Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

10 Year Anniversary – Congratulations Greg Podolak

November 23, 2016 — Edwin L. Doernberger – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
2016 marks 10 years of successful practice for SDV Partner, Gregory Podolak. Greg has spent his entire professional career with Saxe, Doernberger & Vita, rising up the ranks from Summer Associate to Managing Partner of SDV’s first satellite office located in Naples, FL. Greg also manages SDV’s Cyber Risk group and is a nationally recognized author and speaker on the topic. Over the past decade, Greg has been honored with numerous awards, including the Connecticut Law Tribune’s 2015 New Leaders in the Law, and for the past five years in a row has been chosen as a Super Lawyers® Rising Star. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Edwin L. Doernberger, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Doernberger may be contacted at eld@sdvlaw.com

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

Hawaii Construction Defect Law Increased Confusion

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Hawaii’s Act 83 put into the law that in determining if a construction defect was due to an occurrence, the courts needed to ignore any case law that arose after the insurance policy was taken out. The hope, according to Bibeka Shrestha, writing at Law360, was to provide certainty to builders. The effect, however, “further muddled the litigation landscape.” Carl Shapiro said of the Hawaii legislature that “instead of solving the problem, they’ve created an even bigger miss.” Tred Eyerly, an insurance attorney says that the state “needs a decision from the Hawaii Supreme Court.” One result is that now the state court and the federal courts have different views on how to look at prior cases. The state courts are holding that “the uncertainly should be resolved in favor of the policyholder,” while the federal courts “pointed to earlier case law that nixed coverage for these types of claims. The legislature seems unlikely to resolve this confusion on its own. One legislative liaison said that “nobody knew how to pass a law saying ‘you will grant coverage.’” Brian Yamane also told Law360 that “there has been no attempt by anybody to introducte legislation to amend the law.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Privity Problems Continue for Additional Insureds in the Second Circuit

November 08, 2017 — Samantha M. Martino – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
On October 4, the Second Circuit held that Harleysville Insurance Company had no duty to defend or indemnify a project owner or general contractor as additional insureds under a sub-subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy due to lack of direct contractual privity. 1 The underlying claim arose when an employee of The Kimmell Company, Inc. (Kimmell) was injured while repairing an HVAC system at a building owned by the University of Rochester Medical Center (UR). The injured employee sought damages for his injuries and fi led suit against (1) UR; (2) LeChase Construction Corp. (LeChase), the general contractor for the project; and (3) J.T. Mauro Co. Inc. (Mauro), a subcontractor hired by LeChase. Mauro hired Kimmell as a sub-subcontractor to perform HVAC services at the project. The Mauro-Kimmel contract required Kimmel to add Mauro, UR, and LeChase as additional insureds under Kimmell’s CGL policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Samantha M. Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Martino may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com

Emerging Trends in Shortened Statutes of Limitations and Statutes of Repose

January 02, 2024 — Ivette Kincaid & Thomas McCarrick - Kahana Feld
Introduction A growing trend in construction defect legislation around the country has seen the shortening of statutes of limitation and statutes of repose for a plaintiff to bring claims related to construction defects. Over the past ten years, several states, notably Florida and Texas, have shortened their statutes of repose. This is generally positive news for developers and contractors; however, the specifics and ramifications of these legislative and judicial updates are still unknown. Statute of Limitations A statute of limitations sets forth the time that a plaintiff has to sue or allege a particular cause of action against a defendant. These time limitations are codified into law and vary depending on the State and the cause of action. A statute of limitations starts at the occurrence of an injury or damage or at the time the injury or damage is discovered. The statute of limitations may be subject to some exceptions such as tolling for reasons such as the injured party being a minor in which case depending on the particular statute, the statute does not begin to run until after the minor reaches the age of majority. Reprinted courtesy of Ivette Kincaid, Kahana Feld and Thomas McCarrick, Kahana Feld Ms. Kincaid may be contacted at ikincaid@kahanafeld.com Mr. McCarrick may be contacted at tmccarrick@kahanafeld.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Contractor Sues License Board

June 30, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Judge Kendall J. Newman of the US District Court handed down a decision on June 24 on the case of Kent v California Department of Consumer Affairs. Mr. Kent, appearing as his own counsel, had brought the suit against the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the Contractors State Licensing Board after he was arrested in a sting operation and, as the plaintiff put it, “was absurdly arrested and uncooperatively detained for a time longer than necessary or allowed by law under the false pretense of contracting with out a license.” Mr. Kent’s alleged that Rick Lopez, one of the defendants, formed him to read allow from the California Business and Professions Code. He said he was later handcuffed and placed in an uncomfortable chair, “enduring physical pain and emotional agony.”

Although Kent was given a Notice to Appear, he alleged that a further defendant, Stuart Rind, “closed the plaintiff’s case marked citation A7773 without giving written notice to anyone.” As a result, the Placer County District Attorney’s Office had no record of his Notice to Appear.

Kent alleged that subsequently his firm was essentially shut down for two years and that he was prevented from “legally contracting or selling services for any other contractor or qualifying for any other licensed capacity governed by the CSLB.” After this, the CSLB suspended the license for his firm, DSI Construction. He was assessed a $1,500 fine, after which he claims he sent a letter to the CSLB demanding money damages. The judge noted that the letter was not included in the plaintiff’s Ninth Amended Complaint.

Judge Kendall recommended that the plaintiff’s Complaints be dismissed, although he did allow that sixth, and perhaps the eighth and ninth, could be amended with a tenth amended complaint.

Read the court’s decision…

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

No Additional Insured Coverage Under Umbrella Policy

March 12, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The additional insured was not covered under a property policy for an injury occurring after work was completed. Lewark v. Davis Door Servs., 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 341 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2014). Public Storage, Inc. hired Davis Door Service Inc. to perform work at its facilities. The master agreement required Davis Door to maintain a CGL policy that insured Public Storage "during the entire progress of the work." Davis Door secured a CGL policy with American Economy. It also took out an umbrella liability policy with American States. After Davis Door completed work on a door, Terrie Lewark injury her back opening the door. She sued Public Storage and Davis Door. Lewar and Public Storage settled. Public Storage assigned to Lewark its rights under the umbrella policy with American States. Lewark then sued Davis Door and American States. The trial court found that Public Storage was not an additional insured under the American States umbrella policy. 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

Florida Chinese drywall, pollution exclusion, “your work” exclusion, and “sistership” exclusion.

May 26, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. American Building Materials, Inc., No. 8:10-CV-313-T-24-AEP (M.D. Fla. May 17, 2011), insured drywall supplier ABM was sued by general contractor KB Homes seeking damages because property damage to houses built by KB Homes using defective Chinese drywall supplied by ABM. ABM’s CGL insurer Auto-Owners defended ABM under a reservation of rights and filed suit against ABM and KB Homes seeking a judicial declaration of no to duty to defend or indemnify ABM against the KB Homes lawsuit. On cross motions for summary, the federal district trial court directed entry of judgment in favor of ABM and KB Homes and against Auto-Owners, holding that Auto-Owners had a duty to defend and indemnify ABM against the KB Homes lawsuit.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com