Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc.

August 24, 2020 — Michael Velladao - Lewis Brisbois
In Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc., 50 Cal.App.5th 216 (June 10, 2020), the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of six subcontractors with respect to an equitable subrogation lawsuit filed by St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company (“St. Paul”). St. Paul filed the lawsuit after defending Pulte Home Corp. (“Pulte”) against two construction defect lawsuits. The lawsuit contended that St. Paul was entitled to seek recovery of defense costs incurred on behalf of Pulte based on equitable subrogation. St. Paul relied on the indemnity clauses in each of the subcontracts, and argued that the subcontractors had breached their contracts with Pulte. As such, each subcontractor was obligated to pay an equitable share of the defense of the construction defect lawsuits relating to their work on the homes at issue in such lawsuits. The trial court ruled against St. Paul and held that the subcontractors’ failure to pay defense costs did not “cause” the homeowners’ claims, such that there was no causal connection supporting a claim for equitable subrogation. In addition, the trial court found that “equitable subrogation was an all-or-nothing claim, meaning it required a shifting of the entire amount of defense costs to the subcontractors on a joint and several basis and did not allow for an apportionment of costs among the defendant subcontractors.” In reversing the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeal reasoned that St. Paul stood in the shoes of Pulte and was limited to pursuing recovery from the subcontractors based on the same rights as afforded to Pulte under the subcontracts. The Court of Appeal noted that St. Paul was seeking reimbursement of defense costs from the subcontractors based on the theory that they were contractually liable for paying an equitable share of defense costs. The Court of Appeal also noted that St. Paul’s claim was not premised on the contention that the subcontractors’ failure to pay defense costs caused the homeowners’ claims. Rather, St. Paul’s claim was premised on the subcontractors’ breach of their defense duty owed to Pulte under the indemnity clauses in their subcontracts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Velladao, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Velladao may be contacted at Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com

Motion for Reconsideration Challenging Appraisal Determining Cause of Loss Denied

November 16, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court rejected the insurer's motion for reconsideration attempting to set aside the appraisal award that determined the cause of loss. Mesco Mfg., LLC v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 2023 WL 5334659 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 18, 2023). Mesco suffered a loss to the roofs of its facilities due to hail damage. Mesco sued Motorists alleging it breached the policy by failing to pay the full amount of the claim. The claim went to appraisal. The policy's appraisal provision reserved Motorists' right to deny the claim despite an appraisal going forward. The appraisal award noted that the loss was caused by hail. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. The court found that Motorists had breached the policy by failing to pay the arbitration award and granted summary judgment to the insured. The "right to deny" clause did not give Motorists the unfetterd right to disregard the umpire's award if it disgreed about the amount of loss caused by hail. The only dispute was whether the damage was caused by hail, and the umpire found that it was. 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

Delaware Supreme Court Allows Shareholders Access to Corporation’s Attorney-Client Privileged Documents

August 13, 2014 — Marc S. Casarino and Lori S. Smith – White and Williams LLP
Delaware corporations may be required to turn over internal documents of directors and officers, including those of in-house counsel, where the factors enumerated in Garner v. Walfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970) weigh in favor of disclosure. In a July 23, 2014 decision of first-impression, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW, that the Garner doctrine applies to plenary shareholder/corporation disputes, as well as to books and records inspection actions under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Garner doctrine provides that a shareholder may invade the corporation’s attorney-client privilege in order to prove fiduciary breaches by those in control of the corporation upon a showing of good cause. The non-exhaustive list of factors by which a finding of good cause should be tested are: “(i) the number of shareholders and the percentage of stock they represent; (ii) the bona fides of the shareholders; (iii) the nature of the shareholders’ claim and whether it is obviously colorable; (iv) the apparent necessity or desirability of the shareholders having the information and the availability of it from other sources; (v) whether, if the shareholders’ claim is of wrongful action by the corporation, it is of action criminal, or illegal but not criminal, or of doubtful legality; (vi) whether the communication is of advice concerning the litigation itself; (vii) the extent to which the communication is identified versus the extent to which the shareholders are blindly fishing; and (viii) the risk of revelation of trade secrets or other information in whose confidentiality the corporation has an interest for independent reasons.” Reprinted courtesy of Marc S. Casarino, White and Williams LLP and Lori S. Smith, White and Williams LLP Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Owner Bankruptcy: What’s a Contractor to Do?

February 28, 2018 — Troy R. Covington and Stephen M. Parham - Construction Executive Magazine
Bankruptcy of the owner or developer of a real estate construction project can be very unsettling to contractors. But a declaration of bankruptcy by the developer, in and of itself, does not constitute a breach of contract such that the contractor can stop working. Contract provisions providing that the contract is terminated if a party becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy are generally unenforceable. Partially-performed construction contracts are executory contracts, meaning that the obligations of the parties to the contract have not yet been fully performed. The Bankruptcy Code allows a bankruptcy trustee (in a Chapter 7 dissolution case) or the debtor-in-possession (in a Chapter 11 reorganization case) either to assume or to reject an executory contract. A debtor-in-possession has until the time of the confirmation of its plan of reorganization to decide if it will assume or reject the contract. The contractor may ask the bankruptcy court to require the debtor-in-possession to make a decision on the contract sooner, but the court will most likely give the debtor-in-possession a fair amount of time to make the decision. Reprinted courtesy of Troy R. Covington and Stephen M. Parham, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Covington may be contacted at sparham@bloomparham.com Mr. Parham may be contacted at tcovington@bloom-law.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Developer Sues TVA After It Halts Nuke Site Sale

December 19, 2018 — Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record
The multibillion-dollar completion of a nuclear unit at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s unfinished 1,260-MW Bellefonte plant in Alabama is in limbo after the federal power producer refused to complete its sale to Nuclear Development LLC, which has since filed a breach of contract complaint in federal district court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Electronic Signatures On Contracts: Are They Truly Compliant?

April 10, 2023 — Rebecca S. Glos - ConsensusDocs
Electronic Signatures On Contracts: Are They Truly Compliant As companies move to work-from-home situations in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the issue of whether electronic signatures are legally recognized becomes more relevant. For many platforms, an electronic signature merely requires logging in, clicking a button, or typing your name. This process, which replaces the mighty pen and quill, is so effortless that oftentimes an electronic signature may feel like it does not carry the same weight as a handwritten signature. Thus, the question that we should be asking ourselves is whether the law recognizes this type of signature as being valid? Additionally, if electronic signatures are, indeed, valid, are there exceptions on whether they can be used? Difference Between “Electronic” And “Digital” Signatures Before delving into this issue, an understanding of some related terms may be helpful. In basic terms, an electronic signature (or “e-signature”) is any signature created or captured through a computer or other electronic device. Electronic signatures can include touch-sensitive screens where you use your finger or a stylus to sign your name as you would on a paper document. Electronic signatures can also include forms where you merely type in your name and perhaps other identifying information, then check a box stating that you intend to sign the document. They cover the full range of technologies and solutions to create signatures electronically such as:

Clicking “I Agree” on a website;
Signing with your finger on a mobile device;
Typing your name or PIN into an online form; or
Using e-signature software

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rebecca S. Glos, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Glos may be contacted at rglos@watttieder.com

Subcontractor Sued for Alleged Defective Work

June 11, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Louisiana Record reported that “[a] construction company is suing a subcontractor for alleged defective work on two construction projects” in New Orleans, Louisiana. New Beginnings Enterprises and J. Fernando Arriola are “accused of providing defective labor and materials, failing to properly supervise construction on the properties, failing to obtain inspections required under building codes, failing to construct dwellings in accordance with plans and specifications and failing to perform agreements in a workmanlike manner,” according to the Louisiana Record. Plaintiffs including Bartel Construction LLC seek $209,500 in damages “as additional sums for defective and incomplete work, lost profits, consequential damages and attorney’s fees.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Three Attorneys Named Among The Best Lawyers in America 2018

August 24, 2017 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Partners Denis Moriarty and Mark VonderHaar, and Of Counsel William Baumgaertner were selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America 2018. This marks the twelfth consecutive year Mr. Baumgaertner has been listed for his defendants’ and plaintiffs’ work in personal injury and product liability litigation, and the sixth consecutive year Mr. Moriarty has been listed for his work in insurance law. Mr. VonderHaar was listed for the first time for his work in insurance law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES