Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

California Supreme Court Adopts Vertical Exhaustion for Long-Tail Claims

June 15, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
In another round of litigation involving coverage issues between Montrose Chemical Corporation and its insurers, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Montrose, adopting vertical exhaustion of excess policies. Montrose Chem. Corp. of Calif. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 9 Ca. 5th 215 (2020). In 1990, the United States and the State of California sued Montrose for contamination from 1947 to 1982 caused by Montrose's facility manufacturing insecticides. Montrose had primary and excess liability policies from defendant insurers between 1961 and 1985. Forty insurers collectively issued more than 115 excess policies, which collectively provided coverage sufficient to indemnify Montrose's anticipate total liability. Primary coverage was exhausted. Each excess policy provided that Montrose had to exhaust the limits of its underlying coverage before there would be excess coverage. Which excess carrier could be called on first was the issued before the California Supreme Court. Montrose proposed a rule of "vertical exhaustion" or "elective stacking," whereby it could access any excess policy once it exhausted other policies with lower attachment points in the same policy period. The insurers, in contract, argued for "horizontal exhaustion," whereby Montrose could access an excess policy only after it exhausted other policies with lower attachment points from every policy period in which the environmental damage resulting in liability occurred. 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

Want More Transit (and Federal Funding)? Build Housing That Supports It

January 08, 2024 — M. Nolan Gray - Bloomberg
After decades of planning (and $2.1 billion spent), Los Angeles’ newest light rail line opened in October 2022. Joined by geeky rail obsessives and chaperoned children, I rode the K Line on opening day. A blend of underground, elevated and at-grade track, it’s a route only a politician could love. Stations were lavished with public art, and when the train wasn’t stuck in traffic, it glided through the sprawl. Yet one year later, it is Los Angeles’ least-used line, averaging just over 2,000 riders on an average weekday this fall. It isn’t hard to see why: The line begins at a vacant patch in Crenshaw and ends in a low-slung industrial park about six miles away, lined by strip malls the entire way. Walk one block east or west from any given station, and you’ll find yourself amid single-story postwar bungalows on 7,500-square-foot lots — all illegal to redevelop into apartments, thanks to local zoning. The Hyde Park Station deposits riders into a cluster of gas stations and drive-thru fast-food joints. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of M. Nolan Gray, Bloomberg

The Importance of Providing Notice to a Surety

October 21, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
A recent case out of Missouri emphasizes the importance of providing notice to a surety when a bonded subcontractor is in default. When the question of whether a surety will be obligated under the bond is in the balance, notice is crucial. In CMS v. Safeco Insurance Company, Safeco provided a performance bond to a subcontractor for the benefit of CMS. The bond specifically provided:

“PRINCIPAL DEFAULT. Whenever the Principal [Subcontractor] shall be, and is declared by the Obligee [CMS] to be in default under the Subcontract, with the Obligee having performed its obligations in the Subcontract, the Surety [Safeco] may promptly remedy the default, or shall promptly: 4.1 COMPLETE SUBCONTRACT. . . . 4.2 OBTAIN NEW CONTRACTORS. . . . 4.3 PAY OBLIGEE. . . . 4.4 DENY LIABILITY. . .”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

The Fourth Circuit Applies a Consequential Damages Exclusionary Clause and the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Claims by a Subrogating Insurer Seeking to Recover Over $19 Million in Damages

February 23, 2016 — William L. Doerler – White and Williams LLP
In Severn Peanut Company, Inc. v. Industrial Fumigant Company, 807 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. (N.C.) 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit), applying North Carolina law, considered whether a consequential damages clause in a contract between the Severn Peanut Company, Inc. (Severn) and Industrial Fumigant Company (IFC) barred Severn and its subrogating insurer, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers), from recovering over $19 million in damages that Severn suffered as the result of a fire and explosion at its Severn, North Carolina plant. The Fourth Circuit, rejecting Severn’s unconscionability and public policy arguments related to the consequential damages clause and finding that the economic loss doctrine barred Severn from pursuing negligence claims, affirmed the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment in IFC’s favor. As noted in the Severn decision, the facts showed that Severn and IFC signed a Pesticide Application Agreement (PAA) requiring IFC to use phosphine, a pesticide, to fumigate Severn’s peanut storage dome and to apply the pesticide “in a manner consistent with instructions . . . and precautions set forth in [its] labeling.” With respect to damages, the PAA specified that IFC’s charge for its services, $8,604 plus applicable sales tax, was “based solely upon the value of the services provided” and was not “related to the value of [Severn’s] premises or the contents therein.” In addition, the PAA specified that the $8,604 sum to which the parties agreed was not “sufficient to warrant IFC assuming any risk of incidental or consequential damages” to Severn’s “property, product, equipment, downtime, or loss of business.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

Breaking the Impasse by Understanding Blame

January 13, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday (on a Thursday) here at Construction Law Musings, Victoria Pynchon (@vickiepynchon) joins us for the 4th time. Victoria is an attorney-mediator with ADR Services, Inc. in Century City; an arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association in Los Angeles, California; and, a negotiation consultant and trainer world-wide. Victoria co-founded She Negotiates Training and Consulting in 2010 and writes for ForbesWoman at its She Negotiates blog. She is the author of one of my favorite books on conflict resolution, A is for A*@!#, the Grownups’ ABC’s of Conflict Resolution reviewed at Musings here. First Let’s Talk About Anger Please raise your hand if your clients — corporate clients — are angry about the burdens of litigation. Irritated with the document “demands” and interrogatories. Frustrated about the e-discovery. Ticked off at the way opposing counsel asks them questions as if they’re lying. Hot under the collar about the mounting attorneys’ fees and the distance between the day suit was filed and the probable day on which a trial might eventually be scheduled. Simmering about the time the litigation consumes, time they’d prefer to be spending doing their actual jobs — planning for and implementing business strategies for a profitable future instead of fighting about the unprofitable past. And we’re not even talking about your clients’ anger at the defendant who has stolen their intellectual property or stopped worked at the construction site or refused to release the remaining funds in the construction loan account. And if you believe that powerful people in highly successful and profitable businesses do not fear that litigation might hurt their careers, think again. 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

COVID-19 Impacts on Subcontractor Default Insurance and Ripple Effects

April 20, 2020 — Smith Currie
Subcontractor default insurance (“SDI”) may be described as an alternative to bonding subcontractors. SDI is first-party insurance that compensates the general contractor insured in the event a covered subcontractor fails to fulfill its contractual obligations. Under SDI policies, general contractor insureds are obligated to develop and implement rigorous subcontractor prequalification procedures. Basic questions and answers about how SDI might come into play and impact the construction industry in response to COVID-19 follow: Who may make a claim on an SDI policy? The general contractor may make a claim. An Owner may make a claim if the general contractor becomes insolvent in many cases. Subcontractors may not make claims on SDI policies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Smith Currie
The Smith Currie firm may be contacted at info@smithcurrie.com

Collapse Claim Dismissed

December 04, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The complaint alleged collapse, but the claimed cause of the collapse was not a covered cause under the insured's policy, mandating a dismissal of the complaint. Coonce v. CSSA Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 25010 (10th Cir. Sept. 4, 2018). The ceiling in the insured's living and dining areas caved in. An engineering survey determined that the nails used in the construction had failed to hold. The insured made a claim on her policy issued by CSAA. Coverage was denied and the insured sued. The insured was given two opportunities to amend her complaint by the district court, but the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was eventually granted. 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

Appellate Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

June 29, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The significant issues test to determine the prevailing party in construction lien actions (which, by the way, also applies to breach of contract actions) applies to appellate attorney’s fees too! Under this test, the trial court has discretion to determine which party prevailed on the significant issues of the case for purposes of attorney’s fees. The trial court also has discretion to determine that neither party was the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees. In a recent decision, Bauer v. Ready Windows Sales & Service Corp., 42 Fla. L. Weekly D1417a (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), there were competing motions for appellate attorney’s fees. Both parties believed they should be deemed the prevailing party under Florida Statute s. 713.29 (statute that authorizes prevailing party attorney’s fees under Florida’s Construction Lien Law). The appellate court held that neither party was the prevailing party under the significant issues test: “[W]e conclude that each party lost on their appeal, while each party successfully defended that part of the judgment in their favor on the other party’s cross-appeal. Because both parties prevailed on significant issues, this Court finds that appellate fees are not warranted for either party.” Bauer, supra. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES