Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

New York State Trial Court: Non-Cumulation Provision in Excess Policies Mandates “All Sums” Allocation

October 02, 2018 — Paul Briganti - White & Williams LLP
On August 18, 2018, the New York Supreme Court, New York County, confirmed a referee’s finding that “all sums” allocation was required under excess policies issued by Midland Insurance Company because they included a non-cumulation provision. See Matter of Liquidation of Midland Ins. Co., Index No. 041294/1986 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 18, 2018). Midland was a multi-line carrier that wrote a substantial amount of excess coverage for Fortune 500 companies. In the 1980s, Midland faced significant exposure for environmental, asbestos and product liability claims. In 1986, it was placed in liquidation and the New York State Superintendent of Insurance (the Liquidator) was appointed as its receiver. Since then, the New York Supreme Court has presided over the liquidation proceedings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul Briganti, White & Williams LLP
Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com

Florida Enacts Property Insurance Overhaul for Benefit of Policyholders

July 05, 2023 — Laura Farrant & Bradley S. Fischer - Lewis Brisbois
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (June 13, 2023) – On June 1, 2023, Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law CS/SB 7052 (the Act), increasing consumer protection and insurer accountability in Florida. The newly enacted and amended statutes under CS/SB 7052 bolster policyholder protections and impose greater insurer oversight, including heightened penalties for insurer misdeeds in the state under a new law that will take effect on July 1, 2023 (this legal alert does not address all of the statutory revisions associated with the Act). As House Speaker Paul Renner noted, “The insurance legislation signed by Governor DeSantis today . . . not only empowers homeowners, but also cultivates market-driven competition, ultimately leading to lower costs.” Statutory Revisions Regarding Insurance Coverage The Act prohibits authorized insurers from cancelling or nonrenewing a property insurance policy for a residential property or dwelling that was damaged by any covered peril until the earlier of: (a) when the property has been repaired; or (b) one year after the insurer issues the final claim payment. The Act also expands current law prohibiting authorized insurers from cancelling or nonrenewing a residential property insurance policy until 90 days after repairs are completed for damages resulting from a hurricane or wind loss that is the subject of a state of emergency declared by the Governor and for which the Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) has issued an emergency order. See Fla. Stat. §627.4133(2)(d)(1)(a) and (b) (Notice of cancellation, nonrenewal, or renewal premium). Reprinted courtesy of Laura Farrant, Lewis Brisbois and Bradley S. Fischer, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Farrant may be contacted at Laura.Farrant@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Fischer may be contacted at Bradley.Fischer@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Skipping Depositions does not Constitute Failure to Cooperate in New York

March 09, 2020 — Ryan G. Nelson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Insurance policies typically impose, on the insured, a duty to cooperate with the insurer during investigation and litigation of a claim. Non-cooperation can be grounds for denying coverage. This begs the question: what constitutes non-cooperation? Recently, a New York appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision that failure by an employee of the insured to show up for three court-ordered depositions did not rise to the level of “willful and avowed obstruction” and therefore, the insurer could not deny coverage on the basis of non-cooperation. See Foddrell v. Utica First Insurance Co., 178 A.D.3d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). In so holding, the Foddrell court applied the Thrasher test: “To effectively deny coverage based upon lack of cooperation, an insurance carrier must demonstrate (1) that it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) that the efforts employed by the insured were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) that the attitude of the insured, after his or her cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction.” Id.; see Thrasher v. U. S. Liab. Ins. Co., 19 N.Y.2d 159, 167 (1967). Thomas Foddrell’s suit against Utica First Insurance Company (“Utica First”) stemmed from his personal injury suit against Janey & Rana Construction Corporation (“J&R” (Utica First’s insured). During that lawsuit, J&R’s principal, Gardeep Singh, failed to appear for two court-ordered depositions. After his failure to appear at those depositions, Utica First sent an investigator to inform Singh that he was scheduled for a third deposition. Singh responded to the investigator that he would speak with J&R’s attorneys about the matter. Ultimately, Singh did not appear for the third court-ordered deposition. In response to Singh’s repeated failure to appear for the depositions, Utica First sent Singh a letter advising him that because of his lack of cooperation, Utica would no longer agree to indemnify J&R. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan G. Nelson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Nelson may be contacted at rgn@sdvlaw.com

Industrialized Construction News 7/2022

August 15, 2022 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
The AEC Business newsletter’s Industrialized Construction edition in July featured the following news stories: The Pros and Cons of Offsite Construction – A French Research Study The study is titled The current use of industrialized construction techniques in France: Benefits, limits and future expectations. The authors are Emna Attouri, Zoubeir Lafhaj, Laure Ducoulombierb and Bruno Linéatte. Read more Rise of the machines? For Construction, Not Yet Matthew Thibault’s article examines the opportunities and challenges of construction robotics. Robots can improve safety and productivity, but the ROI is still unclear to many contractors. Read more 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

A Landlord’s Guide to California’s New Statewide Rent Control Laws

May 18, 2020 — Colton Addy - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Applicability of California’s Rent Control Laws: California Civil Code Sections 1946.2 and 1947.12 took effect on January 1, 2020, and implement statewide rent control in California for most residential properties. The rent control laws, however, do not apply to a rental property that was issued a certificate of occupancy in the last 15 years. (Civ. Code §§ 1947.12(d)(4), 1946.2(e)(7)). The statutes also do not apply to most single-family residences, provided that (a) the owner is not a real estate investment trust, a corporation, or a limited liability company where one of the members is a corporation, and (b) the required statutory language is included in the lease agreement for tenancies commencing or renewing on or after July 1, 2020. (Civ. Code §§ 1947.12(d)(5), 1946.2(e)(8)). Annual Increases Permitted Under California’s Rent Control Laws: Commencing on January 1, 2020, unless otherwise permitted by California law, a Landlord cannot increase the gross rental rate for a rental unit over a continuous 12-month period more than the change in the regional cost of living index where the property is located plus 5%, and gross rental rate increases are subject to a maximum cap of 10% over a continuous 12-month period regardless of the change in the cost of living index. (Civ. Code § 1947.12(a)(1)). The gross rental rate is determined using the lowest rental amount charged in any month in the immediately preceding 12 months. (Id.) Any incentives, discounts, concessions, or credits are not taken into account. (Id.) Even if a rent increase does not exceed the amount permitted under the statute, a Landlord is prohibited from increasing rent more than twice in any continuous 12-month period. (Civ. Code § 1947.12(a)(2)). Retroactive Applicability of Restrictions on Rent Increases: Although the statute took effect on January 1, 2020, the statute retroactively applies to all rent increases that occurred on or after March 15, 2019. (Civ. Code § 1947.12(h)(1)). If a landlord increased the rent amount more than the amount permitted under California Civil Code Section 1947.12(a)(1) after March 15, 2019, and prior to January 1, 2020, the rent amount on January 1, 2020, is reduced to the amount of the rent on March 15, 2019, plus the maximum permissible increase under California Civil Code Section 1947.12(a)(1). (Civ. Code § 1947.12(h)(2)). The Landlord does not have to refund the tenant any rent payments that were in excess of the permissible rent increase that the tenant made prior to January 1, 2020. (Id.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Colton Addy, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Addy may be contacted at caddy@swlaw.com

Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

August 04, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
It’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim. I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act. In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Insurer's Attempt to Limit Additional Insured Status Fails

December 01, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court disagreed with the insurer's attempt to limit additional insured status based upon the contract between the parties. Mays v. In re All C-Dive LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185874 (E.D. La. Nov. 9, 2017). Five employees of C-Dive LLC filed a lawsuit after belng injured in a pipeline explosion aboard a vessel servicing a pipeline owned by Gulf South Pipeline Company. During the work, there was a release of gas that caused an explosion and injured the employees. 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

Wendel Rosen Construction Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers

August 30, 2017 — Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP - California Construction Law Blog
Two members of Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group were recognized recently. Garret Murai was selected for inclusion in the 2017 list of Northern California Super Lawyers and Matthew Graham was selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2018 edition. Garret Is co-chair of the firm’s Construction Practice Group and Matt is a 30+ year veteran of construction law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES