Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Federal Court Sets High Bar for Pleading Products Liability Cases in New Jersey

November 11, 2024 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
Products liability is an area of law that both sides of the aisle vigorously litigate. Like in most litigation, products liability claims provide subrogation attorneys with an important means of prosecuting cases against manufacturers, sellers, and other entities in the stream of commerce. Of course, these claims also come with numerous “buyer beware” requirements. New Jersey allows products liability claims and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (District Court) clarified how such claims should be plead in Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co. a/s/o David Krug vs. Stihl, Inc., No. 22-05893, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178804 (D. N.J.). After becoming subrogated to the rights of its insured, Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Cambridge) filed suit against Stihl, Inc. (Stihl) in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County, Law Division. Stihl then removed the case to federal court. Once in federal court, Stihl filed a motion to dismiss the action. The District Court granted the motion, doing so in part with prejudice and in part without prejudice. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

Third Circuit Follows Pennsylvania Law - Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship Does Not Arise from an Occurrence

May 10, 2013 — Tred Eyerly
The Third Circuit followed Pennsylvania law in determining that damage caused by faulty workmanship did not arise from an occurrence. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. R. M. Shoemaker Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6093 (3d Cir. March 27, 2013). The County sued R. M. Shoemaker, alleging faulty construction of an addition to a correctional institution. The County alleged Shoemaker negligently supervised its subcontractor, thereby permitting the subcontractor to engage in willful misconduct, resulting in damage to structural elements of the correctional institution. The County alleged that Shoemaker's negligence permitted water to intrude, damaging the electrical systems, acoustic ceilings and miscellaneous equipment. Zurich sought a declaratory judgment that it was not required to defend or indemnify Shoemaker. The district court granted Zurich summary judgment. Relying on Pennsylvania law, the district court found that the allegations in the underlying action did not arise from an occurrence. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

When Can Customers Sue for Delays?

September 18, 2023 — Scott L. Baker - Los Angeles Litigation Blog
Construction projects are subject to many internal and external factors. Due to this, delays are not an uncommon occurrence. Whether delays are the result of bad weather conditions or supply chain issues, contractors and their clients cannot control every aspect of the project. Delay issues are very common construction disputes. Therefore, new and experienced contractors alike need to know when their clients may have a reason for a delay claim. 2 particular types of delays that pose a risk Common obstacles that contractors faced during the height of the COVID-19 global pandemic involved supply chain issues. The lack of materials put various projects on hold across California and the country. This widespread issue was out of contractors’ and clients’ control, meaning they were excusable delays. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott L. Baker, Baker & Associates
Mr. Baker may be contacted at slb@bakerslaw.com

DC Circuit Upholds EPA’s Latest RCRA Recycling Rule

September 23, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of California Communities Against Toxics, et al. v. EPA. In this decision, the court rejected the latest petition to strike or vacate EPA’s 2018 revisions to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste recycling rules. In 1985, EPA promulgated a new regulatory definition of “solid waste,” which is the linchpin of the agency’s very stringent hazardous waste management rules. (See the rules located at 40 CFR Sections 260-268.) Unless a material is a “solid waste” as defined by the rules, it cannot also be a hazardous waste. The 1985 rules grappled with the challenges posed by recycling practices, and attempted to distinguish between legitimate recycling which is not subject to hazardous waste regulation, and other more suspect forms of recycling. The rules are complex and replete with nuance. In doing so, EPA was adhering to RCRA’s statutory mandate that it develop appropriate rules to govern the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste, while also promoting “properly conducted recycling and reuse.” The DC Circuit reviewed the 1985 rules in the seminal case of American Mining Congress v EPA, 824 F.2d 1177 (1987), (AMC) and stressed that only those materials that were truly discarded could be regulated as solid waste; for instance, those materials that were destined for immediate recycling or recovery in an ongoing production process were not discarded and hence were not solid waste. Over the years, the court has struggled to clarify the basic holding of AMC in numerous cases while EPA has frequently revised and amended the RCRA rules, and in particular the definition of solid waste, in an attempt to balance the policies mandated by the statute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

FEMA Offers Recovery Tips for California Wildfire Survivors

January 14, 2025 — FEMA
WASHINGTON -- While fire suppression activities are still ongoing in parts of Southern California, affected individuals and families are taking steps toward recovery. FEMA is helping people jumpstart their recovery. You may be eligible for FEMA assistance, even if you have insurance. More than $5.3 million so far are in the hands of survivors to help pay for emergency supplies like food, water and baby formula as well as to replace personal property and pay for a temporary place to stay. Below are tips to help Californians recover from the historic wildfires. If your primary home was affected by the fires, FEMA may be able to help you cover certain costs – like paying for essential items, finding a place to stay, replacing personal property or making basic repairs to your home. However, FEMA assistance is designed to help you if you do not have insurance or if your insurance policies don't cover basic needs. If you have insurance, you should file a claim as soon as possible and be ready to provide your coverage information when applying to FEMA. There are several ways to apply for FEMA assistance:

Online at DisasterAssistance.gov and in Spanish language at DisasterAssistance.gov/es.
Calling the FEMA Helpline at 1-800-621-3362 for assistance in multiple languages.
On the FEMA App for mobile devices.

To view an accessible video about how to apply visit: FEMA Accessible: Registering for Individual Assistance or en Español. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New York Court of Appeals Finds a Proximate Cause Standard in Additional Insured Endorsements

June 15, 2017 — Geoffrey Miller - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority, et al., No. 2016-00096, the New York Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision with regard to the meaning of “caused, in whole or in part, by” in the additional insured context. In a split decision, the court rejected Burlington Insurance Company’s argument that the language implied a “negligence” standard, but held that coverage was provided to the additional insured only where the named insured’s acts or omissions were the proximate cause of the injury:

While we [the majority] agree with the dissent that interpreting the phrases differently does not compel the conclusion that the endorsement incorporates a negligence requirement, it does compel us to interpret ‘caused, in whole or in part’ to mean more than ‘but for’ causation. That interpretation, coupled with the endorsement’s application to acts or omissions that result in liability, supports our conclusion that proximate cause is required here.[1]

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey Miller, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Miller may be contacted at gjm@sdvlaw.com

Randy Maniloff Recognized by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® as a "Lawyer of the Year"

October 14, 2019 — Randy Maniloff - White and Williams LLP
Congratulations to Randy Maniloff, Counsel in the Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Group, who was named the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® 2020 Insurance Law “Lawyer of the Year” in Philadelphia. Randy was recognized by his peers for his professional abilities in this area. "Lawyer of the Year" recognitions are awarded to individual lawyers with extremely high overall peer-feedback for a specific practice area and geographic location. Randy concentrates his practice in the representation of insurers in coverage disputes over primary and excess obligations under a host of policies, including general liability and various professional liability policies. He has significant experience in coverage matters involving additional insured and contractual indemnity issues. His practice also includes an academic side. He is an adjunct professor of Insurance at Temple University Beasley School of Law and the co-author of “General Liability Insurance Coverage – Key Issues in Every State” (4th edition), a nearly 1,000 page reference book that provides 50-state surveys on 20 critical liability coverage issues. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Randy Maniloff, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Maniloff may be contacted at maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com

Homeowners Sue Over Sinkholes, Use Cash for Other Things

January 06, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

Quoting one homeowner as saying that his house “can fall in the ground for all I care, I made my money,” the Tampa Bay Times looks at the issue of sinkhole claims in Florida. Homeowners “have paid off mortgages, put in pools, replaced roofs, or otherwise used money from sinkhole claims to do something besides fix sinkhole damage.

It’s been tough for insurance companies. Citizens Property Insurance took in $32 million in premiums for sinkhole coverage in 2010, but paid out $245 million in sinkhole claims. The Tampa Bay Times notes that some of those claims come from settling problems caused by their repairs, including one settlement of $350,000 for repairs to a house worth $39,000.

One couple, after receiving $217,000 from Citizens, sold the house to a company that bought unrepaired sinkhole homes for $190,000. The home has been sold since and remains unrepaired.

Sometimes the preferred solution by the insurance company isn’t the cheapest either. One couple was informed that Citizens was going to spend $150,000 to have the hole filled with grout. After they settled with the insurance company, they fixed the problem by installing steel piers, at a cost of about $45,000.

Read the full story…

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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES