FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

In South Carolina, Insurer's Denial of Liability Does Not Waive Attorney-Client Privilege for Bad Faith Claim

October 14, 2019 — Ashley L. Cooper & Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Determining the scope of discovery can be challenging, particularly when an insurance bad faith claim is involved. Courts often face the difficult decision of weighing the importance of preserving attorney-client privilege with the public policy rationale of protecting an insured against their insurer’s bad faith behavior. The Supreme Court of South Carolina recently recognized this dilemma by rejecting a hardline approach to bad faith discovery disputes and adopting a case-by-case analysis. The case, In re Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.,1 arose out of a construction defect claim. ContraVest Construction Company (“ContraVest”) constructed a development in South Carolina and was later sued for alleged defective construction. ContraVest sought coverage for the lawsuit from its insurers, including Mount Hawley Insurance Company (“Mount Hawley”), which had provided excess commercial liability insurance to ContraVest during the relevant timeframe. Mount Hawley denied the claim, which prompted ContraVest to sue it for bad faith, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Reprinted courtesy of Ashley L. Cooper, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Cooper may be contacted at alc@sdvlaw.com Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Appellate Court Restores Insurer’s Right to Seek Pro Rata Allocation of Settlements Between Insured and Uninsured Periods

March 28, 2022 — Patricia B. Santelle & Frank J. Perch, III - White and Williams LLP
In Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jenkins Bros., 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1846 (App.Div. 1st Dept. March 22, 2022), the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, issued a ruling reversing the trial court and holding that an insurer was entitled to allocate a portion of asbestos claim settlements it negotiated to time periods when its dissolved insured was without coverage. The decision overturns a trial court ruling that the insurer was barred from denying liability for the full amount of the settlements because the insurer had become the “real party in interest” as a result of a prior court order directing it to accept service of process on behalf of a dissolved insured. The trial court held that the insurer stood in the shoes of the insured for all purposes by accepting service and negotiating settlements, and was therefore estopped from denying liability for the full amount of the settlements. Reprinted courtesy of Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams LLP and Frank J. Perch, III, White and Williams LLP Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Perch may be contacted at perchf@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Texas “your work” exclusion

January 06, 2012 — CDCoverage.com

In American Home Assurance Co. v. Cat Tech, L.L.C., No. 10-20499 (5th Cir. Oct. 5, 2011), claimant Ergon hired insured Cat Tech to perform service on a reactor at Ergon’s refinery. During a start-up of the reactor after Cat Tech had completed its work, the reactor suffered damage. Cat Tech performed additional service and repairs. However, again upon start-up of the reactor, it suffered additional damage. Ergon hired another contractor to repair the reactor. Ergon initiated arbitration proceedings against Cat Tech. Cat Tech’s CGL insurer American Home defended Cat Tech against the Ergon arbitration under a reservation of rights.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

---

Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

February 11, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
These days in construction, and other pursuits, teaming agreements have become a great method for large and small contractors to work together to take advantage of various contract and job requirements from minority participation to veteran ownership. With the proliferation of these agreements, parties must be careful in how they draft the terms of these agreements. Without proper drafting, the parties risk unenforceability of the teaming agreement in the evewnt of a dispute. One potential pitfall in drafting is an “agreement to agree” or an agreement to negotiate a separate contract in the future. This type of pitfall was illustrated in the case of InDyne Inc. v. Beacon Occupational Health & Safety Services Inc. out of the Eastern District of Virginia. In this case, InDyne and Beacon entered into a teaming agreement that provided that InDyne as Prime would seek to use Beacon, the Sub, in the event that InDyne was awarded a contract using Beacon’s numbers. The teaming agreement further provided:

The agreement shall remain in effect until the first of the following shall occur: … (g) inability of the Prime and the Sub, after negotiating in good faith, to reach agreement on the terms of a subcontract offered by the Prime, in accordance with this agreement.

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

---

Aarow Equipment v. Travelers- An Update

January 16, 2024 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Previously here at Musings, I discussed the application of pay if paid clauses and the Miller Act. The case that prompted the discussion was the Aarow Equipment & Services, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. case in which the Eastern District of Virginia Federal Court determined that a “pay if paid” clause coupled with a proper termination could defeat a Miller Act bond claim. However, as I found out a couple of weeks ago at the VSB’s Construction Law and Public Contracts section meeting, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded this case in an unpublished opinion (Aarow Equipment & Services, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co.) In it’s opinion, the 4th Circuit looked at some of the more “interesting” aspects of this case. One of these circumstances was that Syska (the general contractor) directed Aarow to construct sedimentary ponds and other water management measures around the project (the “pond work”), which both agreed was outside of the scope of the work defined in their subcontract. Syska asked that the government agree to a modification of the prime contract and asked Aarow to wait to submit its invoice for the pond work until after the government issued a modification to the prime contract and Syska issued a change order to the subcontract. 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

---

AMLO Hits Back at Vulcan, Threatens to Use Environmental Decree

December 04, 2023 — Maya Averbuch & Eric Martin - Bloomberg
Mexico’s president threatened to declare a disputed property owned by Vulcan Materials Co. an environmentally protected area, after failing to reach an agreement with the US construction firm. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said Vulcan continued work at the site even while in talks with his government over its potential purchase of the property, which was occupied by Mexican marines in March. Accusing the company of “vile trickery,” AMLO — as the president is known — told reporters Friday that he would act by decree if necessary to halt the destruction in “one of the most beautiful areas in the world.” His comments came a day after Bloomberg reported that the Alabama-based firm was seeking the Biden administration’s protection from what it sees as the threat of a hostile takeover of its property. The 2,400 hectare (5,930 acre) plot south of the resort city of Playa del Carmen includes a port and a quarry. Reprinted courtesy of Maya Averbuch, Bloomberg and Eric Martin, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Congratulations 2016 DE, MA, NJ, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

October 27, 2016 — White and Williams LLP
Thirty-two White and Williams lawyers have been named by Super Lawyers as a Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York or Pennsylvania "Super Lawyer" while fourteen received "Rising Star" designations. Each lawyer who received the distinction competed in a rigorous selection process which took into consideration peer recognition and professional achievement. The lawyers named to this year's Super Lawyer list represent a multitude of practices throughout the firm. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

---

Product Manufacturers Beware: You May Be Subject to Jurisdiction in Massachusetts

July 05, 2023 — Timothy Keough & Audrey Schoenike - White and Williams LLP
Say you are a Floridian product manufacturer that does business in Massachusetts and you receive a Complaint filed in Massachusetts that alleges your product injured a Nova Scotian resident in Nova Scotia. You know that the only time that product was in Massachusetts was during its transport up the eastern seaboard to its final destination at a retailer in Nova Scotia. Can you be hailed into a Massachusetts court for this accident? The answer is seemingly not so simple following the Supreme Judicial Court’s holding in Doucet v. FCA US LLC. On June 8th, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in Doucet v. FCA US LLC, held that FCA US LLC is subject to jurisdiction in Massachusetts for a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred in New Hampshire. No. SJC-13354, slip. op. (Mass. June 8, 2023). The vehicle had been purchased in New Hampshire by a New Hampshire resident. The Court explained that federal due process does not require a causal connection between a company’s business dealings with the jurisdiction and the injury; instead, a mere relationship between the business dealings and the injury will suffice to establish jurisdiction. Because the vehicle at issue was first sold in Massachusetts and FCA US LLC had extensive business dealings unrelated to the vehicle in question in Massachusetts, the Court concluded that a strong enough relationship existed between FCA US LLC, Massachusetts, and the litigation for jurisdiction to exist. Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Keough, White and Williams LLP and Audrey Schoenike, White and Williams LLP Mr. Keough may be contacted at keought@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Schoenike may be contacted at schoenikea@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---