Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Jarred Reed Named to the National Black Lawyers’ “Top 40 Under 40” List for Second Consecutive Year

August 07, 2023 — Lewis Brisbois
Madison County, Ill. (July 21, 2023) – Madison County Associate Jarred Reed was named to The National Black Lawyers (NBL) “Top 40 Under 40” list for the second year in a row. The NBL “Top 40 Under 40” recognizes the most talented Black attorneys under the age of 40 who have an outstanding reputation among peers, the judiciary, and the public. The honorees on this list are nominated from leading lawyers, current members, and Executive Committee members. “We feel so blessed to be able to call Jarred our colleague," said Madison County Managing Partner Jeffrey Bash. "He is a joy to work with and our clients are well served with him as part of their defense team.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Trigger and Allocation

January 24, 2022 — Lorelie S. Masters, Patrick M. McDermott & Rachel E. Hudgins - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In one of the top insurance-coverage decisions of 2021, the Montana Supreme Court at the end of the year handed down a landmark decision adopting the continuous trigger of coverage and “all sums” allocation, finding a duty to defend and ruling that the qualified, or “sudden and accidental” pollution exclusion did not apply. Nat’l Indem. Co. v. State, 499 P.3d 516 (Mont. 2021). The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reserved in part the rulings entered by the trial court, largely upholding a $98,000,000 judgment for the State against its CGL insurer for the policy years 1973 to 1975. The ruling thus helps ensure coverage for the hundreds of claims alleging that the State had failed to warn claimants of the dangers of asbestos exposures to workers in vermiculite mining and milling operations in Libby, Montana, operated by W. R. Grace (the “Libby Mine”). Representing amicus curiae United Policyholders (“UP”), Hunton Andrews Kurth supported the position of the policyholder, the State of Montana, on the key rulings on trigger of coverage, allocation, and the pollution exclusion, with the court specifically citing to the Hunton brief in adopting all-sums allocation. This first post in our series covering the Montana Supreme Court’s decisions will address the court’s rulings on trigger of coverage and allocation. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Fence Attached to Building Covered Under Dwelling Provisions

March 01, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Texas Supreme Court determined that a damaged fence attached to the insureds' dwelling was covered under the dwelling provisions, not the "other structure" portion of the policy. Nassar v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 2017 Tex. LEXIS 113 (Tex. Jan. 27 ,2017). The insureds' owned six acres of property. Hurricane Ike caused significant damage to the property on September 13, 2008. The insureds submitted a claim to Liberty Mutual under their homeowners' policy. Liberty Mutual paid several claims, but disputes arose over the value of various items of damaged property, including the fencing on the property. The insured's fencing spanned over 4,000 linear feet, including a white picket fence at the northeast corner of the dwelling, an ornamental iron fence in front of the dwelling, numerous cross fences, garden fences, and a larger, perimeter fence. 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

Coverage Denied for Insured's Defective Product

October 15, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found there was no coverage obligations for the insured's defective product. Titanium Indus., Inc. v. Federal. Ins. Co., 2014 WL 4428324 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Sept. 10, 2014). The insured, Titanium Industries, supplied titanium bar materials to Biomet Manufacturing Corporation. Biomet manufactured orthopedic implants and devises. The titanium was used to manufacture screws to incorporate into Biomet's products. Biomet notified the insured of a potential defect in some of the titanium material, described as "alloy segregation," i.e., the failure of alloys in a metal to completely melt, causing the alloy to separate and undermine the strength of the finished product. The insured and Biomet negotiated a settlement, which included lost profits and the cost of returning the titanium. 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

Hunton’s Geoffrey Fehling Confirmed to DC Bar Foundation’s Young Lawyers Network Leadership Council

December 30, 2019 — Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews Kurth
Congratulations to Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP insurance recovery lawyer, Geoffrey Fehling, on his confirmation by the DC Bar Foundation’s Board of Directors to the organization’s Young Lawyers Network Leadership Council. As the leading funder of civil legal aid in the District of Columbia, DCBF awards grants to the District’s legal services organizations that provide free civil legal services to low-income and underserved people in the District. Since its inception, DCBF has awarded more than $80 million in grants. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com

Rhode Island District Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Case for Spoliation Due to Potential Unfair Prejudice to Defendant

September 04, 2018 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
In Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. BrassCraft Mfg., Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88986 (D.R.I. May 29, 2018), the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island addressed the question of whether the defendant was so unfairly prejudiced by the subrogating insurer’s spoliation of evidence that dismissal of the plaintiff’s case was the appropriate Rule 37(b)(2)(a)(i)-(vi) sanction. The court, focusing on the potential for undue prejudice to the defendant, granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams, LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

Understanding Liability Insurer’s Two Duties: To Defend and to Indemnify

December 26, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A liability insurer has two duties that are the crux of a liability policy: the duty to defend the insured in legal actions and the duty to indemnify the insured from losses covered under the policy. Many times, policyholders (insureds) do not fully understand or appreciate these two important duties. They need to and this is why having private counsel assist with coverage-related considerations is an absolute must. An insurers’ duty to defend is separate from its duty to indemnify. A recent opinion out of the Middle District of Florida in Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Tate Transport Corp., 2022 WL 16963815 (M.D.Fla. 2022) clarifies the distinction between these duties with a focus on an insurer’s initial duty — the duty to defend. Please read below so you can have more of an appreciation of these duties. The court does a good job discussing Florida law with the emphasis on when an insurer’s initial duty to defend kicks-in: Duty to Defend Under Florida law, “an insurer’s duty to defend its insured against a legal action arises when the complaint alleges facts that fairly and potentially bring the suit within policy coverage.” The duty to defend is a broad one, broader than the duty to indemnify, and “[t]he merits of the underlying suit are irrelevant.” We determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend its insured based only on “the eight corners of the complaint and the policy,” and only as the complaint’s alleged facts are “fairly read[.]” The “facts” we consider in evaluating the duty to defend come solely from the complaint, regardless of the actual facts of the case and regardless of any later developed and contradictory factual record. “Any doubts regarding Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion

May 20, 2019 — Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine & Alexander D. Russo - Hunton Andrews Kurth
The Southern District of Georgia recently ruled that Evanston Insurance Company is not entitled to summary judgment on whether its policies’ pollution exclusion bars coverage for the release of nitrogen into a warehouse. The case stems from an incident at Xytex Tissue Services, LLC’s warehouse, where Xytex stored biological material at low temperatures. Xytex used an on-site “liquid nitrogen delivery system” to keep the material properly cooled. This system releases liquid nitrogen, which would vaporize into nitrogen gas and cool the biological material. On February 5, 2017, a Xytex employee, Deputy Greg Meagher, entered the warehouse to investigate activated motion detectors and burglar alarms. Deputy Meagher was overcome by nitrogen gas and died as a result. Following Deputy Meagher’s death, his heirs filed suit against Xytex and other defendants. Evanston denied coverage based on the pollution exclusion in its policy. Evanston then brought a declaratory judgment action to confirm its coverage position. In denying Evanston’s summary judgment motion, the Southern District of Georgia reasoned that the type of injury sustained is essential in analyzing whether the pollution exclusion applies. Specifically, Xytex argued, and the court agreed, that the underlying lawsuit alleged that the bodily injury was caused by a lack of oxygen, not exposure to nitrogen. The court also distinguished prior decisions, explaining that injury caused by a lack of oxygen is not a contamination or irritation of the body in the same way as injury resulting from exposure to carbon monoxide or lead. The court also found that Xytex “reasonably expected that liability related to a nitrogen leak would be insured.” Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine and Alexander D. Russo Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Russo may be contacted at arusso@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES