Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Recent Bad Faith Decisions in Florida Raise Concerns

November 06, 2018 — Michael Kiernan, Lauren Curtis & Ashley Kellgren - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
The State of Florida has long been known as one of the most challenging jurisdictions for insurance carriers in the context of bad faith – to say the least. Two recent appellate decisions have taken an already difficult environment and seemingly “upped the ante” in what constitutes good faith claims handling in the context of third-party liability claims. Set forth below is an analysis of the Bannon v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. and Harvey v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. decisions. Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP attorneys Michael Kiernan, Lauren Curtis and Ashley Kellgren Mr. Kiernan may be contacted at mkiernan@tlsslaw.com Ms. Curtis may be contacted at lcurtis@tlsslaw.com Ms. Kellgren may be contacted at akellgren@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Additional Insured Not Covered Where Injury Does Not Arise Out Of Insured's Work

April 15, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found the contractor did not have coverage as an additional insured under the subcontractor's policy. Walton Constr. v. First Fin. Ins. Co., 2015 US. Dist. LEXIS 30710 (E.D. La. March 12, 2015). John Maestri was injured while working on a construction project for the Jefferson Parish School Board. Maestri was a commercial glazier for A-1 Glass Services Inc. A-1 was a subcontractor for Walton Construction. While Maestri was installing glass on the project, a high-voltage power line maintained by Entergy Louisiana, LLC electrocuted him, causing burns on his body. Maestri sued Entergy. Entergy filed a third-party complaint against A-1 and Walton, alleging that the Louisiana Overhead Power Line Safety Act had been violated by failing to give advance notice that their workers would be working near the power lines. Entergy argued that under the statute, A-1 and Walton are liable for any damages that Entergy had to pay Maestri. 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

Additional Insurance Coverage Determined for General Contractor

January 07, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly- Insurance Law Hawaii
A series of communications requiring the subcontractor to provide additional insured coverage for the contractor were sufficient to fit within the policy's provision identifying additional insureds. KB Home Tucson, Inc. v. The Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 2014 Ariz. App. LEXIS 228 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2014). KB, the general contractor, hired CRG Construction Co., Inc. in 1999 to perform work at a residential subdivision in Tucson. Charter Oak provided liability coverage for CRG, including additional insured coverage for any person or entity that CRG was obligated to cover under written contract or agreement. 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

Massachusetts District Court Holds Contractors Are Not Additional Insureds on Developer’s Builder’s Risk Policy

August 31, 2020 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Factory Mut. Ins. Co. v. Skanska United States Bldg., No. 18-cv-11700-DLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95403 (Skanska), the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts considered whether contractors on a construction job were additional insureds on the developer’s builder’s risk insurance policy. After a water loss occurred during construction, the builder’s risk insurance carrier paid its named insured for the resultant damage, and subsequently filed a subrogation action against two contractors. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the anti-subrogation rule barred the carrier from subrogating against them because they were additional insureds on the policy. The court found that based on the particular language of the additional insured provision in the policy, the defendants were not additional insureds for purposes of the subrogation action. Skanska arose from property damage that occurred during a construction project where Novartis Corporation (Novartis) endeavored to construct a biomedical research building in Cambridge, Massachusetts and retained Skanska USA Building, Inc. (Skanska) as the general contractor. In turn, Skanksa hired J.C. Cannistraro, LLC (JCC) as a subcontractor. Novartis secured a builder’s risk insurance policy from Factory Mutual Insurance Company (Factory Mutual). The policy defined “Insured” as Novartis and its subsidiaries, partnerships and joint ventures that it controlled or owned. The policy included another provision, titled “Property Damage,” which stated that the policy “insures the interest of contractors and subcontractors in insured property… to the extent of the Insured’s legal liability for insured physical loss or damage to such property.” 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

Improvements to Confederate Monuments Lead to Lawsuits

October 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Lawsuits concerning handicap access usually go toward obligating someone to provide access. But in Selma, Alabama, the city decided that handicap access to a Civil War memorial might not be all that important. The city of Selma hired KTK Mining to provide wheelchair accessibility to the city’s Memorial to the Confederate Dead and to increase security to a monument to the Confederate general Nathan Beford Forrest. After protests, the city revoked the building permit. KTM sued in federal court. The judge has ordered the two parties to a settlement contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Western Specialty Contractors Branches in San Francisco and Cleveland Take Home Top Industry Honors

January 03, 2022 — Western Specialty Contractors
(St. Louis, MO, Dec. 21, 2021) Western Specialty Contractors Branches in San Francisco, CA and Cleveland, OH are ending the year's fourth quarter on a high note, with each receiving a top industry award. In October, Western's San Francisco Branch was named a 2021 International Concrete Repair Institute (ICRI) Project of the Year Award Finalist (Historic Category) for renovation and repurposing of the SMUD Museum of Science and Curiosity in Sacramento, CA. Western's Cleveland Branch was honored in December with the Institute of Real Estate Management (IREM) Northern Ohio Chapter's Industry Partner of the Year Award. About Western Specialty Contractors Family-owned and operated for more than 100 years, Western Specialty Contractors is the nation's largest specialty contractor in masonry and concrete restoration, waterproofing and specialty roofing. Western offers a nationwide network of expertise that building owners, engineers, architects, and property managers can count on to develop cost-effective, corrective measures that can add years of useful life to a variety of structures including industrial, commercial, healthcare, historic, educational and government buildings, parking structures, and sports stadiums. Western is headquartered in St. Louis, MO with 30 branch offices nationwide and employs more than 1,200 salaried and hourly professionals who offer the best, time-tested techniques and innovative technology. For more information about Western Specialty Contractors, visit www.westernspecialtycontractors.com. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurance Litigation Roundup: “Post No Bills!”

April 02, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A company which is in the business of posting “advertising signs on temporary construction sites on behalf of clients” was “sued for trespass, conversion, and other torts” when it entered a site to remove posters. The company sought to have its insurance carrier cover the cost of its defense but was refused. A federal court lawsuit in California against the insurer ensued. The insurer prevailed on a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, and the insured appealed. At issue: had an “occurrence” under the CGL policy taken place – that is, an “accident,” an “unexpected, unforeseen, or undesigned happening or consequence from either a known or unknown cause?” The appellate court noted that the company’s contractor “intended” to enter the work site and remove posters, which gave rise to the trespass claim. For its part, the company urged that the contractor’s actions “were based on erroneous information… [a] mistaken belief that it had the right or duty to enter the site and remove the posters….” 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

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Adopts New Rule in Breach-of-the-Consent-to-Settle-Clause Cases

August 19, 2015 — Sean Mahoney – White and Williams LLP
In Babcock & Wilcox Company, et al. v. America Nuclear Insurers, et al., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that where a liability insurer has agreed to provide a defense to its insured in an underlying tort action subject to a reservation of rights but refuses to consent to a settlement in that action, the insured may nevertheless accept the settlement over the insurer’s objection where the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and non-collusive” from the perspective of a reasonably prudent person in the insured’s position in light of the totality of the circumstances and is covered. Babcock & Wilcox Company v. America Nuclear Insurers, No. 2 WAP 2014, 2015 WL 4430352 (Pa. Jul. 21, 2015). This decision fills an important gap in Pennsylvania precedent addressing the rules applicable when an insurer refuses to consent to an insured’s settlement of a lawsuit. In Babcock, the underlying plaintiffs sued Babcock & Wilcox Company and Atlantic Richfield Company (“the Insureds”) alleging that the Insured’s nuclear facilities caused bodily injury and property damage. The Insureds’ liability insurers agreed to defend the Insureds subject to a reservation of rights. The insurers later refused to consent to an offer to settle the underlying action for a total of $80 million because they believed the Insureds were likely to succeed on the merits. Nevertheless, in 2009, the Insureds accepted that offer and settled the underlying action for $80 million, notwithstanding the insurer’s refusal. The Insureds then sought reimbursement of the $80 million settlement from their insurers, who rejected that request on the ground that the Insureds had breached the consent-to-settlement/cooperation provisions of the implicated policies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sean Mahoney, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at mahoneys@whiteandwilliams.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES