Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Motion for Remand

December 21, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court refused to remand the insureds' case after the insurer removed from state court. Maui Land & Pineapple Co. v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15681 (D. Haw. Nov. 10, 2016). The underlying case was filed in state court on Maui. The underlying plaintiffs were condominium owners who brought claims against the insured, Maui Land and Pineapple Co., Inc. (MLP), and other defendants allegedly involved in the development of the project. Ryan Churchill, one of the named defendants, served as president of MLP and was on the board of the project's Association of Apartment Owners (AOAO). The underlying plaintiffs asserted claims for: breach of fiduciary duty; seeking access to books and records of the AOAO; and for injunctive/declaratory relief against MLP, Mr. Churchill, and all other defendants. 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

Utility Contractor Held Responsible for Damaged Underground Electrical Line

October 11, 2017 — Brett M. Hill - Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC
The Washington State Court of Appeals recently addressed an excavation contractor’s responsibilities under the Underground Utilities Damage Prevention Act (UUDPA), RCW 19.122. That statute was enacted in 2011 and imposed certain statutory duties on parties involved with projects requiring excavation. In this case, Titan Earthworks, LLC contracted with the City of Federal Way to perform certain street improvements including installation of a new traffic signal. During the process of excavating for the traffic signal, Titan drilled into an energized underground Puget Sound Energy power line. PSE sought damages from Titan and Titan sued the City of Federal Way. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at bhill@ac-lawyers.com

Timely and Properly Assert Affirmative Defenses and Understand Statutory Conditions Precedent

August 05, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent case serves as a reminder to TIMELY and PROPERLY assert affirmative defenses and to understand statutory conditions precedent to construction lien claims. Failing to do one or the other could be severely detrimental to the position you want to take in a dispute, whether it is a lien foreclosure dispute, or any other dispute. In Scherf v. Tom Krips Construction, Inc., 2024 WL 3297592 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024), the president of a construction company and his wife were building a residence. They orally accepted the proposal from the concrete shell contractor and asked for invoices to be submitted to the president’s construction company. No written contract was memorialized. The president and his wife did not pay the concrete shell contractor and the contractor recorded a lien and sued to foreclose on the lien. Years later (the case had been stayed because the president and his wife filed for bankruptcy and the shell contractor had to get leave of the automatic bankruptcy stay to pursue the lien foreclosure), the shell contractor moved for summary judgment. The president and his wife moved for leave to file an amended answer and affirmative defenses. They claimed the oral contract was with the construction company and the shell contractor was required to serve a Notice to Owner under Florida Statute s. 713.06. Alternatively, they argued that if the oral contract was with the president and his wife, the shell contractor was required to serve a Final Contractor’s Payment Affidavit at least 5 days before filing its lien foreclosure claim, and did not, as required by s. 713.06. 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

Efficient Proximate Cause Applies to Policy's Collapse Provisions

February 23, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court applied the efficient proximate cause doctrine to find coverage under a property policy for a building's collapse. Vardanyan v. Amco Ins. Co., 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 1181 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2015). The insured submitted a claim to Amco for damage to the flooring of the house and for mold. Amco's adjustor reported that the house seemed to be settling, possibly due to a water leak. A structural engineer then inspected and found multiple potential leaks in the roof, gutters in disrepair, downspouts that deposited water at the base of the walls of the house, and evidence that a faucet had been spraying the wall in one area. Water damage was noticed in these areas. Further, the kitchen was water damaged and had past termite infestation. 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

Insurance Company’s Reservation of Rights Letter Negates its Interest in the Litigation

November 12, 2019 — Frank Ingham - Colorado Construction Litigation
The Colorado Court of Appeals held that an insurance company, which issues a reservation of rights letter to its insured, loses its interest in the litigation, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2), when the insured settles the claims and assigns the bad faith action against the insurance company to the plaintiff. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 2019WL 3483901(Colo. App. 2019). In a 2016 lawsuit in Denver District Court, 2016CV3360, the Bolt Factory Loft Owners Association, Inc. (“Association”) asserted construction defect claims against six contractors. Two of those contractors then asserted claims against other subcontractors, including Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra Glass”). After multiple settlements, the only remaining claims were those the Association, as assignee of the two contractors, asserted against Sierra Glass. Auto-Owners Insurance Company (“AOIC”) issued policies to Sierra Glass and defended it under a reservation of rights. The policy afforded AOIC the right to defend Sierra Glass, and it required Sierra Glass to cooperate in the defense of the legal action. The Association presented a settlement demand of $1.9 million to Sierra Glass, which AOIC refused to pay. To protect itself from an excess judgment that AOIC might not have paid, Sierra Glass entered into an agreement with the Association whereby Sierra Glass would refrain from offering a defense at trial and assign its bad faith claim against AOIC to the Association in exchange for the Association’s promise that it would not pursue recovery against Sierra Glass of any judgment entered against it at trial. Such agreements, known as Bashor or Nunn Agreements, are allowed in Colorado. Nunn v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., 244 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2010). Therefore, Sierra Glass was entitled to protect itself in the face of AOIC’s potential denial of coverage and refusal to settle. Bolt Factory Lofts, at ¶ 15. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Frank Ingham, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Ingham may be contacted at ingham@hhmrlaw.com

The Investors Profiting Off Water Scarcity

June 10, 2024 — Linda Poon - Bloomberg
We’re excited to share that the Bloomberg Green series Water Grab was named a Pulitzer Prize finalist. The series, which includes contributions from several CityLab writers and alums, explores how private investors are commandeering public water for profit at the expense of both the environment and less powerful communities. Below is a sample of stories looking at how investors, private equity firms and Wall Street are taking advantage of the world’s scarce water supply. Read the full series here, which is now in front of the paywall. Reprinted courtesy of Linda Poon, Bloomberg Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties

July 31, 2013 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
An issue that has plagued builders in Colorado construction defect litigation is the difficulty of getting additional insured carriers to fully participate in the builder’s defense, oftentimes leaving the builder to fund its own defense during the course of the litigation. Many additional insurers offer a variety of positions regarding why they will not pay for fees and costs during the course of a lawsuit. Some insurers argue that, until after trial, it is impossible to determine its proper share of the defense, and therefore cannot make any payments until the liability is determined as to all of the potentially contributing policies. (This is often referred to as the “defense follows indemnity” approach.) Others may make an opening contribution to defense fees and costs, but fall silent as fees and costs accumulate. In such an event, the builder may be forced to fund all or part of its own defense, while the uncooperative additional insured carrier waits for the end of the lawsuit or is faced with other legal action before it makes other contributions. Recent orders in two, currently ongoing, U.S. District Court cases provide clarity on the duty to defend in Colorado, holding that multiple insurers’ duty to defend is joint and several. The insured does not have to go without a defense while the various insurers argue amongst themselves as to which insurer pays what share. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Is the Event You Are Claiming as Unforeseeable Delay Really Unforeseeable?

September 26, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Is the item or event you are claiming as an unforeseeable, excusable delay really unforeseeable? This is not a trick question. Just because your construction contract identifies items or events that constitute unforeseeable, excusable delay does not mean those items can be used as a blanket excuse or crutch for the contractor. That would be unfair. For instance, it is not uncommon for a construction contract to list as unforeseeable, excusable delay the following events or items: “(i) acts of God or of the public enemy, (ii) act of the Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity, (iii) acts of another Contractor in the performance of a contract with the Government, (iv) fires, (v) floods, (vi) epidemics, (vii) quarantine restrictions, (viii) strikes, (ix) freight embargoes, (x) unusually severe weather, or (xi) delays of subcontractors or suppliers at any tier arising from unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of both the Contractor and the subcontractors or suppliers.” See, e.g., F.A.R. 52.249-10(b)(1). While the itemization of excusable delay may be worded differently, the point is there may be a listing as to what items or events constitute excusable delay. An excusable delay would justify additional time and, potentially, compensation to the contractor. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES