FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

New York Appellate Court Restores Insurer’s Right to Seek Pro Rata Allocation of Settlements Between Insured and Uninsured Periods

March 28, 2022 — Patricia B. Santelle & Frank J. Perch, III - White and Williams LLP
In Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jenkins Bros., 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1846 (App.Div. 1st Dept. March 22, 2022), the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, issued a ruling reversing the trial court and holding that an insurer was entitled to allocate a portion of asbestos claim settlements it negotiated to time periods when its dissolved insured was without coverage. The decision overturns a trial court ruling that the insurer was barred from denying liability for the full amount of the settlements because the insurer had become the “real party in interest” as a result of a prior court order directing it to accept service of process on behalf of a dissolved insured. The trial court held that the insurer stood in the shoes of the insured for all purposes by accepting service and negotiating settlements, and was therefore estopped from denying liability for the full amount of the settlements. Reprinted courtesy of Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams LLP and Frank J. Perch, III, White and Williams LLP Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Perch may be contacted at perchf@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

United States Supreme Court Backtracks on Recent Trajectory Away from Assertions of General Jurisdiction in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern

August 01, 2023 — Charles S. Anderson - Lewis Brisbois
Washington, D.C. (June 28, 2023) – On June 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a sharply divided opinion that appears to backtrack on the Court’s steady trajectory away from assertions of general jurisdiction in recent years, e.g. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011), Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, 2017, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017). Relying on a case from 1917, Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U. S. 93 (1917), Justice Gorsuch, writing on behalf of the plurality, (Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, Sotomayor, and Jackson) (Justice Alito concurring) found that Norfolk Southern “consented” to jurisdiction in Mallory via 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5301(a)(2)(i),(b) by registering to do business in Pennsylvania. This statute, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5301, specifically permits jurisdiction over a corporation “incorporat[ed] under or qualifi[ed]as a foreign corporation under the laws of this Commonwealth … for any cause of action that may asserted against him, whether or not arising from acts enumerated in this section.” In Pennsylvania Fire, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution in connection with a Missouri law that required an out-of-state insurance company desiring to transact any business in the state to file paperwork agreeing to (1) appoint a state official to serve as the company’s agent for service of process and (2) accept service on that official as valid in any suit. After more than a decade of complying with the law, Pennsylvania Fire was served with process and argued that the Missouri law violated due process. The Court unanimously found that there was “no doubt” that Pennsylvania Fire could be sued in Missouri because it had agreed to accept service of process in Missouri on any suit as a condition of doing business there. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Charles S. Anderson, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Anderson may be contacted at Charles.Anderson@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Not So Fast, My Friend: Pacing and Concurrent Delay

April 25, 2022 — William E. Underwood - ConsensusDocs
When critical path activities are delayed by the owner (or another party), contractors will sometimes “pace,” or slow down, other activities to match the owner-caused delay. After all, why should the contractor hurry up and wait? But paced activities can often appear as concurrent delays on a project’s overall schedule. And all too often, contractors fail to contemporaneously document their efforts to pace work. Not only can this create avoidable disputes with owners and other contractors, but it can also create future roadblocks to the recovery of delay damages. This article examines the interplay between pacing and concurrent delay[1] and what contractors should do to minimize risk and preserve their rights to obtain more than a simple time extension for project delays. Pacing versus Concurrent Delay As a basic matter, most contracts allocate responsibility/liability for a schedule delay to the party that caused the delay. For example, if an owner is contractually required to provide equipment for a contractor to install, then the owner likely bears responsibility for any delays caused if the equipment is delivered late. If, however, the contractor was also behind schedule on other activities during this time and the project would have been delayed regardless of the owner’s late deliveries, then the delay is probably concurrent. And the contractor will generally be entitled to only an extension of time, and no other monetary relief. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William E. Underwood, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Underwood may be contacted at wunderwood@joneswalker.com

---

Construction Law Client Alert: California Is One Step Closer to Prohibiting Type I Indemnity Agreements In Private Commercial Projects

June 15, 2011 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP

On June 1, 2011 by majority vote, the California Senate passed Senate Bill 474, which would amend Civil Code section 2782, and add Civil Code section 2782.05. The passage of this new law is a critical development for real estate developers, general contractors and subcontractors because it will affect how these projects are insured and how disputes are resolved.



Civil Code section 2782 was amended in 2007 to prohibit Type I indemnity agreements for residential projects only. Since 2007, various trade associations and labor unions have lobbied to expand those very same restrictions to other projects. These new provisions apply to contracts, entered into after January 1, 2013, that are not for residential projects, and that are not executed by a public entity. The revisions provide that any provision in a contract purporting to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend another for their negligence or other fault is against public policy and void. These provisions cannot be waived.



A provision in a contract requiring additional insured coverage is also void and unenforceable to the extent it would be prohibited under the new law. Moreover, the new law does not apply to wrap-up insurance policies or programs, or a cause of action for breach of contract or warranty that exists independently of the indemnity obligation.



The practical impact of this new law is that greater participation in wrap-up insurance programs will likely result. While many wrap-up programs suffer from problems such as insufficient limits, and disputes about funding the self-insured retention, the incentive for the developer or general contractor to utilize wrap-up insurance will be greater than ever before because they will no longer be able to spread the risk of the litigation to the trades and the trade carriers.



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Steve Cvitanovic of Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP.

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

---

Haight Proudly Supports JDC's 11th Annual Bike-A-Thon Benefitting Pro Bono Legal Services

July 21, 2018 — Stephen M. Tye - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight proudly donates to the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Association of San Francisco’s 11th Annual “Ride for Justice” in support of San Francisco attorney Stephen M. Tye. This is Mr. Tye’s second year participating in the JDC’s Bike-A-Thon, which raises funds to provide pro bono legal services programs that provide access to justice for thousands of San Franciscans every year. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com

---

Health Officials Concerned About Lead-Tainted Dust Created by Detroit Home Demolitions

August 20, 2018 — Engineering News-Record
DETROIT (AP) — The nation's largest home-demolition program, which has torn down more than 14,000 vacant houses across Detroit , may have inadvertently created a new problem by spreading lead-contaminated dust through some of the city's many hollowed-out neighborhoods. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

---

Construction Litigation Roundup: “It’s One, Two… Eight Strikes: You’re Out!”

May 28, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
In a matter handled by this writer and the Phelps firm for various insurance companies, the insurers sought to be extricated from a $51,000,000+ arbitration and prevailed, securing a preliminary injunction from a federal district court in New Orleans. The dispute centers on the contract between the designer for the new terminal facility at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport and a claim by the airport board against the designer team as well as the insurers for the designers. The principal design contract – to which the insurers were not parties – contains an arbitration clause. The airport board initiated an American Arbitration Association arbitration against the designers and their insurers, and the insurers sought relief from the court. 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

---

Impasse Over Corruption Charges Costs SNC $3.7 Billion, CEO Says

January 08, 2019 — Frederic Tomesco - Bloomberg
Canada’s failure to reach a negotiated settlement with SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. over past corruption charges has probably cost the company more than C$5 billion ($3.7 billion) in lost revenue and continues to damage its reputation internationally, Chief Executive Officer Neil Bruce said. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Frederic Tomesco, Bloomberg

---