Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

New York State Trial Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues

January 21, 2019 — Paul Briganti - White and Williams
On November 21, 2018, the New York Supreme Court, Onondaga County, issued a summary-judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising from asbestos-related bodily injury claims against plaintiffs Carrier Corporation (Carrier) and Elliott Company (Elliott). See Carrier Corp., et al. v. Travelers Indem. Co., et al., Index No. 2005-EG-7032 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 21, 2018). First, the court held that under New York’s “injury in fact trigger of coverage,” injury occurs from the first date of exposure to asbestos through death or the filing of suit. The court primarily relied on: (1) New York federal court decisions and the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in In re Viking Pump, Inc., 148 A.3d 633 (Del. 2016) holding that injury continues from first exposure through death or the assertion of a claim; and (2) medical and scientific evidence that the plaintiffs had submitted in support of their motion. The court specifically declined to follow Continental Cas. v. Wausau, 60 A.D.3d 128 (1st Dep’t 2008) (Keasbey), in which the New York Appellate Division found a question of fact whether injury occurs from exposure to asbestos through manifestation and that summary judgment was therefore inappropriate. The Carrier court stated that Keasbey was distinguishable because it “involved operations coverage, a non-product claim, and thus the [Keasbey] Court required a more stringent proof of injury in fact than is necessary here, in a products case.” Carrier, op. at 8. The Carrier court was also dismissive of affidavits offered by the defendant-insurer’s medical experts, finding that the affidavits did not create an issue of fact. See Op. at 2-9. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul Briganti, White and Williams
Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com

Five "Boilerplate" Terms to Negotiate in Your Next Subcontract

November 08, 2017 — James R. Lynch - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Whether you negotiate your own subcontracts or rely on your lawyer to do the heavy lifting at contract time, a savvy subcontractor should understand the basic purpose of common subcontract provisions, and be prepared to negotiate for fair and commercially reasonable terms. While most sophisticated subcontractors are skilled at negotiating the core terms of a subcontract—scope of work, price, and time—a few simple but less obvious tweaks to common subcontract terms and conditions can go a long way to protect a subcontractor from unfair results when a dispute arises. From the desk of an experienced construction lawyer, below are the first three of the top five “boilerplate” provisions that subcontractors too often overlook during contract negotiations, along with tips on language to include and to avoid. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James R. Lynch, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Lynch may be contacted at jlynch@ac-lawyers.com

Payne & Fears LLP Recognized by Best Lawyers in 2024 “Best Law Firms” Rankings

November 27, 2023 — Payne & Fears LLP
Payne & Fears LLP has been recognized by Best Lawyers 2024 “Best Law Firms” list. Firms included in the 2024 edition of Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms” are recognized for professional excellence with consistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. Payne & Fears LLP has been ranked in the following practice areas:

Metropolitan Tier 1
- Orange County
  - Commercial Litigation
  - Employment Law – Management
  - Insurance Law
  - Labor Law – Management
  - Litigation – Labor & Employment
  - Litigation – Real Estate

Metropolitan Tier 2
- Las Vegas
  - Commercial Litigation

Metropolitan Tier 3
- Orange County
  - Litigation – Intellectual Property

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

Delaware Supreme Court Allows Shareholders Access to Corporation’s Attorney-Client Privileged Documents

August 13, 2014 — Marc S. Casarino and Lori S. Smith – White and Williams LLP
Delaware corporations may be required to turn over internal documents of directors and officers, including those of in-house counsel, where the factors enumerated in Garner v. Walfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970) weigh in favor of disclosure. In a July 23, 2014 decision of first-impression, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW, that the Garner doctrine applies to plenary shareholder/corporation disputes, as well as to books and records inspection actions under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Garner doctrine provides that a shareholder may invade the corporation’s attorney-client privilege in order to prove fiduciary breaches by those in control of the corporation upon a showing of good cause. The non-exhaustive list of factors by which a finding of good cause should be tested are: “(i) the number of shareholders and the percentage of stock they represent; (ii) the bona fides of the shareholders; (iii) the nature of the shareholders’ claim and whether it is obviously colorable; (iv) the apparent necessity or desirability of the shareholders having the information and the availability of it from other sources; (v) whether, if the shareholders’ claim is of wrongful action by the corporation, it is of action criminal, or illegal but not criminal, or of doubtful legality; (vi) whether the communication is of advice concerning the litigation itself; (vii) the extent to which the communication is identified versus the extent to which the shareholders are blindly fishing; and (viii) the risk of revelation of trade secrets or other information in whose confidentiality the corporation has an interest for independent reasons.” Reprinted courtesy of Marc S. Casarino, White and Williams LLP and Lori S. Smith, White and Williams LLP Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Based on New Information …”

August 01, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
Based on new information … your arbitration award is thrown out! So said the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming a district court’s vacatur of the award based upon the award having been procured by fraud. The lower court ruled as it did notwithstanding the fact that the action seeking to have the arbitration award vacated was filed and served beyond the three months allowed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 12. The party attacking arbitration award alleged that during the course of the arbitration hearing, a witness whose testimony was been handled remotely by videoconference was being inappropriately aided: the witness was being instructed remotely – by texting – by the corporate representative for his company, who was entitled to sit in on all portions of the arbitration hearing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Mortgage Whistleblower Stands Alone as U.S. Won’t Join Lawsuit

April 28, 2014 — Jef Feeley and David McLaughlin – Bloomberg
Two years after Lynn Szymoniak helped the U.S. recover $95 million from Bank of America Corp. and other lenders for mortgage-fraud tied to the housing bubble, the whistle-blower said the government is ignoring a chance to collect more money for identical claims against other banks. Szymoniak got $18 million when the U.S. Justice Department intervened in her foreclosure-fraud lawsuit. The government negotiated a settlement with five lenders including Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) The other banks accused of the same behavior, including Deutsche Bank AG (DBK) and HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA), are still fighting Szymoniak’s suit, saying she isn’t a true whistle-blower. And the U.S., while continuing its crackdown on banks that packaged risky loans for sale as securities, hasn’t joined with her this time, leaving her to fight the banks alone. U.S. District Judge Joseph Anderson in Columbia, South Carolina, today is set to consider their bid to throw the case out. Mr. Feeley may be contacted at jfeeley@bloomberg.net; Mr. McLaughlin may be contacted at dmclaughlin9@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jef Feeley and David McLaughlin, Bloomberg

Another Case Highlighting the Difference Between CGL Policies and Performance Bonds

January 07, 2015 — David M. McClain – Colorado Construction Litigation
During the summer of 2011, Ellis Construction hired Cool Sunshine Heating & Air Conditioning to install the HVAC systems in a single-family home it was building for Gary Doberman and Ellen Robertson in Boulder, Colorado. The homeowners took issue with much of the work performed on their home and tried to negotiate directly with Ellis Construction. When those negotiations broke down, the homeowners sent a notice of claim pursuant to the Construction Defect Action Reform Act, C.R.S. § 13-20-801, et seq. One of the defects alleged in the notice of claim was that the SEERS 13 compressor installed by Cool Sunshine was inappropriate for the system and that because it was installed to run on only one stage, it did not meet the City of Boulder’s code requirements for noise levels. The homeowners therefore requested that the compressor be replaced with a SEERS 20 compressor, which would comply with the Boulder City Code. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company

October 05, 2020 — Michael Velladao - Lewis Brisbois
In Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., __F.3d__(July 2, 2020), the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the following questions to the Nevada Supreme Court in connection with a contribution action for defense costs filed by Zurich American Insurance Company and American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company (“Zurich”) against Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company (“Ironshore”) with respect to the defense and settlement of 14 construction defect lawsuits on behalf of eight subcontractors (“lawsuits”) insured by both companies:

Whether, under Nevada law, the burden of proving the applicability of an exception to an exclusion of coverage in an insurance policy falls on the insurer or the insured? Whichever party bears such a burden, may it rely on evidence extrinsic to the complaint to carry its burden, and if so, is it limited to extrinsic evidence available at the time the insured tendered the defense of the lawsuit to the insurer?

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Velladao, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Velladao may be contacted at Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES