Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Understanding Liability Insurer’s Two Duties: To Defend and to Indemnify

December 26, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A liability insurer has two duties that are the crux of a liability policy: the duty to defend the insured in legal actions and the duty to indemnify the insured from losses covered under the policy. Many times, policyholders (insureds) do not fully understand or appreciate these two important duties. They need to and this is why having private counsel assist with coverage-related considerations is an absolute must. An insurers’ duty to defend is separate from its duty to indemnify. A recent opinion out of the Middle District of Florida in Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Tate Transport Corp., 2022 WL 16963815 (M.D.Fla. 2022) clarifies the distinction between these duties with a focus on an insurer’s initial duty — the duty to defend. Please read below so you can have more of an appreciation of these duties. The court does a good job discussing Florida law with the emphasis on when an insurer’s initial duty to defend kicks-in: Duty to Defend Under Florida law, “an insurer’s duty to defend its insured against a legal action arises when the complaint alleges facts that fairly and potentially bring the suit within policy coverage.” The duty to defend is a broad one, broader than the duty to indemnify, and “[t]he merits of the underlying suit are irrelevant.” We determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend its insured based only on “the eight corners of the complaint and the policy,” and only as the complaint’s alleged facts are “fairly read[.]” The “facts” we consider in evaluating the duty to defend come solely from the complaint, regardless of the actual facts of the case and regardless of any later developed and contradictory factual record. “Any doubts regarding Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Is Equipment Installed as Part of Building Renovations a “Product” or “Construction”?

April 10, 2019 — Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
A statute of repose terminates the right to file a claim after a specified time even if the injury has not yet occurred.[1] The construction statute of repose bars claims arising from construction, design, or engineering of any improvement upon real property that has not accrued within six years after substantial completion.[2] But what constitutes an “improvement upon real property” necessitating application of the six-year bar, and when does the bar NOT apply? The Washington Court of Appeals recently addressed these questions in Puente v. Resources Conservation Co., Int’l.[3] There, the personal representative of the estate of Javier Puente sued several parties after Mr. Puente, an employee of a manufacturer, suffered fatal boric acid burns in 2012 while performing maintenance on a pump system installed at the manufacturer’s facility in 2002. The estate alleged claims of negligence and liability under the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA).[4] The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants, concluding that the installed pump system constituted a statutory “improvement upon real property” and the six-year statute of repose applied. The estate appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

Vancouver’s George Massey Tunnel Replacement May Now be a Tunnel Instead of a Bridge

January 06, 2020 — Tim Newcomb - Engineering News-Record
The constant political back-and-forth in British Columbia, Canada, over how to deal with an aging George Massey Tunnel, opened in 1959, has ping-ponged from uncertainty to a $3.5 billion, 10-lane bridge, back to uncertainty, to no bridge and now to an eight-lane submerged tunnel. Tim Newcomb, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

It Pays to Review the ‘Review the Contract Documents’ Clause Before You Sign the Contract

March 11, 2024 — Alan Winkler - ConsensusDocs
It is fairly common for a construction contract to include a provision requiring the contractor to perform some level of review of the plans and specifications and perhaps other contract documents as part of their responsibilities. Typically, this provision is found in a section of the contract on the contractor’s responsibilities, although it can be anywhere. Owners and contractors are, with reason, focused on three main issues in reviewing contracts: (1) price, costs, and payments, (2) time and scheduling, and (3) scope of the work. Eyes may glaze over the contractor’s responsibilities section. Not only does it seem to be boilerplate, but industry professionals know what a contractor is supposed to do; in a nutshell, build the project. An old school type of contractor may regard this role as strictly following the plans and specifications, no matter what they provide. That could lead to a situation where construction comes to a complete stop because, for example, two elements are totally incompatible with each other. If that happens, the contractor would then turn to the owner and architect to ask for a corrective plan and instructions on how to proceed. That may also be accompanied by a request for more time and money while the problem is resolved. The ‘review the contract documents’ clause is designed to avoid this. It is intended to address an understanding that everyone makes mistakes, even architects and engineers whose job it is to design a buildable, functional project. The clause also addresses the understanding that a contractor is more than a rote implementer of plans and specifications because its expertise in building necessarily means the contractor has expertise in understanding the documents that define the construction and how things are put together. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alan Winkler, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Winkler may be contacted at awinkler@pecklaw.com

White and Williams Elects Four Lawyers to Partnership, Promotes Six Associates to Counsel

January 13, 2017 — White and Williams LLP
White and Williams is pleased to announce the election of Edward Beitz, Justin Fortescue, Jennifer Santangelo and Amy Vulpio to the partnership and the promotion of Paul Briganti, Joshua Galante, Dana Spring Monzo, George Morrison, Craig O’Neill and Steven Urgo from associate to counsel. The newly elected partners and promoted counsel represent the wide array of practices that White and Williams offers its clients, including bankruptcy, corporate, finance, healthcare, insurance coverage, labor and employment, real estate and reinsurance. These lawyers have earned their elevations based on their contributions to the firm and their practices. “We are thrilled to elect these four lawyers to the partnership and promote six associates to counsel. These promotions are representative of the breadth of services and deep bench that we have to offer at White and Williams,” said Patti Santelle, Managing Partner. “The election of our new partners and promotion of our counsel is a reflection of their success and dedication as well as the continued health of the firm.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

In Construction Your Contract May Not Always Preclude a Negligence Claim

March 30, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Here at Construction Law Musings I have discussed the interaction of the so called “economic loss rule,” construction contracts and tort claims on numerous occasions. The general rule is that where a duty to perform in a certain way arises from the contract, the Virginia courts will not allow a plaintiff to turn a contract claim into a tort claim such as fraud or negligence. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Orchestrating Bias: Arbitrator’s Undisclosed Membership in Philharmonic Group with Pauly Shore’s Attorney Not Grounds to Reverse Award in Real Estate Dispute

June 21, 2017 — Lyndsey Torp - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
The California court of appeal recently issued an unpublished decision in Knispel v. Shore, 2017 WL 2492535, affirming a judgment confirming an arbitration award in a real estate dispute involving Pauly Shore. The court of appeal held that the arbitrator’s failure to disclose her membership in the Los Angeles Lawyers Philharmonic Group with the attorney representing Pauly was not grounds to overturn the judgment. The underlying arbitration involved a dispute between Michael Scott Shore, on the one hand, and his brother, Pauly, among others, on the other hand, regarding certain residential property located on Sunset Boulevard near The Comedy Store in West Hollywood (owned and operated by their mother, Mitzi Shore). The parties agreed to arbitrate their dispute before Judge Aviva K. Bobb (Ret.) of the Alternative Resolution Center. Judge Bobb issued an award in favor of Pauly, and he petitioned the trial court to affirm the award. Michael opposed, contending the arbitrator failed to disclose that she and Pauly’s attorney had both been members of the Lawyers Philharmonic, for which they had been practicing and performing together since November 2010. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lyndsey Torp, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Torp may be contacted at ltorp@swlaw.com

Negligent Failure to Respond to Settlement Offer Is Not Bad Faith

May 03, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Ninth Circuit found that the insurer's negligent failure to respond to a settlement offer did not constitute bad faith. McDaniel v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4029 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017). McDaniel was the assignee of claims against GEICO assigned by the insured after settling a wrongful death suit. McDaniel alleged that GEICO unreasonably refused to accept a $100,000 policy limits offer. The case went to trial and a jury awarded McDaniel over $3 million against the insured. On August 7, 2009, McDaniel's attorney Steven Nichols extended a $100,000 policy limits settlement offer with a fifteen day acceptance deadline to GEICO's attorney Michael Griott. The parties subsequently agreed to extend the acceptance deadline to ten days following MacDaniel's service of responses to outstanding interrogatories, which Nichols hand-delivered to Griott on August 27, 2009. On September 1, 2009, Griott emailed GEICO claims adjuster Aldin Buenaventura with a letter attachment indicating that Nichols had submitted the requested interrogatories and, in bold and underlined text, that "[o]ur response to Plaintiff's policy limits demand is due on or before September 11, 2009. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES