Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

First-Party Statutory Bad Faith – 60 Days to Cure Means 60 Days to Cure

October 19, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a first party bad-faith lawsuit, such as a bad faith claim against an insured’s property insurer, there are three requirements that must be met before the bad faith lawsuit is filed: “‘(1) determination of the insurer’s liability for coverage; (2) determination of the extent of the insured’s damages; and (3) the required notice must be filed under section 624.155(3)(a).’” Fortune v. First Protective Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2092a (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (citation omitted). The third requirement is for the insured to file a Civil Remedy Notice (known as a “CRN”) as a condition precedent to filing a statutory bad faith lawsuit giving the insurer 60 days’ notice of the bad faith violation and to cure the violation, i.e., pay the claim if the violation is payment. A very common bad faith payment violation is the assertion that the insurer did NOT attempt “in good faith to settle claims when, under the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly towards its insured and with due regard for his or her interests.” Fla. Stat. s. 624.155(1)(b)(1). 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

California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even

November 21, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Originally published by CDJ on April 20, 2017 Earlier, we reported on a California Court of Appeals decision – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc. – which held for the first time that a second-place bidder on a public works contract could sue a winning bidder who failed to pay its workers prevailing wages, under the business tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Fast forward nearly two years, several amicus briefs, and “one doghouse”* later and the California Supreme Court has . . . reversed. The Roy Allan Slurry Seal Case To catch you up, or rather, refresh your recollection . . . Between 2009 and 2012, American Asphalt South, Inc. was awarded 23 public works contracts totaling more than $14.6 million throughout Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. Two of the losing bidders on those projects – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. and Doug Martin Contracting, Inc. – sued American in each of these counties for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage as well as under the Unfair Practices Act (“UPA”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17000 et seq.) and the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

California Appellate Court Rules That Mistakenly Grading the Wrong Land Is Not an Accident

June 27, 2022 — Jared De Jong & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & Fears
In a decision that further muddies the already murky waters of “occurrence” jurisprudence, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that a general liability policy does not cover a homeowner who mistakenly grades the wrong piece of land because the act of grading land is not “accidental.” In Ghukasian v. Aegis Security Insurance Company, ___ Cal. App. 5th ___, 2022 WL 1421511 (2022), a homeowner instructed her contractor to clear and level a piece of land that the homeowner believed was part of her property. Unfortunately, the land was owned by a neighbor, who sued the homeowner and the contractor for trespass and negligence. The homeowner tendered to her insurer, Aegis. The homeowner’s policy contained a standard insuring agreement creating coverage for property damage caused by an “occurrence,” defined by the policy as an “accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” The insurer denied coverage, arguing that intentionally grading land is not an accident. Coverage litigation ensued. Reprinted courtesy of Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Mr. De Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

NLRB Finalizes Rule for Construction Industry Unions to Obtain Majority Support Representational Status

September 23, 2024 — Aaron C. Schlesinger - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
On July 26, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued its Fair Choice – Employee Voice Final Rule (“Final Rule”), which takes effect September 30, 2024. The Final Rule eases the process for unions in the construction industry to convert their status as collective bargaining representative of bargaining unit employees from Section 8(f) to 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”) simply by placing certain recognitional acceptance language in their collective bargaining agreements. As a result, construction industry employers should review their collective bargaining agreements prior to signing to determine if such language exists. Section 9(a) Non-Construction Industry Employers In most industries, not including construction, union recognitional status as collective bargaining representative of the employer’s employees is governed by Section 9(a) of the Act. In order for a Union to obtain recognitional status under Section 9(a), the union must either: (1) file a petition with the NLRB showing support of 30% of the proposed bargaining unit via employee executed authorization cards and win an election of 51% of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit who actually vote; or (2) by reaching an agreement with the employer that the union possesses employee executed authorization cards from 51% of the proposed bargaining unit, which has been confirmed by a neutral arbitrator pursuant to a card count. Once such status is achieved, the union and employer are required to meet and bargain towards reaching a collective bargaining agreement covering the terms and conditions of employment of the union represented employees. A Section 9(a) union cannot have its recognitional status revoked absent the loss of majority support of the employees it represents. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com

The Quiet War Between California’s Charter Cities and the State’s Prevailing Wage Law

April 20, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Behind the scenes a quiet war is raging. A war pitting local sovereignty, on one hand, against a Depression-era law intended to help those working on state and local public works projects, on the other. California’s Prevailing Wage Law Beginning in 1929 and continuing through the late 1930s, the Great Depression is widely considered to be the longest, most widespread depression of the 20th century. In 1931, the federal government enacted the Davis-Bacon Act to help workers on federal construction projects. The Davis-Bacon Act, also known as the federal prevailing wage law, sets minimum wages that must be paid to workers on federal construction projects based on local “prevailing” wages. The law was designed to help curb the displacement of families by employers who were recruiting lower-wage workers from outside local areas. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

A Relatively Small Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix

April 06, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Remember all of my posts about how fraud and contract claims don’t usually play well in litigation? Well, as always with the law, there are exceptions. For instance, a well plead Virginia Consumer Protection Act claim will survive a dismissal challenge. A recent opinion out of the Alexandria division of the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia sets out another exception, namely so called fraudulent inducement. In XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Truland et al, the Court considered the question of whether both a tort and contract claim can coexist in the same lawsuit when the tort claim is based upon the information provided to the plaintiff when that information proves false. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Construction Law Musings
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Return-to-Workplace Checklist: Considerations and Emerging Best Practices for Employers

July 20, 2020 — Nancy Conrad & George C. Morrison - White and Williams LLP
As employers plan to return employees to the workplace, they should proceed with careful planning and incorporate best practices and measures to assure a safe, responsible and productive workplace. While there is no "one size fits all" plan, the following checklist will assist in assuring that your work environment includes the key safety components to return to the workplace in the midst of a pandemic. PREPARING THE WORKPLACE FOR RETURN & GENERAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Create a company task force, safety committee or coordinator to oversee implementation of policies that address and enforce practices related to COVID-19.
Ensure HVAC systems are functional, have been properly cleaned and serviced and tuned to maximize airflow and filtration.
Review and increase cleaning protocols in coordination with lease terms and cleaning contracts. Ensure regular and thorough office cleanings, with a focus on high-touch surfaces and areas. Document cleaning protocols and schedule.
Implement social distancing requirements and provide visual markers on floors in compliance with applicable federal, state and local orders.
Rearrange work spaces, conference rooms and lunchrooms to comply with social distancing requirements.
Post notices about the number of individuals permitted in elevators, stairwells, rooms and on the premises.
Restrict movement between departments and floors.

Reprinted courtesy of Nancy Conrad, White and Williams LLP and George C. Morrison, White and Williams LLP Ms. Conrad may be contacted at conradn@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Morrison may be contacted at morrisong@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Georgia Supreme Court Rules Construction Defects Can Constitute an Occurrence in CGL Policies

April 05, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFF

Recently, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the decision in American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company v Hathaway Development Company, Inc. stating that because Whisnant’s faulty workmanship caused damage to the surrounding properties, the construction defects constituted “occurrences” under the Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy. Unlike the South Carolina Supreme court ruling in the case of Crossman Communities v Harleysville Mutual, the Georgia Supreme Court stated that an accident can happen intentionally if the effect is not the intended result.

Interestingly, the only dissenting judge, J. Melton, disagreed with his colleagues on the basis that “although the term ‘accident’ is not specifically defined in the policy, it is axiomatic that an ‘accident’ cannot result from ‘intentional’ behavior.” It is clear that what constitutes an occurrence in CGL policies is still being hotly debated.

Read the full story...

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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES