Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Awarding Insurer Summary Judgment Before Discovery Completed Reversed

August 29, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Florida Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's awarding of summary judgment to the insurer because discovery was not completed. Sacramento v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 4292 (Fla. Ct. App. June 22, 2022). The insured filed a claim under the all-risk policy for water damage caused by Hurricane Irma. Citizens denied the claim based upon a policy exclusion. The insured filed suit on March 8, 2019. On April 24, 2020, Citizens moved for summary judgment. A hearing was set for August 10, 2020. Citizens filed a notice for a deposition of a Mitigation Company representative scheduled to occur on December 1, 2020. On August 14, 2020, the insured filed an opposition to the summary judgment motion arguing that it would be premature to grant the motion because there were still pending depositions. The insured specifically requested that the trial court not enter summary judgment until the mitigation company's representative was deposed because he was a key witness who would be testifying regarding the cause of loss. 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

Construction Attorneys Get an AI Assist in Document Crunch

May 20, 2024 — Jeff Yoders - Engineering News-Record
Artificial intelligence is often touted as a gamechanger for construction processes, and Document Crunch, a company co-founded by a longtime construction attorney, is already changing up one key area: construction contracts. Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Admissibility of Expert Opinions in Insurance Bad Faith Trials

November 04, 2019 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
In 2010, Hansen Construction was sued for construction defects and was defended by three separate insurance carriers pursuant to various primary CGL insurance policies.[i] One of Hansen’s primary carriers, Maxum Indemnity Company, issued two primary policies, one from 2006-2007 and one from 2007-2008. Everest National Insurance Company issued a single excess liability policy for the 2007-2008 policy year, and which was to drop down and provide additional coverage should the 2007-2008 Maxum policy become exhausted. In November 2010, Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primarily policy but agreed to defend under the 2006-2007 primarily policy. When Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primary policy, Everest National Insurance denied under its excess liability policy. In 2016, pursuant to a settlement agreement between Hansen Construction and Maxum, Maxum retroactively reallocated funds it owed to Hansen Construction from the 2006-2007 Maxum primary policy to the 2007-2008 Maxum primary policy, which became exhausted by the payment. Thereafter, Hansen Construction demanded coverage from Everest National, which continued to deny the claim. Hansen Construction then sued Everest National for, among other things, bad faith breach of contract. In the bad faith action, both parties retained experts to testify at trial regarding insurance industry standards of care and whether Everest National’s conduct in handling Hansen Construction’s claim was reasonable. Both parties sought to strike the other’s expert testimony as improper and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Clean Energy and Conservation Collide in California Coastal Waters

March 19, 2024 — Nadia Lopez & Josh Saul - Bloomberg
Two of President Joe Biden’s biggest priorities — conservation and the switch to clean energy — are colliding in the ocean off California’s quiet Central Coast. Located halfway between San Francisco and Los Angeles, Morro Bay boasts a rich ecosystem of fish, otters and migrating whales that the Indigenous Chumash people want to protect with a new marine sanctuary. But 20 miles (32 kilometers) out, developers plan some of the West Coast’s first offshore wind farms, where 1,100-foot-tall turbines (335 meters) tethered to the seabed will help California cut its carbon emissions. One US government agency appears poised to approve the sanctuary. Another already leased 376 square miles of ocean for wind development, just outside the sanctuary’s boundaries. Now, a fight is brewing over whether the scenic bay itself should be left out of the sanctuary, to give undersea power cables from the wind farms a place to come onshore. Reprinted courtesy of Nadia Lopez, Bloomberg and Josh Saul, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

They Say Nothing Lasts Forever, but What If Decommissioning Does?

June 10, 2019 — Stella Pulman - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The looming decommissioning liabilities of offshore energy producers have been a focus of the federal government in recent years. One recent case out of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Taylor Energy v. United States, highlights the tension between the federal government’s desire to maintain financial security for decommissioning activities, and that of an operator whose security is tied up indefinitely while the government awaits technological advances to allow for safe decommissioning. The case relates to a trust agreement between Taylor Energy and the United States, established to secure Taylor’s decommissioning liabilities for 28 wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Taylor completed certain decommissioning work for which it was reimbursed by the trust. However, with over $400 million remaining in the trust, Taylor and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) concluded that the ecological benefits of further decommissioning would be outweighed by the ecological risks. But despite recognizing that the limitations of current technology made the environmental impacts of further decommissioning work unjustifiable, the BSEE declined to release Taylor from its decommissioning obligations and instead decided to await “changes in technology and a better understanding of the undersea environment.” Because Taylor’s decommissioning obligations remained in place, the U.S. refused to release the remaining funds in the trust. Taylor claimed that the United States should release the remaining funds in the trust because “decommissioning the remaining wells is not ‘currently technologically feasible.’” Taylor asserted that Louisiana law applied to the trust agreement, and that under Louisiana law every contract must be completed within an ascertainable term. By holding the trust funds until decommissioning was complete, Taylor argued that the government was essentially holding the funds in perpetuity given the technological infeasibility of completing decommissioning. Taylor also asserted that the agreement was premised on an impossibility (the full decommissioning of the wells), and/or a mutual mistake of the parties (that the wells could be decommissioned). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stella Pulman, Pillsbury
Ms. Pulman may be contacted at stella.pulman@pillsburylaw.com

No Coverage for Contractor's Faulty Workmanship

July 10, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Kentucky Supreme Court determined there was no coverage for the contractor's faulty workmanship in digging the existing basement of a building to make it deeper. Martin v. Acuity, 2018 Ky. LEXIS 188 (Ky. April 26, 2018). Martin Elias/Properties, LLC (MEP) purchased an older home to renovate and resell for profit. MEP hired Tony Gosney to renovate and expand the basement. Gosney agreed to dig the existing basement deeper, pour new footers and pour a new concrete floor. While performing his work, Gosney failed to support the existing foundation adequately before digging around it. Within days, the old foundation began to crack and eventually the entire structure began to sag. Gosney stopped work and notified his insurer, Acuity. 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

Construction Warranties: Have You Seen Me Lately?

February 07, 2022 — Christopher D. Cazenave - ConsensusDocs
A construction contract typically contains many different types of warranties. Owners expect contractors to explicitly warrant their workmanship, contractor-provided materials and equipment, and in many instances to assume other warranty risks that may obligate the contractor years after the project is completed. No contractor wants to be surprised years after a project is completed by the existence of warranty obligations that were not considered or negotiated at the outset of the project. To help avoid this situation, warranties should be treated similar to other critical risk-sharing provisions in the contract in concert with other bargained-for provisions, including for example price and schedule. This article provides a brief overview of warranty obligations found in typical construction contracts followed by a few practical considerations for contractors to consider when negotiating warranty obligations. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher D. Cazenave, Jones Walker, LLP (ConsensusDocs) Mr. Cazenave may be contacted at ccazenave@joneswalker.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New Florida Bill Shortens Time for Construction-Defect Lawsuits

September 06, 2023 — Jessica Zelitt - Construction Executive
On April 13, 2023, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 360 into law. This legislation alters the time period for bringing forward construction-defect lawsuits, as well as modifies the current private right of action against a contractor for violation of the Florida Building Code. First, SB 360 amends § 95.11(3)(c), Florida Statutes, to reduce the statute of repose from 10 years to seven years for actions founded on latent construction defects. The legislation also changes the manner in which this time period is calculated under both the seven-year statute of repose and the four-year statute of limitations for construction-defect cases. Under the prior statute, the time to commence an action began with the later of (i) the date of actual possession by the owner, (ii) the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy (CO), (iii) the date of abandonment of construction if not completed or (iv) the date of completion or termination of the contract. Reprinted courtesy of Jessica Zelitt, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Ms. Zelitt may be contacted at jessica.zelitt@arlaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES