Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Existence of “Duty” in Negligence Action is Question of Law

February 06, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a negligence action, the issue of whether a duty applies is a question of law. See Limones v. School Dist. of Lee County, 161 So.3d 384, 389 (Fla. 2015) (“[T]he existence of a duty is a legal question because duty is the standard to which the jury compares the conduct of the defendant.”); McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500, 502 (Fla. 1992) (“Since duty is a question of law, an appellate court obviously could reverse based on its purely legal conclusion that no such duty existed.”). Thus, the trial court determines, as a matter of law, whether a legal duty of care applies in a negligence action. Florida law recognizes the following four sources of duty: (1) statutes or regulations; (2) common law interpretations of those statutes or regulations; (3) other sources in the common law; and (4) the general facts of the case. See id. Oftentimes it is the fourth source – the general facts of the case – that comes into play to determine whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Insurance for Large Construction Equipment Such as a Crane

July 30, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Many, many projects require the use of a crane. The skyline is oftentimes filled with the sight of cranes—one after the other. Most of the time, the cranes are leased from an equipment supplier. What happens if the crane (or any large, leased equipment) gets damaged? I wrote an article regarding a builder’s risk carrier NOT covering damage to a crane from a storm based on a common exclusion. Another case, Ajax Bldg. Corp. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 358 F.3d 795 (11th Cir. 2004), had a similar result. In this case, a prime contractor leased a crane from an equipment supplier. The crane was used by the structural concrete subcontractor. The crane collapsed during the subcontractor’s work. The supplier sued both the contractor and subcontractor. The prime contractor was defended under a contractor’s equipment liability policy and the subcontractor was defended under a general liability policy it procured for its work on the project. Ultimately, a settlement was reached where the subcontractor’s liability insurer paid a bulk of the damage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Massachusetts District Court Holds Contractors Are Not Additional Insureds on Developer’s Builder’s Risk Policy

August 31, 2020 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Factory Mut. Ins. Co. v. Skanska United States Bldg., No. 18-cv-11700-DLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95403 (Skanska), the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts considered whether contractors on a construction job were additional insureds on the developer’s builder’s risk insurance policy. After a water loss occurred during construction, the builder’s risk insurance carrier paid its named insured for the resultant damage, and subsequently filed a subrogation action against two contractors. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the anti-subrogation rule barred the carrier from subrogating against them because they were additional insureds on the policy. The court found that based on the particular language of the additional insured provision in the policy, the defendants were not additional insureds for purposes of the subrogation action. Skanska arose from property damage that occurred during a construction project where Novartis Corporation (Novartis) endeavored to construct a biomedical research building in Cambridge, Massachusetts and retained Skanska USA Building, Inc. (Skanska) as the general contractor. In turn, Skanksa hired J.C. Cannistraro, LLC (JCC) as a subcontractor. Novartis secured a builder’s risk insurance policy from Factory Mutual Insurance Company (Factory Mutual). The policy defined “Insured” as Novartis and its subsidiaries, partnerships and joint ventures that it controlled or owned. The policy included another provision, titled “Property Damage,” which stated that the policy “insures the interest of contractors and subcontractors in insured property… to the extent of the Insured’s legal liability for insured physical loss or damage to such property.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Your Contract is a Hodgepodge of Conflicting Proposals

January 06, 2016 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Ouch. That’s what a court called a contract to remediate petroleum contamination at a number of gas stations in New York. Sometimes, it’s hard to believe the contracts that get signed. Environmental Risk hired Science Applications to remediate petroleum contamination at 47 gas stations. Environmental Risk had previously entered into a Professional Services Master Agreement with Science Applications, but also required Science Applications to sign three separate, but basically identical, subcontracts called the Project Specific Scopes of Work. So, right from the start, there were four contracts that could apply to Science Applications’ work. 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

Trump Sues Casinos to Get Conditions Fixed or Name Off

August 06, 2014 — David Voreacos – Bloomberg
Donald Trump sued two Atlantic City casinos that he no longer operates to force their owner either to improve “appalling” conditions or remove his name in a market where gamblers are fleeing and bankruptcies are rising. Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino and Trump Taj Mahal fail to meet industry standards for cleanliness, hotel services and food and beverages, according to a complaint filed yesterday in state court in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Trump wants a judge to compel Trump Entertainment Resorts Inc., which he once controlled, to correct the shortcomings or jettison his name. The Trump Entertainment Resorts website includes his photograph above this quote: ``The Trump casinos in Atlantic City are among the finest and most luxurious resorts you'll find anywhere in the world. I personally invite you to experience everything that we have to offer.'' Trump Plaza is set to close Sept. 16, putting 1,000 people out of work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Voreacos, Bloomberg
Mr. Voreacos may be contacted at dvoreacos@bloomberg.net

New York: The "Loss Transfer" Opportunity to Recover Otherwise Non-Recoverable First-Party Benefits

May 13, 2014 — Robert M. Caplan – White and Williams LLP
New York’s “no-fault” legislation reflects a public policy designed to make the insurer of first-party benefits absorb the economic impact of loss without resort to reimbursement from its insured or, by subrogation, from the tortfeasor. Country Wide Ins. Co. v. Osathanugrah, 94 A.D.2d 513, 515 (N.Y. 1st Dept. 1983). The no-fault concept embodied in New York’s Insurance Law modifies the common law system of reparation for personal injuries under tort law. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Jamaica Water Supply Co., 83 A.D.2d 427, 431 (N.Y. 2nd Dept. 1981). “[F]irst party benefits are a form of compensation unknown at common law, resting on predicates independent of the fault or negligence of the injured party.” Id. at 431. The purpose of New York’s no-fault scheme is “to promote prompt resolution of injury claims, limit cost to consumers and alleviate unnecessary burdens on the courts.” Byrne v. Oester Trucking, Inc., 386 F. Supp. 2d 386, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). New York’s no-fault scheme—contained in Article 51 of its Consolidated Laws (“Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Insurance Reparations”)—requires owners of vehicles to carry insurance with $50,000 minimum limits which covers basic economic loss, i.e., first-party benefits, on account of personal injury arising from the use or operation of a motor vehicle. Basic economic loss includes, among other things: (1) medical expenses; (2) lost earnings up to $2,000 per month for three years; and (3) out-of-pocket expenses up to $25 per day for one year. N.Y. INS. LAW § 5102(a). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert M. Caplan, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com

Hunton Offers Amicus Support in First Circuit Review of “Surface Water” Under Massachusetts Law

August 01, 2023 — Michael S. Levine, Lorelie S. Masters & Janine A. Hanrahan - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Hunton’s insurance team has offered its support on behalf of amicus curie United Policyholders in a brief to the First Circuit concerning the meaning of “surface water” in the context of a broad, all-risk property insurance policy? This important question arose in a dispute between Medical Properties Trust (“MPT”), a real estate investment trust, and Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”), its insurer, after water entered and destroyed Norwood Hospital. The water at issue entered the building after collecting on the surface of the building’s flat parapet roof. Zurich argued that because the water collected on the surface of the roof, the water met the meaning of the term “surface water,” as that term was used in the policy’s definition of “flood.” Flood coverage is subject to a $100 million sublimit, whereas the policy’s general limit is $750 million. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

One Word Makes All The Difference – The Distinction Between “Pay If Paid” and “Pay When Paid” Clauses

April 06, 2016 — David A. Harris – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Payment clauses in California construction contracts are often complex and multi-layered. This is especially true in contracts between general contractors and their subcontractors. The general does not want to pay the subs until it receives funding from the owners. The subs, of course, want their progress and final payments as soon as possible. Up until 1997, two different payment provisions were used in California contracts to manage payments by a general to its subcontractors. The first was called a “pay if paid” clause, and provided a contractor did not have to pay its subcontractors for work performed unless the subcontractor was first paid by the owner of the project. The second was the “pay when paid clause.” It required subcontractors to be paid for their work after the general was paid by the owner, or within “a reasonable time” after the subcontractors finished their work if the owner did not pay the general. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES