Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Liability Coverage for Claims of Publishing Secret Data Does Not Require Access by Others

April 20, 2016 — Sean Mahoney and Laura Schmidt – White and Williams LLP
On April 11, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that general liability insurance covered claims alleging that an insured was negligent in securing private medical records, even where there was no evidence that any third parties had actually viewed the underlying plaintiffs’ medical records. This “unpublished” decision was issued in Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Portal Healthcare Solutions, LLC less than three weeks after the court heard oral argument. Portal Healthcare accordingly stands for the proposition that “publication” within the meaning of the standard commercial general liability coverage for “personal and advertising injury” only requires that claims against an insured allege that confidential information was made available to the public, without allegations that any third party actually accessed it, to trigger the insurer’s duty to defend. Reprinted courtesy of Sean Mahoney, White & Williams LLP and Laura Schmidt, White & Williams LLP Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at mahoneys@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Schmidt may be contacted at schmidtl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Rejects Insurer's Argument That Two Triggers Required

May 12, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court rejected the insurer's argument that two triggers - one for exposure to asbestos and one for resulting injury - were required under CGL policies. Compass Ins. Co. v. University Mechanical and Engineering Contractors, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Cal. March 25, 2016). University Mechanical and Engineering Contractors, Inc. (UMEC) was a California corporation in the business of installing plumbing, piping and HVAC systems. UMEC was defending a number of asbestos cases in California state courts arising from its subcontracting work. 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

Five "Boilerplate" Terms to Negotiate in Your Next Subcontract

November 08, 2017 — James R. Lynch - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Whether you negotiate your own subcontracts or rely on your lawyer to do the heavy lifting at contract time, a savvy subcontractor should understand the basic purpose of common subcontract provisions, and be prepared to negotiate for fair and commercially reasonable terms. While most sophisticated subcontractors are skilled at negotiating the core terms of a subcontract—scope of work, price, and time—a few simple but less obvious tweaks to common subcontract terms and conditions can go a long way to protect a subcontractor from unfair results when a dispute arises. From the desk of an experienced construction lawyer, below are the first three of the top five “boilerplate” provisions that subcontractors too often overlook during contract negotiations, along with tips on language to include and to avoid. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James R. Lynch, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Lynch may be contacted at jlynch@ac-lawyers.com

Georgia Court of Appeals Upholds Denial of Coverage Because Insurance Broker Lacked Agency to Accept Premium Payment

December 07, 2020 — Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine & Rachel E. Hudgins - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In American Reliable Insurance Company v. Lancaster, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a property insurer’s summary judgment motion concerning the insurer’s denial of a fire loss claim. The basis of the denial was that the policyholders had failed to pay the policy premium. The policyholders, Charlie and Wanda Lancaster, claimed that they had paid their policy premiums for several years to their insurance agent, Macie Yawn. In October 2014, American Reliable mailed a renewal notice to the Lancasters notifying them that premium payments had to be made directly to the insurer. After it did not receive payment from the Lancasters, American Reliable sent them a cancellation notice in December 2014, again notifying them that payments be made directly to the insurer. The Lancasters denied having received either notice from American Reliable, but the record included a receipt for certificate of mailing. After the Lancaster’s home burned down in 2015, American Reliable denied coverage on the grounds that the policy had been cancelled for nonpayment of premium. In the subsequent coverage action, the trial court denied American Reliable’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that a factual issue existed as to the actual and apparent agency of the insurance agent, Yawn. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in deciding that there was a factual issue concerning Yawn’s agency. Specifically, the Court of Appeals ruled that the record showed American Reliable had terminated Yawn’s agency to accept policy premiums, and that the Lancaster’s received notice of that termination in the renewal and cancellation notices. In addition to determining that Yawn was not an actual agent, the Court held that Yawn did not have apparent agency, because the notices sent to the Lancasters stated that the premium payment was to be paid to American Reliable, not to the agent. Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

OSHA Releases COVID-19 Guidance

June 15, 2020 — L. Stephen Bowers & Joshua Tumen - White and Williams LLP
The United States Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) ensures safe and healthful working conditions for employees by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education and assistance. The COVID-19 outbreak has increased demand for N95 filtering face piece respirators (N95 FFRs), limiting availability for workers in healthcare and emergency response. On April 3, 2020, OSHA issued interim guidance for employers to combat the supply shortages of N95 FFRs and to comply with the respiratory protection standard (29 CFR § 1910.134). This guidance will remain in effect until further notice and applies in all industries. Employers must continue to manage their respiratory protection programs and be mindful of N95 FFR shortages. Specifically, employers should identify and evaluate respiratory hazards in the workplace, and develop and implement written respiratory protection programs. Businesses should reassess their engineering controls, work practices, and administrative controls to identify any changes they can make to decrease the need for N95 FFRs. Some examples provided in the guidance include using portable local exhaust systems or moving operations outdoors. Employers may also consider temporarily suspending non-essential operations, to the extent such operations are not already suspended due to state mandates. Reprinted courtesy of L. Stephen Bowers, White and Williams LLP and Joshua Tumen, White and Williams LLP Mr. Bowers may be contacted at bowerss@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Tumen may be contacted at tumenj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Federal District Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against Implementation of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Final Rule

November 03, 2016 — Patrick J. Greene, Jr. & Lori Ann Lange – Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Client Alert
On July 31, 2014, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13673. As subsequently amended, the Executive Order purports to “increase efficiency and cost savings in the work performed by parties who contract with the Federal Government by ensuring that they understand and comply with labor laws.” On August 25, 2016 the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) Council published the final FAR Rule and the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) published its Guidance further implementing the Executive Order. The FAR final rule was scheduled to go into effect in stages, starting with solicitations with an estimated value of $50 million or more on October 25, 2016. The potential effect of these new regulations on government contractors has been the subject of prior alerts from this office and much ongoing discussion. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick J. Greene, Jr., Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Lori Ann Lange, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Greene may be contacted at pgreene@pecklaw.com Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Moving Toward a Telework Future: A Checklist of Considerations for Employers

July 27, 2020 — Daniel F. Fears & Raymond J. Nhan - Payne & Fears
Businesses contemplating moving to a virtual workplace in this post-COVID-19 world must consider the legal ramifications of such decisions. Virtual workplaces may provide businesses with many benefits, such as cost savings, access to a more geographically diverse worker pool and the possibility of more flexible employment relationships. But a virtual workplace may also include hidden employment-related issues, costs, and traps. This is especially so for California-based companies. This article identifies some of the significant employment-law issues related to transitioning to a virtual workplace. Specifically, this article analyzes three scenarios: (1) employers seeking to have their workers continue working from home; (2) workers desiring to continue working from home — and specifically, seeking to work outside of California; and (3) the hiring of new employees. Reprinted courtesy of Daniel F. Fears, Payne & Fears and Raymond J. Nhan, Payne & Fears Mr. Fears may be contacted at dff@paynefears.com Mr. Nhan may be contacted at rjn@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Are You a Construction Lienor?

November 15, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to construction lien rights, not everyone that touches the project is a proper lienor. Forget about timely serving a Notice to Owner or recording a claim of lien, if you are not a proper lienor, it does not matter if you properly perfected your lien rights. If you are not a proper lienor, you have NO lien rights under the law! Florida Statue s. 713.01(18) defines a lienor as follows: (18) “Lienor” means a person who is: (a) A contractor; (b) A subcontractor; (c) A sub-subcontractor; (d) A laborer; (e) A materialman who contracts with the owner, a contractor, a subcontractor, or a sub-subcontractor; or (f) A professional lienor under s. 713.03; and who has a lien or prospective lien upon real property under this part, and includes his or her successor in interest. No other person may have a lien under this part. 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