FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Your Bad Faith Jury Instruction Against an Insurer is Important

March 09, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A statutory bad faith claim against an insurer is derived from Florida Statute s. 624.155. A bad faith claim against a first party insurer, such as a property insurer, must be statutory. Check out the hyperlink of the statute, but a party must first file a Civil Remedy Notice identifying the statutory violations to preserve the statutory bad faith claim giving the insurer an opportunity to cure. In a noteworthy case, Cooper v. Federated National Insurance Company, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2961a (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), the Fifth District Court of Appeal dealt with the jury instruction for an insured’s statutory bad faith claim against their property insurer. The insured filed a bad faith claim predicated on the property insurer violating the provisions of Florida Statute s. 626.9541(1)(i)3, which involves unfair claim settlement practices. The insured had a jury trial and submitted a proposed jury instruction regarding bad faith that tracked the very essence of their bad faith claim and was modeled after s. 626.9541(1)(i)(3). The trial court, however, denied this jury instruction, instead adopting a standard jury instruction for bad faith. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the property insurer and the insured appealed arguing it was reversible error for the trial court NOT to present to the jury their bad faith jury instruction. The Fifth District agreed and ordered a new trial finding that the trial court’s failure to present the jury instruction amounted to a miscarriage of justice. 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 Homeowners Can Release Future, Unknown Claims Against Builders

June 10, 2015 — Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and William L. Doerler – White and Williams LLP
In Belasco v. Wells, 183 Cal. Rptr.3d 840, 234 Cal. App. 4th 409 (2015), the California Court of Appeals for the Second District addressed the question of whether a homeowner, when settling an administrative complaint against a licensed homebuilder, can release future, unknown claims. Despite the presence of a California statute, Cal. Civ. Code § 1542, stating that a general release does not extend to claims that the releasor does not know about, the court held that the homeowner’s express release of future claims was enforceable. Thus, the homeowner’s release - signed as part of a 2006 settlement of the homeowner’s construction defect claims against the defendant, a homebuilder - barred the homeowner’s 2012 claims against the builder based on latent defects in the roof of the home that the homeowner discovered in 2011. Background The plaintiff, David Belasco, a patent attorney, bought a newly-constructed home from the defendant-builder, Gary Wells, in 2004. Wells holds a Class B General Building Contractor license issued by the Contractors State License Board (the Board). In 2006, Belasco filed a complaint against Wells with the Board based on alleged construction defects in the home. As a result of Belasco’s complaint to the Board, the parties engaged in arbitration. At the arbitration, both parties were represented by counsel. Wells offered to settle the dispute for the sum of $25,000 and Belasco accepted Wells’ offer. Reprinted courtesy of Edward A. Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP and William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

How Retro-Commissioning Can Extend the Life of a Building—and the Planet

July 10, 2023 — Matthew Zweibruck - Construction Executive
Sustainability initiatives in the built environment need not be limited to new construction or other large expenditures. Aging facilities have the potential to extend their years of service while also combating greenhouse gas emissions. But what is the best course of action? From building design initiatives such as net zero and electrification to renewables and green building certifications, it can be a complicated and overwhelming field to navigate. Building owners and property managers may question if they are pursuing the correct programs to minimize their organization’s negative impacts on the environment. With all the initiatives, buzzwords and fancy awards surrounding these initiatives, there are energy-efficiency strategies available to buildings that cut through this noise—strategies that are cost effective, quick to implement, widely abundant and result in an immediate reduction in a building’s impact on climate change. Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Zweibruck, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Finding Plaintiff Intentionally Spoliated Evidence, the Northern District of Indiana Imposes Sanction

March 14, 2018 — Shannon M. Warren – The Subrogation Strategist
On January 23, 2018, the Northern District of Indiana issued a decision that clarifies what constitutes spoliation of evidence under Indiana law. In Arcelormittal Ind. Harbor LLC v. Amex Nooter, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10141 (N.D. Ind.), the defendant filed a motion for sanctions, alleging that the plaintiff intentionally spoliated critical evidence. The defendant sought dismissal of the action, asserting that the plaintiff intentionally discarded and lost important physical evidence within hours of a fire that occurred while the defendant’s employees were performing work at its facility. The decision underscores the importance of taking immediate action to properly identify and secure potentially material evidence in order to satisfy ones duty to preserve pre-suit evidence and avoid any spoliation defenses and associated sanctions. In Arcelormittal, the court initially considered whether to apply state or federal law when analyzing a litigant’s duty to preserve pre-suit evidence and determine if that party committed spoliation. Since the case was brought in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, the court held that Indiana state law governed the spoliation analysis. As noted by the court, under Indiana state law, “the intentional destruction, mutilation, altercation, or concealment of evidence” is considered to be spoliation. Thus, under Indiana law, a party who knew or should have known that litigation was imminent “may not lose, destroy or suppress material facts or evidence.” The plaintiff argued that Indiana law requires a showing of improper purpose or bad faith to establish that a litigant spoliated evidence. The Arcelormittal court rejected the plaintiff’s argument. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Warren may be contacted at warrens@whiteandwilliams.com

---

A “Supplier to a Supplier” on a California Construction Project Sometimes Does Have a Right to a Mechanics Lien, Stop Payment Notice or Payment Bond Claim

October 01, 2014 — William L. Porter - The Porter Law Group
For purposes of seeking payment on a construction related project in the California construction industry, the proper legal classification of the party seeking payment is of key importance. Whether one in contract with a prime contractor is a subcontractor or a material supplier determines the availability for mechanics’ liens, stop payment notices and payment bond claims. Generally, those in contract with subcontractors have the ability to assert mechanics liens, stop payment notices and payment bond claims against the owner, general contractor and/or sureties. On the other hand, those who supply materials to material suppliers are generally not entitled to assert a mechanics lien, stop payment notice or payment bond claim. The “rule” has generally been stated as: “A supplier to a supplier has no lien rights.” However, this rule is not always true. The proper classification of an entity as either a subcontractor or a material supplier can be difficult. Simply because a prime contractor hires a licensed contractor to furnish labor, materials, equipment or services on a project does not mean that the party hired is actually a “subcontractor” as a matter of law. Conversely, even though a material supplier may not have a contractors’ license, he may still be classified as a subcontractor based on his scope of work. Based on recent case law, the method of determining whether an entity is a subcontractor or a material supplier has been clarified. The classification will depend on the scope of work that the hired party actually agreed to perform on the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, The Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---

Another Reminder that Your Construction Contract is Only as Good as Those Signing It

December 17, 2024 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Here at Construction Law Musings, we beat the constant drum that “the contract is king” and “draft a good and well-worded construction contract” consistently. As a Virginia construction attorney, I stand by these statements and fully endorse a well-written construction contract. Such a contract will set expectations and provide the rules for your deal (particularly in the commercial context). Without this solid foundation (yes, I see the potential construction pun), when there are issues on the job site, there will be no baseline for how to resolve those issues. That said, I am also reminded on an almost daily basis that humans interact with these contracts. People negotiate the contracts and are the main forces that drive the success (or failure) of the construction project. Money is involved (often a lot of it) and there can at times be temptations to try and squeeze one last dollar out of the job despite what the contract says. Even the strongest contract cannot act as real-time protection against one party that refuses to comply with the contract and its performance or payment terms. 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

---

Insureds' Summary Judgment Motion on Mold Limitation Denied

November 10, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insureds' motion for partial summary judgment on the applicability of the homeowner's mold limitation was denied. R.W.& R. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 2016 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 131586 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 26, 2016). The policy imposed a $5,000 limit on losses caused by mold. Plaintiffs discovered that their dishwasher was leaking and reported the loss to Liberty. Liberty's contractor concluded that the bottom of the dishwasher had rusted out, causing water to seep into parts of the kitchen and the laundry/utility room below. The contractor used dehumidifiers to extract moisture from the affected areas and removed damaged cabinetry, drywall and tiling. The contractor discovered mold that it believed predated the dishwasher leak. Although the contractor took steps to remove the mold, its dehumidification efforts exacerbated the problem by dispersing mold spores throughout portions of the house. 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

---

No Bad Faith in Insurer's Denial of Collapse Claim

July 15, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer on the insured's claims for collapse and bad faith. Christopher M. Wolpert Saddletree Holding, LLC v. Evanston Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10377 (10th Cir. April 30, 2024). On May 7, 2019, Saddletree filed a claim with Evanston for damages sustained to its building which was used as a community events center. After a winter of heavy snowfall, Saddletree discovered that the building's steel support columns had buckled two or more inches and the roof had deflected downward approximately six inches. Evanston retained an engineer to inspect the building. The engineer determined that the damage was the result of the building's inadequate "design and/or construction." Evanston disclaimed coverage under the policy's exclusion for damage caused by "hidden or latent defects" or "any quality in property that causes it to damage or destroy itself." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---