Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Duty To Defend PFAS MDL Lawsuits: Texas Federal Court Weighs In

August 10, 2021 — Gregory S. Capps & Lynndon K. Groff - White and Williams LLP
Few courts have yet decided insurance coverage issues in litigation involving per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). But yesterday, in Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company v. Chemicals, Inc., No. H-20-3493, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146702 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2021), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas found Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (Crum & Forster) had a duty to defend Chemicals, Inc. against firefighters’ allegations that they were injured by PFAS contained in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). The AFFF claims are consolidated in the multi-district litigation (MDL) in South Carolina, and you can read more about that here. Turning to the decision from August 5, 2021, Crum & Forster issued commercial general liability insurance policies to Chemicals, Inc. for liability arising from bodily injury, to the extent that injury “first occur[ed] during the ‘policy period[.]’” Further, a “Continuous or Progressive Damage or Injury” condition in the policies stated, “If the date cannot be determined upon which such ‘bodily injury’ … first occurred[,] then, … such ‘bodily injury’ … will be deemed to have occurred or existed, … before the ‘policy period’.” The Crum & Forster policies were issued between 2011 and 2019. The complaints in the MDL do not specify when the firefighters were allegedly exposed to PFAS-containing AFFF or when the firefighters first allegedly manifested symptoms of such exposure. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review Regarding Necessary Parties in Lien Foreclosure Actions

August 17, 2017 — Lindsay K. Taft - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
For several years, the requirements for which parties must be named in a lien foreclosure action when a release of lien bond is in place have been cloudy. RCW 60.04 et seq., the “mechanics’ lien” or “construction lien” statute, provides protection for a party or person who provides labor, materials, or equipment to a construction project. That person or party, if not paid, can file a lien against the construction project property to secure recovery. As the lien impacts the property by “clouding title” and could potentially result in foreclosure of the property, the statute sets forth strict requirements with respect to timing, notice, and parties. For example, the lien must be recorded within 90 days of the person or party’s last day of work or materials or equipment supplied, and the lien claimant must then give a copy of the claim of lien to the owner or reputed owner within 14 days of the lien recording. RCW 60.04.081. The statute also allows a property owner or other party to “free” the property from the lien prior to the claim being resolved by issuing a release of lien bond. While the claim is still in dispute, the lien then attaches to the bond and not the property. The same rules about foreclosure, however, still apply but not without some confusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay K. Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Ms. Taft may be contacted at ltaft@ac-lawyers.com

Denial of Coverage for Bulge in Wall Upheld

November 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer properly denied coverage for a bulge in a warehouse wall that the insured claimed was caused by Hurricane Ike. Russell v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143882 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2014). Hurricane Ike displaced metal roof coverings on the insured's warehouse, causing interior water damage to several rooms. Scottsdale eventually paid $84,820.36 for the loss of the roof, less the deductible. The parties disagreed on whether a horizontal bulge on the north wall of the warehouse was also caused by the hurricane. The bulging portion of the wall was not cracked, but cracks were seen around the corners and windows. The insured admitted to an engineer retained by Scottsdale that the cracks in the exterior walls had been filled with caulking on several occasions prior to Hurricane Ike. Scottsdale denied coverage for the damage to the north wall under exclusions for soil sinking, rising, or shifting and for damage from faulty, inadequate or defective design, construction, and repair.The insured later sent a demand for $800,000 for the damage to the wall. A suit was eventually filed by the insured. 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 News: Connecticut Supreme Court Decides Significant Coverage Issues in R.T. Vanderbilt

December 16, 2019 — Patricia B. Santelle & Ciaran B. Way - White and Williams LLP
On October 4, 2019 (almost two years after granting certification), the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s rulings on four key coverage issues in R.T. Vanderbilt Company v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, et al. The coverage dispute in Vanderbilt concerns underlying actions alleging that talc and silica mined and sold by the insured contained asbestos and/or caused asbestos-related disease. The case has been proceeding in phases, two of which have been tried to date, resulting in the matter on appeal. (1) “Continuous Trigger” Theory of Coverage Applies: The Court affirmed and adopted the Appellate Court’s opinion applying a “continuous trigger” for the underlying claims at issue, and agreed that the trial court properly excluded testimony from medical experts the insurers had proffered to prove that the asbestos disease process did not support a continuous trigger. (2) The “Unavailability of Insurance” Exception to Time-on-Risk Pro Rata Allocation Applies: The Court affirmed and adopted the Appellate Court’s ruling that (a) damages and defense costs should not be allocated to any period in which insurance was “unavailable” in the market, (b) the insurers bear the burden of proving that coverage for asbestos liabilities was available to the policyholder after the date asbestos exclusions were added to the policies and (c) the insured bears the burden of proving that it was unable to obtain asbestos coverage prior to 1986 (when such insurance was generally available). The Appellate Court recognized that, in certain circumstances, there could be an “equitable exception” to the unavailability rule if the insured continued to manufacture products containing asbestos after 1986 with the knowledge that such products were hazardous and uninsurable (circumstances which the court found were not present in this case). Reprinted courtesy of Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams LLP and Ciaran B. Way, White and Williams LLP Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Way may be contacted at wayc@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Coverage Fun House Mirror: When Things Are Not What They Seem

December 14, 2020 — Randy J. Maniloff - White and Williams LLP
When it comes to commercial general liability coverage, sometimes things are not what they seem. Some policy language looks like it has a clear meaning. But it turns out that there is more than meets the eye. To see this, you need not look further than the first page of the commercial general liability form. Take its insuring agreement. Its words are by now etched in stone tablets. But even so. Any potential coverage is tied, in part, to damages because of “bodily injury.” Everyone knows what “bodily injury” is. The blood and broken bones are hard to miss. But is emotional injury bodily injury? Or what about hair loss, weight loss, fragile fingernails, loss of sleep, crying or a knot in your stomach? Courts have been required to address whether all of these are “bodily injury.” And was that “bodily injury” caused by an “occurrence?” as required by the CGL insuring agreement? An “occurrence” is defined as an accident. Of course everyone knows what an accident is. Then why is it the oldest and most litigated coverage question of them all, with courts struggling with it for about 150 years? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Randy J. Maniloff, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Maniloff may be contacted at maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com

Orlando Commercial Construction Permits Double in Value

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
This August, permits were taken out for $102.3 million of commercial construction projects, a 95% increase over last August’s $52.4 million. Meanwhile, residential construction was up by a third, jumping from $205.6 million to $274.1 million. Overall that sent construction up by 46% in the Orlando area. The construction industry is a major one in the Orlando area and its recovery provides some hope for the region. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Indemnity Provision Prevails Over "Other Insurance" Clause

December 06, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Second Circuit predicted that the New York appellate courts would find the contractual indemnity provision prevailed over the application of an "other insurance" provisions. Cent. Sur. Co. v. Metro. Transit Auth., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 29860 (2nd Cir. Oct. 5,2021). Long Island Railroad (LIRR) contracted with general contractor Rukh Enterprises, Inc. to complete a railroad bridge lead paint removal and repainting project on Metropolitan Transit Authority property. Rukh hired subcontractor, East Coast Painting & Maintenance to complete certain lead-related work on the project. An employee of East Coast suffered an injury while working on the project. The employee sued LIRR and Rukh. A settlement in the underlying case was reached, implicating three of four policies - Admiral (primary for LIRR), Arch (CGL for Rukh), and Harleysville (primary for East Coast). Century Surety (excess liability for Rukh) did not contribute to the settlement and disclaimed all coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Veolia Agrees to $25M Settlement in Flint Water Crisis Case

February 19, 2024 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
Engineering firm Veolia North America agreed to a $25-million settlement to resolve a federal class action case related to its work for the city of Flint, Mich., during the city’s lead-in-water crisis, the company and attorneys for the plaintiffs announced Feb. 1. Veolia is the second engineering firm that worked for the city to settle with city residents, and the deal came ahead of a class-action trial scheduled to start later this month. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES