Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Claim Against Broker for Failure to Procure Adequate Coverage Survives Summary Judgment

April 15, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The broker's motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss negligence claims for failure to obtain adequate coverage, was denied by the court in Voss v. The Netherlands Ins. Co., 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 384 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2014). The insured met with a representative of CH Insurance Brokerage Services Co., Inc. (CHI) to discuss coverage for the premises and her two companies. At CHI's request, the insured shared information on sales figures for calculating business interruption coverage. The broker represented that CHI would reassess and revisit the coverage needs as her business grew. CHI recommended $75,000 per incident in coverage for business interruption losses. The insured questioned whether the $75,000 limit was adequate, but the broker assured her that it was sufficient. The insured then accepted the recommendation. Subsequently, the insured's business grew, but CHI renewed the policy with the same $75,000 business interruption limit. 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

Employee Screening and Testing in the Covid-19 Era: Getting Back to Work

August 10, 2020 — Aaron C. Schlesinger & Shannon D. Azzaro - Peckar & Abramson
Currently Available Workplace Protocols for Employers Employers seeking to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission in the workplace should consider from among the three currently available protocols: Written Questionnaires; Temperature Checks; and Viral or Diagnostic Testing. When implementing a screening or testing protocol, employers should explain the following in writing to employees: (1) the specific screening process or test utilized by the employer; (2) employee compliance expectations and any consequences for a refusal to participate; (3) how employee privacy will be protected; (4) if screening, the general benchmarks that indicate the employee has “passed” (e.g., temperature below 100.4ºF, per CDC guidelines); and (5) the outcome of an unsuccessful screen or test (e.g., being sent home from the workplace). Employers must also ensure that those administering the screening and/or testing are properly trained, and that appropriate written acknowledgements are obtained from employees consenting to the applicable protocol. Reprinted courtesy of Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson and Shannon D. Azzaro, Peckar & Abramson Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Ms. Azzaro may be contacted at sazzaro@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Endorsement Excludes Replacement of Undamaged Property with Matching Materials

August 20, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court approved the insurer's endorsement which stated the insured would not pay for undamaged property in order to match damaged property. Noonan v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 15545 (May 24, 2019). After hail and wind damaged part of the roof in the insureds' home, American Family inspected the roof and determined that it had suffered $12,000 in damage. The insureds disputed this amount and demanded an appraisal to provide a binding estimate of the amount of loss. American Family asked the appraisers to divide their estimate into two categories - one for replacing damaged shingles and another for replacing undamaged shingles that would not match those needed to replace the damaged ones. The appraisers did not do so. They instead found that replacing the entire roof would cost $141,000 and noted there was a matching issue because alternative products did not match the current shingles on the roof. Of the $141,000 needed to replace the entire roof, American Family estimated that $87,232.98 was due to the costs of matching. The insureds sued. The district court remanded the case to the appraisers to clarify the award by differentiating the costs attributable to the actual roof damage from those attributable to shingle matching. The appraisers clarified the award and reported that actual damages were $66,619, meaning that $74,381 was attributable to matching. American Family then paid the actual damages, less the deductible, but refused to pay the rest. 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

Final Thoughts on New Pay If Paid Legislation in VA

August 15, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
This past General Assembly session, and after a governor’s amendment and with the convening of a study group, a new statute banning so-called “pay-if-paid” clauses from enforcement was passed. Some of the key features of the legislation are as follows: It does not take effect until January 1, 2023, and, For those construction contracts in which there is at least one general contractor and one subcontractor:

It requires payment within 60 days of receipt of an invoice following the satisfactory performance of the work or within 7 days of receipt of payment by the Owner
It allows for retainage
It allows the higher-tier contractor to withhold money for improper performance

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

Duty to Defend For Accident Exists, But Not Duty to Indeminfy

March 05, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Seventh Circuit found there was a duty to defend the additional insured under the policy, but not a duty to indemnify. Kmart Corp. v. Footstar, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1775 (7th Cir. Feb. 4, 2015). By agreement, Footstar operated the footwear department in hundreds of Kmart stores around the country. Footstar's footwear departments were in designated areas of the Kmart stores. Section 18.1 of the Master Agreement required Footstar to defend and indemnify Kmart from "all damage . . . arising out of Footstar's performance or failure to perform under this Agreement." The same section also required Footstar to obtain additional insurance coverage for Kmart. 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

Is Construction Defect Litigation a Cause for Lack of Condos in Minneapolis?

September 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Peter Callaghan writing for the Minn Post, while multi-family residential real estate is “hot” right now, most developers are building apartments rather than condos. Four developers spoke on the topic during Minneapolis City Council Member Lisa Goodman’s monthly “Lunch with Lisa” program. The developers stated that financing is more difficult for condos than it is for apartments, and millennials and baby boomers seem to prefer renting over buying. However, some developers stated that “the 10-year liability exposure for construction defects” was another reason to avoid condo building. However, not all developers avoid condo building in Minneapolis. Jim Stanton, owner of Shamrock Development, said that he still is building condos. Stanton declared that he “has a good relationship with his lender,” and “he hasn’t been sued a lot and has never had a suit reach court.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

2013 May Be Bay Area’s Best Year for Commercial Building

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A tech boom has resulted in something of a commercial building boom for the Bay Area. The region will see about $6 billion in commercial construction projects during 2013. This is better than the totals for 2012, 2011, and 2009. During that period, however, 2010 set a record for the area with $6 billion of construction. Some estimates see 2013 beating that with as much as $6.7 billion in construction by year’s end. The surge has been attributed to job creation. One Bay-area company, Infoblox, moved into a new office complex, after extensive renovation. The company had 250 employees and now has room to expand to 500 employees. But 2014 could be even better. Apple is about to begin construction of its new campus, which is expected to cost the company $5 billion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Retained Jurisdiction to Enforce Settlement Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 Despite Dismissal of Complaint

October 21, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Attorneys will commonly add a Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provision in their settlement agreements to ensure that courts have continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement, as opposed to having to file a new complaint in the event of a breach of a settlement agreement. Oral settlements before a trial court are also enforceable under Section 664.6, but as discussed in Eagle Fire and Water Restoration, Inc. v. City of Danuba, Case No. F086052 (May 30, 2024), in cases involving a complaint and multiple cross-complaints, questions can arise as to whether a trial court has in fact retained jurisdiction under Section 664.6 to enforce an oral settlement and even what the terms of the settlement were. The Eagle Fire Case Eagle Fire and Water Restoration, Inc. was hired by the City of Dinuba to reroof the City’s police station and courthouse building. The contract was for approximately $500,000. Before completion of the project, a rainstorm caused significant water damage to the interior of the building. The City incurred over $330,000 in clean-up and repair costs and withheld approximately $319,000 from Eagle as an offset. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES