Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Allegations Versus “True Facts”: Which Govern the Duty to Defend? Bonus! A Georgia Court Clears Up What the Meaning of “Is” Is

December 11, 2023 — Rachel E. Hudgins & Syed S. Ahmad - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Courts scrutinize a complaint’s factual allegations to decide whether the allegations trigger a duty to defend. [1] If the facts unambiguously exclude coverage, there is no duty to defend. [2] But what if the factual allegations fall within a policy exclusion, but the allegations are untrue or questionable? What if the true facts would mean the exclusion doesn’t apply? In that case, many courts have found that the insurer should base its decision on the policyholder’s version of the “true facts.” [3] An insurer can’t rely on the complaint’s allegations to deny coverage when the facts that the insurer knows or can ascertain show that the claim is covered. [4] A recent case, United Minerals & Properties Inc. v. Phoenix Insurance Co., No. 4:23-cv-00050 (N.D. Ga.), illustrates these policy interpretation principles. Reprinted courtesy of Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com Mr. Ahmad may be contacted at sahmad@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Harmon Tower Opponents to Try Mediation

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
There are plenty of issues on the table in the fight between CityCenter and Tutor Perini over the Harmon Tower project in Las Vegas. Some of them might be solved at a mediator’s table instead of reaching the courtroom. Both sides will be participating in a six-day negotiation with an outside mediator. Their hope is that the projected two-year jury trial can be reduced to only one year. The judge in the case remains skeptical. “It ain’t happening. I know you all,” was Clark County District Judge Elizabeth’s Gonzalez’s comment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Subcontractors Found Liable to Reimburse Insurer Defense Costs in Equitable Subrogation Action

August 03, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc. (No. E068353, filed 6/10/20), a California appeals court reversed the denial of an equitable subrogation claim for reimbursement of defense costs from contractually obligated subcontractors to a defending insurer, finding that all of the elements for equitable subrogation were met, and the equities tipped in favor of the insurer. After defending the general contractor, Pulte, in two construction defect actions as an additional insured on a subcontractor’s policy, St. Paul sought reimbursement of defense costs solely on an equitable subrogation theory against six subcontractors that had worked on the underlying construction projects, and whose subcontracts required them to defend Pulte in suits related to their work. After a bench trial, the trial court denied St. Paul’s claim, concluding that St. Paul had not demonstrated that it was fair to shift all of the defense costs to the subcontractors because their failure to defend Pulte had not caused the homeowners to bring the construction defect actions. The appeals court reversed, holding that the trial court misconstrued the law governing equitable subrogation. Because the relevant facts were not in dispute, the appeals court reviewed the case de novo and found that the trial court committed error in its denial of reimbursement for the defense fees. The appeals court found two errors: First, the trial court incorrectly concluded that equitable subrogation requires shifting of the entire loss. Second, the trial court applied a faulty causation analysis – that because the non-defending subcontractors had not caused the homeowners to sue Pulte, thereby necessitating a defense, St. Paul could not meet the elements of equitable subrogation. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Skyline Cockpit’s Game-Changing Tower Crane Teleoperation

August 21, 2023 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
In this episode of the AEC Business podcast, host Aarni Heiskanen interviews Zachi Flatto, CEO and co-founder of Skyline Cockpit. The startup offers a tower crane teleoperation, AI monitoring, and autonomous driving system. Zachi discusses the background of Skyline Cockpit, how they make construction safer and more efficient, and what technologies they use. A ground-breaking change in crane operation Zachi Flatto, the CEO and co-founder of Skyline Cockpit, is leading a startup that specializes in providing advanced technology solutions for tower crane operations. The company’s main objective is to eliminate the need for crane operators to climb 100 meters every morning and spend long hours operating the crane from such heights. Zachi firmly believes that in 2023, this traditional practice is no longer necessary. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Denver Passed the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

August 27, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
ABC 7 reported that Denver, Colorado has passed a city ordinance that will require “developers building 30 or more units to offer 10 percent of them at a cheaper rate.” The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is meant to increase the number of homes for “middle income earners.” "This city is really facing a housing crisis when it comes to affordability," Samaria Crews, deputy director of the Front Range Economic Strategy Center, told ABC 7. Builders can opt out of the ordinance by paying a fee, and a “new amendment would allow builders to build the low-income inventory off-site.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Are Proprietary Specifications Illegal?

April 11, 2018 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
A friend came to me with a question regarding a case he was working: “can a public owner require that bidders use a specific brand name product?” “Of course not,” I said “proprietary specifications are illegal.” Or, at least that’s what I assumed. To my surprise, the law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is not as clear as it is in other jurisdictions. What is a proprietary specification? A proprietary specification lists a product by brand name, make, model and/model that a contractor must (shall) utilize in construction. A basic example of a proprietary specification would state:

“Air Handlers shall be “Turbo Max” as manufactured by Chiller Corp.”

There are two problems with a proprietary specification (other than potentially being illegal): (a) they limit competition, and (b) invite steered contract awards. They limit competition because it limits the type of material that can be used on the project. In the example above, there could be equivalent air handlers available at a better price but the contractor could not use that lower priced product in its bid. Thus, the taxpayers end up paying more for tile. Also, contractors may not be able to secure a certain brand name product because of exclusive distribution agreements. Again, using the example above, contractor A’s competitor may have the exclusive distribution agreement with Chiller Corp. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben and Associate Laura Puhala Win Summary Judgment in Favor of Insurer, Determining it has No Duty to Defend

September 18, 2023 — Traub Lieberman
In a declaratory judgment action brought before the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben and Associate Laura Puhala won summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff Foremost Signature Insurance Co. (“Foremost”), obtaining a declaration that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify Defendant 170 Little East Neck Road LLC (“Little East”) in an underlying state court personal injury action. In the underlying action, a self-employed financial advisor leasing a suite for her business on the second floor of the property at 170 Little East Neck Road (the “Property”), sued Little East in New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County, alleging injuries resulting from slipping on ice on a walkway near an exterior door at the Property. Reprinted courtesy of Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman and Laura S. Puhala, Traub Lieberman Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com Ms. Puhala may be contacted at lpuhala@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

California Supreme Court Holds Insured Entitled to Coverage Under CGL Policy for Negligent Hiring

June 13, 2018 — Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In its recent decision in Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Constr. Co.,2018 Cal. LEXIS 4063 (Cal. June 4, 2018), the Supreme Court of California addressed the question of whether an insured’s negligent hiring, retention and supervision of an employee who intentionally injured a third-party can be considered an occurrence under a general liability policy. The insured, L&M, was the construction manager on a project at a middle school in California. It was alleged that one of its employees sexually abused a thirteen year old student during the course of the project. The student later brought a civil suit against L&M based on its negligent hiring, retention and supervision of the employee-perpetrator. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES