FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Hunton Insurance Partner Syed Ahmad Named to Benchmark Litigation’s 2019 40 & Under Hot List

October 14, 2019 — Michael S. Levine & David M. Costello - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Benchmark Litigation has named Syed Ahmad, a partner in Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Insurance Coverage practice, to the publication’s 40 & Under Hot List. Benchmark Litigation is the definitive guide to America’s leading litigation firms and attorneys. The 40 & Under Hot List honors the most notable up-and-coming litigation attorneys in the United States. Those named to the list have proven their eligibility as individuals at the partner level of their respective firms who are 40 years of age or younger. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and David Costello, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

A Court-Side Seat: SCOTUS Clarifies Alien Tort Statute and WOTUS Is Revisited

July 11, 2021 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
What follows is a brief account of some of the notable U.S. environmental and administrative law cases recently decided. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Nestle USA, Inc. et al. v. Doe, et al. The Supreme Court has decided another important case interpreting the Alien Tort Statute. Released on June 17, 2021, this decision reverses the Ninth Circuit which had ruled that the respondents—six individuals who alleged they were child slaves employed on Ivory Coast cocoa farms, could sue the American-based companies for aiding and abetting child slave labor. Without dissent, the Court rejected this reading of the ATS and affirmed its own recent rulings on the scope of the ATS. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Construction Trust Fund Statutes: Know What’s Required in the State Where Your Project Is Underway

June 22, 2020 — Christopher D. Cazenave - ConsensusDocs
Construction trust fund statutes have been around for decades. At least 15 states have passed similar statutes. Other states, but not all, do not have an express statute but have interpreted state law to hold that payments received by a general contractor and deposited in a business account establishes a “trust fund.” See e.g., Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7108. The purpose of these laws is straightforward—protect contractors and suppliers against nonpayment for the labor and materials provided for the construction or repair of property. But while the purpose is straightforward, each state’s law differs by imposing different requirements, different privileges, and different remedies. This article provides an overview of how these statutes work as well as a sampling of important requirements and potential pitfalls that you should look out for when a construction trust fund statute applies to your project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher D. Cazenave, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Cazenave may be contacted at ccazenave@joneswalker.com

---

Litigation Privilege Saves the Day for Mechanic’s Liens

November 23, 2020 — Stephen M. Tye & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
In RGC Gaslamp v. Ehmcke Sheet Metal Co., the Fourth Appellate District held that a trial court properly granted an anti-SLAPP motion because the recording of a mechanic’s lien is protected by the litigation privilege. In RGC Gaslamp, subcontractor Ehmcke Sheet Metal Company (“Ehmcke”) recorded a mechanic’s lien to recoup payment due for sheet metal fabrication and installation done at a luxury hotel project in downtown San Diego. Project owner RGC Gaslamp, LLC (“RGC”) recorded a release bond for the lien. Thereafter, Ehmcke recorded three successive mechanic’s liens identical to the first, prompting RGC to sue it for quiet title, slander of title, and declaratory and injunctive relief. After retaining California counsel, Ehmcke then released its liens and advised it did not intend to record any more. Ehmcke then filed a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16.) which was granted. Reprinted courtesy of Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Illinois Court Addresses Coverage Owed For Subcontractor’s Defective Work

May 06, 2019 — Brian Bassett - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In Acuity Ins. Co. v. 950 W. Huron Condo. Assoc’n, 2019 IL App (1st) 180743, the Illinois Court of Appeals held that a claim against a subcontractor for damage caused to property outside the scope of its work satisfied the insuring agreement of a CGL policy. The condominium association for the building located at 950 West Huron Street in Chicago, Illinois (“the Association”), sued its general contractor and construction manager Belgravia Group, Ltd., and Belgravia Construction Corporation (collectively “Belgravia”). The Association sought to recover for alleged defects from Belgravia’s unworkmanlike construction of the building that permitted water to permeate and cause damage. In the Association’s complaint, it alleged that in June 2002, after the Association took possession of the building but prior to the completion of construction, Belgravia became aware of numerous conditions and defects, including extensive water infiltration of the building. After discussing the issues with Belgravia, the Association claimed that Belgravia retained contractors to provide cosmetic fixes. However, this did not address the problems and defects. The Association alleged that it spent a substantial amount of money to identify and correct the damage and that it would incur additional costs for future repairs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Bassett, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Bassett may be contacted at bbassett@tlsslaw.com

---

Texas “your work” exclusion

January 06, 2012 — CDCoverage.com

In American Home Assurance Co. v. Cat Tech, L.L.C., No. 10-20499 (5th Cir. Oct. 5, 2011), claimant Ergon hired insured Cat Tech to perform service on a reactor at Ergon’s refinery. During a start-up of the reactor after Cat Tech had completed its work, the reactor suffered damage. Cat Tech performed additional service and repairs. However, again upon start-up of the reactor, it suffered additional damage. Ergon hired another contractor to repair the reactor. Ergon initiated arbitration proceedings against Cat Tech. Cat Tech’s CGL insurer American Home defended Cat Tech against the Ergon arbitration under a reservation of rights.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Is a Text a Writing?

June 10, 2024 — Michael Yelle - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Is a text message a writing? Project communication is constantly evolving, and text messages are an increasingly common way teams share pictures, video, and provide project updates. When texting is part of the communication flow on a project, contractors and owners might text approvals for extra work, notices of changed conditions, or other information that could be a basis for a change order. In a text exchange about a compensable event, the notice, reply, and approval are all saved on the phone. But contracts often contain specific requirements for a contractor or subcontractor to request changes and authorization to proceed may be specifically required in writing. For example, the Associated General Contractors of Washington – 2018 Standard Subcontract says the “Subcontractor shall make no claims for extras unless the same shall be agreed upon in writing by Contractor prior to performance of any such extra work.” (emphasis added). The AGC subcontract doesn’t define “writing,” so the subcontractor and contractor might wonder if a text message exchange about a potentially compensable event was an “agreement in writing.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Yelle, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Yelle may be contacted at michael.yelle@acslawyers.com

---

Keep it Simple with Nunn-Agreements in Colorado

June 28, 2021 — Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction Litigation
On May 24, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court published its decision in Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Ass'n.[1] There, the Colorado Supreme Court was tasked with answering whether an insurer, who is defending its insured under a reservation of rights, is entitled to intervene as of right under C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) where the insured enters into a Nunn agreement with a third-party claimant, but rather than entering into a stipulated judgment, agrees with the third party to proceed via an uncontested trial to determine liability and damages. Interestingly, however, while the Court ultimately answered the above question in the negative, the real lesson from the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is that Colorado litigants should not seek a trial court’s blessing as to liability and damages through non-adversarial proceedings when using Nunn-Agreements. Or, as articulated in Justice Carlos Samour’s vociferous dissenting opinion, Colorado litigants desiring to enter into a Nunn-Agreement should not proceed with a non-adversarial hearing, as doing so is “offensive to the dignity of the courts,” constitutes a “bogus,” “faux,” “sham” and “counterfeit” proceeding, and the hearing provides “zero benefit.” By way of background, the case arrived in front of the Colorado Supreme Court based on the following fact pattern. A homeowner association (Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc.) (“Association”) brought construction defect claims against a variety of prime contractors and those contractors subsequently brought third-party construction defect claims against subcontractors. One of the prime contractors assigned their claims against a subcontractor by the name Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra”) to the Association. The other claims between the additional parties settled. On the eve of trial involving only the Association’s assigned claims against Sierra, the Association made a settlement demand to Sierra for $1.9 million. Sierra asked its insurance carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance, Co. (“AOIC”), which had been defending Sierra under a reservation of rights letter, to settle the case for that amount, but AOIC refused. This prompted Sierra to enter into a “Nunn-Agreement” with the Association whereby the case would proceed to trial, Sierra would refrain from offering a defense at trial, the Association would not pursue any recovery against Sierra for the judgment, and Sierra would assign any insurance bad faith claims it may have had against AOIC to the Association. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Meyer may be contacted at meyer@hhmrlaw.com

---