rosses’ claims against Louisiana Citizens. The Rosses appealed this decision. In the court’s review, they agreed with Louisiana Citizens and the lower court on all counts. Although the Rosses maintained that the drywall was not defective (as it still functioned as drywall), the court ruled that its emission of sulfuric gases was a defect. Further, as it was in place for two years before this became evident, it was also a latent defect. Damage to the Rosses’ home consisted of corrosion damage caused by the pollutants in the drywall.

The Rosses made an additional claim that since their policy covered smoke damage, this should be covered, as the harm was done by sulfuric gases. The court noted that the contract specifies “fumes or vapors from a boiler, furnace, or related equipment,” none of which apply in this case.

Read the court’s decision

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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES