Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Pay Loss Provision Does Not Preclude Assignment of Post-Loss Claim

July 30, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined that a policy's loss payment provision did not bar a post-loss assignment. One Call Prop. Servs. v. Sec. First Ins. Co., 2015 Fl. App. LEXIS 7643 (Fla. Ct. App. May 20, 2015). After One Cell performed emergency water removal for the insured, the insured assigned his rights to policy proceeds as payment. One Cell alleged that Security First refused to reimburse the insured adequately for the services provided. One Cell filed suit, and Security First moved to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion based upon the policy's non-assignment provision. One Cell appealed. One Cell argued post-loss assignments were valid under Florida law even when the policy contained an anti-assignment provision, and the right to payment accrued on the date of the loss. 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

Precedent-Setting ‘Green’ Apartments in Kansas City

September 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the Kansas City Star, the Missouri riverfront apartment development, Second and Delaware, is being constructed with “greener-than-green technology” and features the following: “Sixteen-inch-thick concrete walls. Rooftop gardens. A 90 percent reduction in energy use compared to current building codes.” The two buildings “will comprise the largest U.S. multifamily apartment project using Passive House Institute-certified construction, a system that’s more energy-efficient than the highest LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) building standard.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Affirmed: Nationwide Acted in Bad Faith by Failing to Settle Within Limits

July 19, 2017 — Bethany Barrese – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed that Nationwide acted in bad faith by refusing to settle a claim against its insured for the policy limits, exposing the policyholder to an excess verdict.1 The case arose out of a 2005 automobile accident where Seung Park, who was insured by Nationwide, struck and killed another driver, Stacey Camacho. Shortly after the accident, Ms. Camacho’s estate issued a time-limited demand for the full limits of the policy Nationwide issued to Mr. Park, $100,000, to settle the case. After the deadline to respond to the demand expired, Nationwide rejected the demand and made a counteroffer. A settlement could not be reached and a wrongful death suit was filed against Mr. Park, resulting in a massive jury verdict of $5.83 million. Following the jury verdict, Mr. Park assigned his rights against Nationwide to Ms. Camacho’s estate, which then filed claims for negligence and bad faith failure to settle against Nationwide. The case was tried to a jury, which found in favor of the estate. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bethany Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com

No Duty to Defend Under Pollution Policy

February 11, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found there was no duty to defend or indemnify under a pollution policy for claims arising from a building fire. URS Corp. v. Zurich Am Ins. Co., 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 222 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 16, 2014). Two firemen were killed while fighting a fire at the Deutsch Bank building in New York City. The owner of the building, URS, was sued by the estates of the two deceased firemen and other firemen who were injured by the fire. URS was an additional insured under a contractors pollution liability policy issued by Hudson Specialty Insurance Company. The policy promised to pay for damages to the insured "if the damages result from a pollution condition." "Pollution condition" was defined as "the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, [etc.]" The policy explicitly noted that it did not provide commercial general liability coverage. Hudson denied coverage and URS sued. 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

Hong Kong Property Tycoon Makes $533 Million Bet on Solar

April 02, 2014 — Ehren Goossens and Benjamin Haas - Bloomberg News
A Hong Kong real-estate tycoon has spent the past year accumulating stakes in failing solar companies, piecing together what may become the biggest collection of photovoltaic factories in the world. Zheng Jianming, also known in Cantonese as Cheng Kin Ming, has spent or pledged about $533 million to buy assets that at their peak were worth almost $20 billion, according to regulatory filings in the U.S. and Hong Kong, where he has a home and office. The transactions, if completed, would transform Zheng, a newcomer to the solar industry, into one of its most powerful leaders. Another Zheng solar investment in 2012, a 30 percent stake in Shunfeng Photovoltaic International Ltd. (1165), has surged more than 2,900 percent and is now worth more than $745 million. Mr. Goossens may be contacted at egoossens1@bloomberg.net; Mr. Haas may be contacted at bhaas7@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ehren Goossens and Benjamin Haas, Bloomberg News

BKV Barnett, LLC v. Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC: Analyzing the Impact of Colorado’s Anti-Indemnification Statute

December 23, 2024 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
In the recent case of BKV Barnett, LLC v. Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dealt with significant legal issues concerning indemnification and insurance obligations in construction agreements. The ruling, handed down on September 26, 2024, serves as a crucial reminder of the limitations imposed by Colorado’s Anti-Indemnification Statute, C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5, and its implications for contracts in the construction industry. This case arose from a Master Service Contract (“MSC”) between BKV Barnett, LLC (“BKV”) and Electric Drilling Technologies, LLC (“EDT”), in which EDT provided electrical services and equipment to an oil and gas lease wellsite in Texas. Following a lightning strike in early 2022 that damaged electrical infrastructure at the site, EDT dispatched Turn Key Utility Construction to repair the damage. During the repair work, an arc flash occurred, causing significant injuries to one of Turn Key’s employees, Matthew Lara, leading to a personal injury lawsuit filed by Lara in Dallas County, Texas. BKV sought indemnification, defense, and additional insured status from EDT under the terms of their MSC, which EDT contested. 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

Understanding the California Consumer Privacy Act

March 02, 2020 — Kevin Bonsignore - Wilke Fleury
The recently enacted California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA” or the “Act”) goes into effect on January 1, 2020 and with it comes enhanced consumer protections for California residents against businesses that collect their personal information. Generally speaking, the CCPA requires that businesses provide consumers with information relating to the business’ access to and sharing of personal information. Accordingly, businesses should determine whether the CCPA will apply to them and, if so, what policies and procedures they should implement to comply with this new law. Application of the CCPA Importantly, the CCPA does not apply to all California business. The requirements of the CCPA only apply where a for-profit entity collects Consumers’ Personal Information, does business in the State of California, and satisfies one or more of the following: (1) has annual gross revenues in excess of twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000); (2) receives for the business’s commercial purposes, sells, or shares for commercial purposes the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices; or (3) derives 50 percent or more of its annual revenues from selling consumers’ personal information. (California Code of Civil Procedure § 1798.140(c)(1)(A)-(C).) Thus, as a practical matter, small “mom and pop” operations will likely not be subject to the CCPA, but most mid-size and large companies should review their own books or consult with an accountant to determine whether the CCPA applies to their business. Rights Granted to Consumers “Consumers,” as the term is used in the CCPA, means “any natural person who is a California resident…” (California Code of Civil Procedure § 1798.140(g).) This broad definition makes no carve-outs or exclusions for a business’s employees and, despite the traditional definition of the term “consumer,” does not seem to require that the resident purchase any goods or services. This definition seems intentional and was likely designed to prevent businesses from attempting to circumvent the requirements of the CCPA by arguing that the personal information they collect does not belong to “consumers” under the traditional meaning of the word. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Bonsignore, Wilke Fleury
Mr. Bonsignore may be contacted at kbonsignore@wilkefleury.com

Demand for New Homes Good News for Home Builders

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Stock prices are up for both KB Homes and Lennar, with shares of KB Homes up 7 % and Lennar up 5.5%. Both home builders are profiting from increased demand for new homes while supplies were scarce. Both firms have seen a strong increase in orders during the last quarter. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES