FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Part of the Whole: Idaho District Court Holds Economic Loss Rule Bars Tort Claims Related to Water Supply Line that was Part of Home Purchase

October 03, 2022 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill. v. LSP Prods. Grp., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139566, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho (District Court) considered whether the plaintiff’s tort claims against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective toilet water supply line were barred by the economic loss rule. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that, since the supply line was a part of the home when the plaintiff’s insureds purchased it, the plaintiff was barred by the economic loss rule from bringing tort claims against the manufacturer. The District Court granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion, ruling that the supply line was a part of the home, which was the subject of the transaction, at the time it was purchased. Thus, the District Court held that the economic loss rule barred the plaintiff’s tort claims. In 2012, Melissa Norris and Richard Meyers (collectively, the Homeowners) purchased a newly built home in Eagle, Idaho. In 2016, a toilet supply line in one of the bathrooms began leaking, causing water damage to the home as well as to window blinds, an oven and dishwasher. The Homeowners also incurred a loss of rental income. The Homeowners submitted a claim to Safeco Insurance Company (Insurer), their property insurance carrier, who ultimately covered the Homeowners’ losses. 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

---

Nonparty Discovery in California Arbitration: How to Get What You Want

January 08, 2019 — Leilani L. Jones - Payne & Fears
Opting for arbitration requires attorneys to balance efficiency and procedural protections. The implications of arbitration are something clients certainly have to carefully consider both when drafting arbitration provisions, and after initiating a demand. While arbitration can in many respects streamline the civil discovery process, one of the largest roadblocks for cases in California arbitrations is “streamlining” discovery from nonparties. This article explores the challenges presented by third party discovery in arbitration, and proposes strategies for obtaining such discovery efficiently and expeditiously. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Leilani L. Jones, Payne & Fears
Ms. Jones may be contacted at llj@paynefears.com

---

“You Can’t Make Me Pay!”

January 28, 2025 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
Several years ago, Louisiana enacted a law prescribing a mandamus proceeding for unpaid contract sums purportedly owed by a public entity to a contractor – Louisiana Revised Statute 38:2191. The statute tackles both progress payments and final payment, distinguishing between the two and allowing withholding of a progress payment when there is “reasonable cause” to do so. On the other hand, at least one Louisiana appellate decision held on the topic of final payment: once a final payment amount is “due” per the statute – based upon passage expiration of the lien period following “formal final acceptance” – the act of making the final payment is purely ministerial and not subject to defenses. According to that court, a defense to payment based on assessed liquidated damages – because the damages were disputed by the contractor – could not trump the essence of the statute allowing the contractor to pursue mandamus to collect the final payment. More recently, on a public works levee project in Lafourche Parish, a dispute arose during the work concerning the means to secure material for constructing the levees. The net effect of the dispute entailed a major change in the contract price. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

---

Hawaii Supreme Court Says Aloha to Insurers Trying to Recoup Defense Costs From Policyholders

January 02, 2024 — Lara Degenhart Cassidy & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The Hawaii Supreme Court emphatically rejected insurer efforts to seek reimbursement of defense costs absent a provision in the policy providing for such reimbursement in St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Bodell Construction Company, No. SCCQ-22-0000658, 2023 WL 7517083, (Haw. Nov. 14, 2023). The state high court’s well-reasoned decision rests on bedrock law regarding insurance policy construction and application, follows the nationwide trend of courts compelling insurers to satisfy their contractual obligations in full, and should carry great weight as other jurisdictions continue to debate the same issue. In Bodell, the Hawaii Supreme Court joined the swelling ranks of courts recognizing that an insurer may not use a reservation of rights to create the extra-contractual “right” to recoup already paid defense costs for a claim on which the insurer ultimately owes no coverage. See, e.g., Am. & Foreign Ins. Co. v. Jerry’s Sport Ctr., Inc., 2 A.3d 526 (Pa. 2010). Other jurisdictions, such as California, will permit an insurer to seek reimbursement from a policyholder for defense costs incurred in defending claims later determined to be uncovered. See Buss v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.4th 35 (1997) (holding insurers have a right to reimbursement of defense costs incurred for noncovered claims). Reprinted courtesy of Lara Degenhart Cassidy, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Cassidy may be contacted at lcassidy@HuntonAK.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Relying Upon Improper Exclusion to Deny Coverage Allows Bad Faith Claim to Survive Summary Judgment

December 04, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer was successful on summary judgment in establishing it correctly denied coverage for collapse, but its motion was denied regarding the insureds' bad faith claim. Jones v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153102 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 7, 2018). The insureds' retaining wall collapsed. They tendered to State Farm under their homeowners policy. An engineer retained by State Farm determined that the wall buckled due to "excessive lateral earth pressure from retained soils behind the wall." The parties agreed that the soil, saturated by water from frequent rain, grew too heavy for the retaining wall to bear, causing the collapse. 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

---

Business Solutions Alert: Homeowners' Complaint for Breach of Loan Modification Agreement Can Proceed Past Pleading Stage

October 08, 2014 — Krsto Mijanovic, Annette Mijanovic, Blythe Golay - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Fleet v. Bank of America, N.A. (No. G050049, published 9/23/14, filed 8/25/14), a California Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer of a lender, where the homeowners had adequately alleged causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, and promissory estoppel. The homeowners alleged that they made timely payments during the trial period plan under the modification program, but before the last payment was due, the lender foreclosed and their house was sold. The homeowners had applied for a loan modification and were approved for a trial period plan under the modification program. They were required to make three monthly payments and verify financial hardship to permanently modify their loan. The homeowners made two payments and were told that foreclosure proceedings had been suspended. But before the third payment was due, the lender foreclosed. The trial court found that the trial period plan was not a binding loan modification agreement, so the homeowners had no right to any guaranteed loan modification. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Krsto Mijanovic, Annette Mijanovic and Blythe Golay Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Mijanovic may be contacted at amijanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Golay may be contacted at bgolay@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

2015-2016 California Labor & Employment Laws Affecting Construction Industry

October 28, 2015 — Steven M. Cvitanovic, David A. Harris, & Kristen Lee Price – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Earlier this month, California Governor Jerry Brown signed dozens of bills that affect employers. Many of these bills have special significance to the construction industry. Here is a brief review: Assembly Bill 219 – Prevailing Wages for Concrete Delivery on Public Projects AB 219 continues California’s aggressive expansion of prevailing wages. This bill expands the definition of “public works” for purposes of state prevailing wage law to include the hauling or delivery of ready-mixed concrete for a public works project. Previously, delivery drivers hired by a material supplier were exempted from the prevailing wage. Before AB 219, labor law made a distinction between “suppliers” and “contractors.” Thus, ready-mixed concrete was held to be a finished product, and treated differently from a product that was assembled on site. The new law eliminates this distinction. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys Steven M. Cvitanovic, David A. Harris and Kristen Lee Price Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California’s Prompt Payment Laws: Just Because an Owner Has Changed Course Doesn’t Mean It’s Changed Course on Previous Payments

April 20, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
We’ve written before about California’s prompt payment laws which are designed to help contractors get paid in a timely and orderly fashion, which is always nice, right? California’s prompt payment laws require that project owners pay their direct contractors, who are in turn required to pay their subcontractors who are in turn required to pay their sub-subcontractors and so on within certain statutorily set deadlines, or be subject to prompt payment penalties nearly as high as the interest you pay on your credit cards. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---