Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Halliburton to Pay $1.1 Billion to Settle Spill Lawsuits

September 03, 2014 — David Wethe, Margaret Cronin Fisk and Laurel Calkins – Bloomberg
Halliburton Co. agreed to pay $1.1 billion to settle a majority of lawsuits brought over its role in the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. The agreement is subject to court approval and includes legal fees, the Houston-based company said in a statement today. Halliburton was accused by spill victims and BP Plc of doing defective cementing work on the Macondo well before the April 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Halliburton blamed the incident on decisions by BP, which owned the well. The settlement comes as the judge overseeing oil-spill cases weighs fault for the disaster. An agreement now averts the company’s risk of a more costly judgment for some spill victims and removes much of the uncertainty that has plagued Halliburton for the past four years as investors waited to see the payout tally. With its biggest piece of liability resolved, Halliburton can refocus its attention on developing new oilfield technology that will help it boost profits worldwide. Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg journalists David Wethe, Margaret Cronin Fisk and Laurel Calkins Mr. Wethe may be contacted at dwethe@bloomberg.net; Ms. Fisk may be contacted at mcfisk@bloomberg.net; and Ms. Calkins may be contacted at lcalkins@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Terminator’s Trench Rehab Drives L.A. Land Prices Crazy

June 26, 2014 — John Gittelsohn and Alan Ohnsman – Bloomberg
Ben Stapleton frames the shot with his hands like a movie director, sharing his vision of a junkyard he’s trying to sell for $3.5 million. He sees artist workspaces, retail shops and apartments with Los Angeles skyline views, steps from a riverfront oasis. Right now the river of his dreams is the concrete flood channel where an 18-wheeler chased Arnold Schwarzenegger on a Harley in “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” one of the movies that used the 200-foot-wide (60-meter) ditch to depict industrial bleakness. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plan to return the Los Angeles River to a more natural state would cost $1 billion and has speculators circling even before the funding’s in place. “The private money is already moving,” said Stapleton, a vice president at commercial real-estate brokerage Jones Lang LaSalle Inc. (JLL) “They’re looking for opportunities. It’s the private money that’s going to make the vision happen.” Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net; Mr. Ohnsman may be contacted at aohnsman@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Gittelsohn and Alan Ohnsman, Bloomberg

Be Careful How You Terminate: Terminating for Convenience May Limit Your Future Rights

January 19, 2017 — Brett M. Hill - Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC Blog
Many construction contracts contain a termination clause that allows a contractor to be terminated either for convenience or for cause. Termination for convenience and termination for cause clauses have been discussed previously on the blog here, here and here. The distinction between a termination for convenience or for cause is an important one. If a contractor is terminated for convenience, the rights of the party who has terminated the contractor for convenience could be limited in the future. This is specifically true as to any defects in the terminated contractor’s work that are discovered after the termination for convenience. This issue was addressed in an Oregon Court of Appeals case where a general contractor attempted to recover costs incurred in correcting a terminated subcontractor’s work after the subcontractor was terminated for convenience. Shelter Prods. v. Steel Wood Constr., Inc., 257 Or. App 382 (2013). In that case, the subcontractor sued the general contractor for its termination expenses. The general contractor asserted an offset/backcharge claim for damages incurred by the general contractor in correcting the subcontractor’s defective work. The general contractor had incurred the costs after it had terminated the subcontractor. The general contractor did not notify the subcontractor that its work was defective and did not give the subcontractor an opportunity to cure before the repairs were completed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brett M. Hill, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at bhill@ac-lawyers.com

First Circuit Rules Excess Insurer Must Provide Coverage for Fuel Spill

January 18, 2021 — Syed S. Ahmad & Adriana A. Perez - Hunton Andrews Kurth
The First Circuit recently held that a “Special Hazard and Fluids Limitation Endorsement” was ambiguous and therefore there was excess coverage for a fuel spill that occurred after a tanker-truck overturned. In Performance Trans. Inc. v. General Star Indem. Co., the First Circuit reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of General Star Indemnity Company. The District Court held that the excess policy General Star issued to Performance Trans. Inc. precluded coverage for a spill that resulted in the leaking of thousands of gallons of fuel. The District Court relied on the existence of a total pollution exclusion to bar coverage and held that the policy’s Special Hazards and Fluids Limitation Endorsement could not create an ambiguity that would afford coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Ahmad may be contacted at sahmad@HuntonAK.com Ms. Perez may be contacted at pereza@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Does the Implied Warranty of Habitability Extend to Subsequent Purchasers? Depends on the State

October 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Attorneys for Traub Liberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP (in JD Supra Business Advisor), discussed how state courts have come to different conclusions as to “whether a subsequent purchaser of a previously inhabited residence can recover contract damages from a builder or general contractor for breach of the implied warranty of habitability.” Recently, a Pennsylvania “sided with the builder, holding that the implied warranty of habitability was grounded in contract law. Thus, the Court reasoned that an action for breach of the implied warranty of habitability required a showing of contractual privity between the parties. Because there was no contractual privity between the Conways and the builder, the Conways could not pursue an action against the builder based on a breach of the implied warranty of habitability.” However, other state courts have made other conclusions. “Iowa permits an action for breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike construction by subsequent purchasers and does not require a showing of contractual privity. Rhode Island also does not require contractual privity, but limits liability to latent defects discovered within 10 years of construction.” Vermont and Connecticut, however, require contract privity. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Oklahoma Finds Policy Can Be Assigned Post-Loss

April 26, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Oklahoma joined the majority of court in finding that after a loss occurs, the insured can assign the policy to another. Johnson v. CSAA Gen. Ins. Co., 2020 Okla LEXIS 118 (Okla. Dec. 15, 2020). Johnson's property was damaged in a storm. She filed a claim with her insurer. She also executed an assignment of her claim in order to repair the property with the execution of assignment to Triple Diamond Construction LLC. An appraiser retained by Triple Diamond determined the storm damage was $36,346.06. The insurer paid only $21,725.36 for the loss. Johnson and Triple Diamond sued the insurer for breach of contract, seeking $14,620.70, not inclusive of interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The insurer filed a motion to dismiss, or an alternative motion for summary judgment to dismiss Triple Diamond as a party. The insurer argued that both the policy and an Oklahoma statute barred the assignment. The district court granted the insurer's motion. 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

SEC Climate Change Disclosure Letter Foreshadows Anticipated Regulatory Changes

November 08, 2021 — Karen C. Bennett & Jane C. Luxton - Lewis Brisbois
Washington, D.C. (October 13, 2021) - In late September 2021, the Division of Corporation Finance of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a Sample Letter providing guidance to companies on how their climate disclosures will be analyzed for compliance with material risk reporting obligations. The Sample Letter precedes the SEC’s issuance of mandatory climate-related disclosure rules anticipated by year-end and signals a greater focus on specific information used to support securities filings, a development that businesses should take seriously. The Sample Letter builds on climate change guidance the SEC issued in 2010 and identifies nine categories of disclosures the SEC suggests may be material risks that must be disclosed. These include:

Consistency between a company’s corporate social responsibility report and its SEC filings;
Risks associated with climate-related legislation, regulation, or policy, and resulting compliance costs;
Litigation risks related to climate change; and
Risks linked to an array of operational and market factors, including capital expenditures, continuity of business operations, supply chain stability, changing demand, reputation, availability of credit and insurance, and other climate-change related potential impacts on the financial condition of the company.

Reprinted courtesy of Karen C. Bennett, Lewis Brisbois and Jane C. Luxton, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Contract Language and Insurance Coverage Must Be Consistent

July 30, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contract Advisor
How often do you review both the additional insured language in the contract and the insurance policy provided by a subcontractor? My guess is, unless the project has gone off the rails, NEVER. Well, perhaps you should to make absolutely sure the extent of the subcontractor’s insurance obligations and whether those obligations are being fulfilled. This point was recently addressed in a recent DRI article analyzing the Deepwater Horizon/BP lawsuit. My partner, Anne Marie O’Brien, also blogged on this a few months ago. As you will recall, Transocean’s Deepwater Horizon oil-drilling rig exploded, killing 11 workers, and polluted the Gulf of Mexico. BP demanded that Transocean’s insurer pay for the loss. Transocean’s insurer said no, and the litigation ensued, in state court, federal court, and the Texas Supreme Court. It was quite an odyssey of litigation. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES