FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

California Supreme Court Upholds Insurance Commissioner’s Authority to Regulate Replacement Cost Estimates

January 26, 2017 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
n Assn. of Cal. Insurance Companies v. Jones ( No. S226529, filed 1/23/17), the California Supreme Court reversed trial and appellate court decisions to hold that California’s Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones had the authority to promulgate California Code of Regulations, title 10, section 2695.183, which sets out specific requirements for estimating replacement cost as part of any application for or renewal of homeowners insurance. The regulation was promulgated in 2010 in response to complaints from homeowners who lost their homes in the Southern California wildfires of 2003, 2007, and 2008, and who discovered that they did not have enough insurance to cover the full cost of repairing or rebuilding their homes because the insurers’ estimates of replacement value were too low when they purchased the insurance. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

State Farm Too Quick To Deny Coverage, Court Rules

July 22, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

On July 13, 2011, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the US District Court issued a rule in the case of Travelers Cas. & Surety Co. of Am. v. Univ. Facilities, Inc. (E.D. La., 2011). In this case, Stanley Smith Drywall was contracted by Capstone Building Corporation to “perform undisclosed work at the facility believed to involve the installation of drywall.” The project involved the design and construction of student residences for the Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond, Louisiana. In May, 2009, University Facilities, Inc. (UFI) sued Capstone Development Corporation and Capstone On-Campus Management.



State Farm insured Stanley Smith Drywall and they sought a declaration that they have no duty: “(1) to insure Stanley Smith or CBC, or (2) to defend or indemnify any party against UFI's claims in the pending arbitration.” State Farm contends “(1) there is no "occurrence" to trigger coverage under the policy; (2) only breach of contract claims are asserted; (3) there is no property damage alleged; and (4) various coverage limitations and exclusions apply to prevent coverage.’



The court concluded that “whether State Farm has a duty to defend in the arbitration must be determined by considering the claims asserted in the arbitration.” However, the arbitration claims were not made part of the record. There, “, the Court cannot determine as a matter of law State Farm's duty to defend on the present record.” The same was true of State Farm’s duty to indemnify. “Stanley Smith and CBC assert that State Farm's motion for summary judgment was filed before any discovery was conducted in the arbitration proceeding or in this case. The Court finds that State Farm has failed to develop the record sufficiently to establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to its duty to indemnify Stanley Smith or CBC in the arbitration.’



The court denied State Farm’s motion for a summary judgment on its duty to defend and indemnify.



Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Construction Contract Terms Matter. Be Careful When You Draft Them.

February 01, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In a prior post, I discussed the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. Bae Sys. Ordinance Sys in the context of the interplay between fraud, contract, and statutes of limitation. Some cases just keep on giving. This time the case illustrates the need for careful drafting of those pesky, and highly important, clauses in your construction documents. In the current iteration of this ongoing saga, the Court considered the contractual aspects of the matter. As a reminder, the facts are as follows: In May 2011, the United States Army (“Army) awarded BAE Systems Ordnance Systems, Inc. (“BAE”) a contract to design and construct a natural gas-fired combined heating and power plant for the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (“RAAP”). On October 7, 2015, BAE issued a request for a proposal from Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC (“Fluor”) to design and build a temporary boiler facility at a specific location on the RAAP property. On October 13, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to change the location of the boiler facility. On December 10, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to require BAE to design and construct a permanent boiler facility. On December 30, 2015, Fluor and BAE executed a fixed-price subcontract for Fluor to design and construct the temporary boiler. Throughout 2016, BAE issued several modifications to Fluor’s subcontract to reflect the modifications BAE received from the Army on the prime contract. On March 23, 2016, BAE directed Fluor to build a permanent – rather than temporary – boiler facility. On March 28, 2016, Fluor began construction of the permanent facility and began negotiations with BAE about the cost of the permanent facility. On September 1, 2016, the parties reached an agreement on the cost for the design of the permanent facility, but not on the cost to construct the permanent facility. On November 29, 2016, the parties executed a modification to the subcontract, officially replacing the requirement to construct a temporary facility with a requirement to construct a permanent facility and agreeing to “negotiate and definitize the price to construct by December 15, 2016.” The parties were unable to reach an agreement on the construction price. 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

---

Disputes Over Arbitrator Qualifications: The Northern District of California Offers Some Guidance

August 10, 2021 — Justin K. Fortescue - White and Williams
The selection of an arbitration panel can often lead to disputes between the parties regarding things like whether a particular candidate is qualified, whether a challenge to an arbitrator’s qualifications can be addressed pre-award and whether a party that names an unqualified arbitrator should lose the opportunity to name a replacement. In Public Risk Innovations v. Amtrust Financial Services, No. 21-cv-03573, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129464 (N.D. Ca. July 12, 2021), the court provided answers on all three of these issues. In Amtrust, the parties filed cross-motions to compel arbitration. Although both parties agreed the dispute was arbitrable, they disagreed about whether Public Risk Innovations, Solutions and Management’s (PRISM) arbitrator was qualified under the terms of the applicable contract. In seeking to have PRISM’s arbitrator disqualified, Amtrust argued that he: (1) was not a “current or former official of an insurance or reinsurance company”; and (2) was not “disinterested.” Amtrust also argued that because PRISM named an unqualified arbitrator (and presumably the time to appoint had passed), PRISM should be deemed to have failed to select an arbitrator as required by the contract and that Amtrust had the right to select a second arbitrator of its choice. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Justin K. Fortescue, White and Williams
Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Negligence Claim Not Barred by Gist of the Action Doctrine

February 18, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the insureds' negligence claim survived because it was not based upon breach of a duty created by the policy, but upon the alleged breach of a duty imposed by tort law. Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co,, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3319 (Dec. 15, 2014). After purchasing their home, the insureds obtained a homeowner's policy from Erie. A separate endorsement covered loss to the property caused by "fungi," which was included as any form of mold. The endorsement obligated Erie to pay up to $5,000 for loss caused by mold. The policy required Erie to pay the cost of testing the air to confirm the absence or presence of mold. If mold was present, Erie was to pay for the cost of removal, including the cost of tearing out any part of the property needed to gain access to the mold. While renovating the basement, the insureds discovered two areas of black mold in close proximity to leaking water pipes. Erie was notified and sent an adjuster to view the mold. The adjuster took no action, but returned a couple of days later with an engineer. The adjuster and engineer informed the insureds that the mold was harmless and that health problems associated with mold were a media frenzy and overblown. 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

---

Ohio School Board and Contractor Meet to Discuss Alleged Defects

July 30, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Insurance News, The Greeneview School Board will be meeting with contractor Sfaffco Construction Inc. to discuss findings in a 122-page report produced by “Mays Consulting & Evaluation Services Inc. that outlines numerous alleged construction defects in the roofing system.” "It's really the first time we have everybody together to discuss the deficiencies," said Isaac Seevers, the Greeneview Local Schools superintendent told Insurance News. The school board estimates that the alleged problems will take up to $3.5 million to fix. Meanwhile, Staffco has hired their own consultant. "The report from Mays is one sided," Staffco President Jon Stafford said according to Insurance News. "We take issue with some of the findings in there." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

US Civil Rights Tools Are Failing the Most Polluted Black Communities

February 05, 2024 — Manann Donoghoe & Andre Perry - Bloomberg
In 2022, the United Nations declared that access to a safe and healthy environment, free of pollutants and toxic waste, is a universal human right. The resolution provides a legal foundation for international challenges to environmental injustice; it should also provide an impetus for nations like the US to enforce their own environmental protections. Without more clearly defined rights, some of the greatest environmental injustices may continue to be mired in politics. Take the case of “Cancer Alley,” an 85-mile stretch along the Mississippi River in Louisiana where Black residents have long faced higher rates of death and morbidity due to polluted and toxic environments. For people of color living in the region, fresh air is certainly not a right; it is a privilege for others to experience. Reprinted courtesy of Manann Donoghoe, Bloomberg and Andre Perry, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Michigan Court Waives Goodbye to Subrogation Claims, Except as to Gross Negligence

March 13, 2023 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
In Ace American Insurance Company, et. al. v. Toledo Engineering Co., Inc., et. al., No. 18-11503, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15222 (Ace American), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan determined whether insurers could pursue their subrogation claims against the defendants despite a waiver of subrogation in each of the contracts the insured had with the respective defendants. Based on the language of the contracts and the circumstances leading up to the loss, the court held that the insurers could not pursue their subrogation claims – other than their claims for gross negligence – due to waivers of subrogation in the applicable contracts. In Ace American, the insured, Guardian Industries, LLC (Guardian), retained Toledo Engineer Co., Inc. (TECO) and Dreicor, Inc. (Dreicor) to renovate a glass furnace in the insured’s glass manufacturing plant. Guardian and TECO entered into a contract on December 6, 2016. Guardian and Dreicor entered into a contract on September 29, 2013, that the parties later updated on June 3, 2016. Both defendants began work on the project in the spring of 2017 and were finished with the portion of the work known as the “Cold Tank Repair” prior to the loss. On June 3, 2017, there was an explosion and fire at the plant that caused significant property damage. The plaintiff insurers (Plaintiffs) made payments in the amount of $80 million and became subrogated to its insured’s rights. Plaintiffs then initiated this action. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

---