Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Quick Note: Third-Party Can Bring Common Law Bad Faith Claim

July 01, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A third-party claimant may bring a common law bad faith claim against a defendant’s liability insurer. Mccullough v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, 2019 WL 2076192, *2 (S.D.Fla. 2019). “A bad faith claim may be brought by a third party absent an assignment from the [defendant] insured.” Id. This can only be done in the third-party bad faith context with the argument that the insurer’s “bad faith” conduct resulted in a judgment against the defendant-insured in excess of the policy limits. However, in any third-party bad faith claim (and, really, bad faith claim in general), coverage must first be determined under the policy. 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

North Carolina Exclusion j(6) “That Particular Part”

February 10, 2012 — CDCoverage.com

In Alliance Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dove, 714 S.E.2d 782 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011), claimant Murphy-Brown hired insured Dove to repair a broken elevator belt in a grain elevator in Murphy-Brown’s feed mill. The elevator was inside a metal duct and, to access the broken belt, Dove had to cut out a section of the duct. After replacing the belt, Dove welded the metal section back to the duct. Immediately after Dove completed the welding, dust inside the duct ignited, causing an explosion in the elevator, resulting in property damage to the elevator and other property. Murphy-Brown sued Dove for negligence seeking damages for the repair and replacement of the elevator, repair and replacement of the other property, increased grain handling costs during the repairs, and loss of use.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

Less Than Perfectly Drafted Endorsement Bars Flood Coverage

January 21, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court decided that the policy's flood exclusion, despite being poorly located within the policy, barred coverage for loss caused by flood. Great Lakes Int'l Trading Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165378 (D. Conn. Nov. 26, 2014). Hurricane Sandy caused flood waters from the Hackensack River in New Jersey to inundate a warehouse where the insured had imported food products stored for sale in the United States. High winds also sheared open parts of the warehouse's roof, allowing extensive rainwater to enter the building. 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

Honoring Veterans Under Our Roof & Across the World

November 15, 2017 — Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
November 11, 2017 - In honor of Veterans Day, we would like to take time to acknowledge, honor and thank those who have served in the United States Armed Forces. We are also proud to recognize eleven of our own who have served our great country. Ben Ammerman – United States Navy Philip Kopp – United States Air Force Ryan Manning – United States Marine Corps Jason Morris – United States Marine Corps Tyson Nakagawa - United States Marine Corps Richard Protzmann - United States Marine Corps Francis Quinlan - United States Marine Corps Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer - United States Marine Corps Christina Soto-Maynez – United States Army Michael Studenka - United States Marine Corps Paul Tetzloff - United States Marine Corps About Us For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

DC Circuit Upholds EPA’s Latest RCRA Recycling Rule

September 23, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of California Communities Against Toxics, et al. v. EPA. In this decision, the court rejected the latest petition to strike or vacate EPA’s 2018 revisions to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste recycling rules. In 1985, EPA promulgated a new regulatory definition of “solid waste,” which is the linchpin of the agency’s very stringent hazardous waste management rules. (See the rules located at 40 CFR Sections 260-268.) Unless a material is a “solid waste” as defined by the rules, it cannot also be a hazardous waste. The 1985 rules grappled with the challenges posed by recycling practices, and attempted to distinguish between legitimate recycling which is not subject to hazardous waste regulation, and other more suspect forms of recycling. The rules are complex and replete with nuance. In doing so, EPA was adhering to RCRA’s statutory mandate that it develop appropriate rules to govern the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste, while also promoting “properly conducted recycling and reuse.” The DC Circuit reviewed the 1985 rules in the seminal case of American Mining Congress v EPA, 824 F.2d 1177 (1987), (AMC) and stressed that only those materials that were truly discarded could be regulated as solid waste; for instance, those materials that were destined for immediate recycling or recovery in an ongoing production process were not discarded and hence were not solid waste. Over the years, the court has struggled to clarify the basic holding of AMC in numerous cases while EPA has frequently revised and amended the RCRA rules, and in particular the definition of solid waste, in an attempt to balance the policies mandated by the statute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Fundamental Fairness Trumps Contract Language

September 24, 2014 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled that a “no-damages-for-delay” clause would not be enforced where the delay was caused by the owner. The court’s ruling flies squarely in the face of the contract language that attempted to insulate the owner from any delay claims, even those it caused. In the case of Zachary Construction v. Port of Houston underlying contract, proposed by the Port of Houston, was heavy handed, to say the least. The contract provided: “[Contractor] shall receive no financial compensation for delay or hindrance to the Work. In no event shall the Port Authority be liable to [Contractor] … for any damages arising out of or associated with any delay or hindrance to the Work, regardless of the source of the delay or hindrance, including events of Force Majeure, AND EVEN IF SUCH DELAY OR HINDRANCE RESULTS FROM, ARISES OUT OF OR IS DUE IN WHOLE OR IN PART, TO THE NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR OTHER FAULT OF THE PORT AUTHORITY. [Contractor’s] sole remedy in any such case shall be an extension of time.” Wow, that’s some one-sided language. If the contract was enforced, the contractor could not get any damages for delay, even those damages caused by the active interference of the Port of Houston. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

Lien Law Change in Idaho

December 05, 2022 — Grace Maldonado - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
July 1, 2022, the Idaho Legislature’s amendments to I.C. 45-507 came into effect. This statute regulates the steps and requirements to sustain a valid mechanics and materialmen lien. There were three changes to the statute: (1) clarification as to who may personally serve a notice of lien; (2) additional contents that must be included in a lien claim; and (3) authorization for attorney fees. Prior to the amendments, any person could, on behalf of the entity (contractor) seeking to establish a lien, personally serve the owner of the property with a claim of lien. Now, for personal service to be considered effective, the owner or reputed owner must be personally served by an officer “authorized by law” to serve process. Essentially, a process server needs to be employed for personal service. A contractor may still serve an owner via certified mail The second change relates to required disclosures. Now, in order to have a valid lien, a contractor must attach a copy of the required disclosures and acknowledgement of receipt of said disclosures with the claim of lien. If the claim does not contain the required documents, it will be considered invalid. This is an important change, because even if the contractor provides all required documents to the owner if there is no copy of the documents attached to the claim of lien the contractor will lose their lien rights – assuming the deficiency is not corrected prior to the statute of limitations running. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Grace Maldonado, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Ms. Maldonado may be contacted at gmaldonado@grsm.com

Colorado General Assembly Sets Forth Prerequisites for an Insurance Company to Use Failure to Cooperate as a Defense to a Claim for First Party Insurance Benefits

August 10, 2020 — Christine Kroupa, John Palmeri & Katelyn Werner - Gordon & Rees
Despite first party insurance policies generally requiring cooperation from an insured in the investigation of a claim, insurers can no longer rely on the failure to cooperate as a defense in a claim for first party insurance benefits in Colorado unless certain conditions are met. The Bill: On July 2, 2020, Colorado Governor Jared S. Polis signed House Bill 20-1290 which addresses the ability of an insurer to use a failure to cooperate defense in an action where the insured has made a claim for benefits under an insurance policy. This bill bars an insurer from raising the failure to cooperate unless the following conditions are met:

The insurer submitted a written request to the insured or the insured’s representative for the information (via electronic means if consent was given by insured or insured’s representative, or via certified mail);
The information is not available to the insurer without the assistance of the insured;
The written request provides the insured 60 days to respond;
The written request is for information a reasonable person would determine the insurer needs to adjust the claim filed by the insured or to prevent fraud; and
The insurer gives the insured an opportunity to cure, which must:

Provide written notice to the insured of the alleged failure to cooperate, describing with particularity the alleged failure within 60 days after the alleged failure; and
Allow the insured 60 days after receipt of the written notice to cure the alleged failure to cooperate.

Reprinted courtesy of Gordon & Rees attorneys Christine Kroupa, John Palmeri and Katelyn Werner Ms. Kroupa may be contacted at ckroupa@grsm.com Mr. Palmeri may be contacted at jpalmeri@grsm.com Ms. Werner may be contacted at kwerner@grsm.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES