Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Motion to Dismiss Denied Regarding Insureds' Claim For Collapse

October 29, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court denied the insurer's motion to dismiss claims for loss due to the imminent collapse of the insureds' basement walls. Belz v. Peerless Ins. Co., 2014 WL 4364914 (D. Conn. Sept. 2, 2014). The insureds noticed cracks throughout their basement walls. It was discovered that the condition was the result of a chemical compound used in the concrete of certain basement walls in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The insureds contended that due to the cracking, the basement walls suffered a substantial impairment to their structural integrity making it only a matter of time until the walls collapsed. The insureds notified their insurer, Peerless. An engineer hired by Peerless determined the walls' condition was caused by poor workmanship and defective materials. On this basis, Peerless denied coverage. 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

The Jersey Shore gets Beach Prisms Designed to Reduce Erosion

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Thirty-five beach prisms manufactured by Smith-Midland Corporation have been installed along the Jersey shore in Ocean Gate, New Jersey. According to the Wall Street Journal, “The prisms protect homes, prevent erosion, and reduce impacts from natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy.” They “are made with a built-in parabolic curve that scatters waves away as spray instead of allowing them to crash up onto the vulnerable shoreline.” Ocean Gate’s Mayor Paul J. Kennedy stated, "We've been losing beach year after year with the Nor'easters we get. So we came up with an idea that hopefully will work,” The Wall Street Journal reported. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Federal District Court Dismisses Property Claim After Insured Allows Loss Location to Be Destroyed Prior to Inspection

September 29, 2021 — James M. Eastham - Traub Lieberman
In BMJ Partners LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Co., No. 20-CV-03870, 2021 WL 3709182 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2021), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed, with prejudice, a coverage action filed by an insured based on a failure to comply with a request to inspect the involved property under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The loss at issue involved a hail-damaged building in Carpentersville, Illinois. During the discovery phase of the litigation, the property insurer served a request to inspect the subject property under FRCP Rule 34. After ignoring numerous requests to schedule the inspection, the insurer filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute or, alternatively, to compel an inspection. After the motion was filed, a status hearing was conducted where the insured’s counsel advised the Court of his intention to file a motion to withdraw from representation of the insured. After the date set to file the motion to withdraw passed without anything being filed, the Court entered an order directing the insured to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. In response to the order to show cause, the insured advised the Court that instead of responding to the property insurer’s discovery requests, the insured sold the property to a buyer who subsequently tore down the building. In light of what the Court described as the insured’s “flabbergasting admission”, the Court was compelled to grant the motion to dismiss and do so with prejudice. In support of the “extreme sanction” of dismissing the matter with prejudice, the Court first noted that the insured had not come close to justifying a discharge of the pending show-cause order. Rather, the insured’s responsive filing refers to the Court's show cause order only indirectly and does not deny, or offer any justification for, disregarding case-related communications for several months. Even if that were not enough, the Court further held that the insured’s spoliation of evidence likewise provides sufficient basis for dismissal given that Courts have inherent authority to sanction parties for failure to preserve potential evidence. According to the Court, dismissal with prejudice was the only appropriate sanction in light of the insured’s violation of the obligation to preserve the property. Not only did the insured ignore multiple requests from the insurer to inspect, but during the same time frame the insured found time to allow inspections of the building as part of the sale by both the Village of Carpentersville and the property's buyer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James M. Eastham, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Eastham may be contacted at jeastham@tlsslaw.com

Georgia Local Government Drainage Liability: Nuisance and Trespass

November 29, 2021 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
A long-running dispute between a landowner and a municipality has escalated to the Georgia Court of Appeals and in the federal court for the Northern District of Georgia.[1] The municipality maintained a stormwater system that discharged on property uphill from the landowner’s property. The uphill property was used as an illegal dump, and debris washed downhill from the dump to the landowner’s property. The debris clogged the landowner’s surface water drainage system, which caused flooding of the property and a building. State Case The landowner sued for trespass, nuisance, takings, and inverse condemnation. While the other claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitations, the court addressed the plaintiff-landowner’s claim for continuing nuisance. Municipalities may be liable when they negligently construct or maintain a sewer or drainage system that causes repeated flooding of property, such that it results in a continuing, abatable nuisance.[2] For a municipality to be liable for maintenance of a nuisance:

the municipality must be chargeable with performing a continuous or regularly repetitious act, or creating a continuous or regularly repetitious condition, which causes the hurt, inconvenience or injury; the municipality must have knowledge or be chargeable with notice of the dangerous condition; and, if the municipality did not perform an act creating the dangerous condition, . . . the failure of the municipality to rectify the dangerous condition must be in violation of a duty to act.[3]

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Workarounds for Workers' Comp Immunity: How to Obtain Additional Insured Coverage when the Named Insured is Immune from Suit

May 25, 2020 — Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Construction is an inherently risky business, fraught with the potential for human error. Despite best efforts to ensure safety, accidents involving construction workers are common, with consequences ranging from your run-of-the-mill trip and fall to much more serious and debilitating injuries. A worker who is injured on the job generally receives workers’ compensation benefits through their employer. Most states have enacted statutes stating that this is the exclusive remedy available from the employer, effectively making employers immune against civil lawsuits that might otherwise be brought by their injured employees. However, workers’ compensation benefits do not always fully compensate the employee for their injuries. In the construction industry, this often leads to lawsuits against upstream parties, such as a general contractor or project owner. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com

“Rip and Tear” Damage Remains Covered Under CGL Policy as “Accident”—for Now.

September 01, 2016 — Michael Lindsay & Luke Mecklenburg – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
The Colorado Supreme Court has approved a settlement between the parties to an appeal of the 2012 Colorado Pool Systems v. Scottsdale Insurance Company Court of Appeals case, leaving that ruling intact. The ruling parses a fine line between uncovered costs of repairing defective work and covered costs of damage caused to nondefective work while repairing defective work. This nuanced opinion, which is now established Colorado law, is worth a second look. In Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that so-called “rip and tear” damage caused by a construction professional to nondefective work while correcting defective work is covered as an “accident” under standard Commercial General Liability insurance language. 317 P.3d 1262 (Colo. App. 2012). A pool company excavated and built a rebar frame in order to construct a pool, but it hired a subcontractor to pour the concrete. An inspector later noticed that some of the rebar was too close to the surface, and the pool company agreed to demolish and replace the pool after an agent of its insurer represented that this loss would be covered. But the agent was wrong, the insurer denied coverage, and litigation ensued. Reprinted courtesy of Michael Lindsay, Snell & Wilmer and Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Lindsay may be contacted at mlindsay@swlaw.com Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Rejects Efforts to Limit Scope of Judgment Creditor’s Direct Action Under Insurance Code Section 11580

May 01, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Ins. Co. of St. of PA v. Amer. Safety Indemnity Co. (No. B283684, filed 3/1/19) (“ICSOP”), a California appeals court rejected one insurer’s efforts to limit the scope of another insurer’s direct action as a judgment creditor under Insurance Code section 11580(b)(2). In ICSOP, homeowners filed a claim in arbitration against their general contractor alleging damages from subsidence. While the arbitration was pending, the general contractor filed suit against the grading subcontractor seeking indemnity and contribution. The complaint attached the homeowners’ complaint in arbitration pleading damages of $2.3 million, and alleged that the subcontractors had a duty to indemnify for those damages. The arbitrator awarded the homeowners $1.1 million. The general contractor was insured by plaintiff ICSOP, which paid the arbitration award. A default judgment was entered against the grading subcontractor for $1.5 million, that included both the arbitration award plus $356,340 for the general contractor’s attorney’s fees. American Safety insured the grading subcontractor but refused to indemnify ICSOP. ICSOP then sued American Safety on the default judgment, pursuant to Insurance Code section 11580(b). The trial court granted summary judgment for ICSOP and the appeals court affirmed. Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Banks Rejected by U.S. High Court on Mortgage Securities Suits

January 12, 2015 — Greg Stohr – Bloomberg
The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc and Nomura Holdings Inc. (8604), refusing to derail federal government lawsuits that seek billions of dollars over the sale of risky mortgage-backed securities. The justices today turned away an appeal by four banks, including units of RBS and Nomura, in a case stemming from the collapse of two credit unions that owned more than $1.7 billion in those securities. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Greg Stohr, Bloomberg
Mr. Stohr may be contacted at gstohr@bloomberg.net

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES