Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Connecticut Supreme Court to Review Several Issues in Asbestos Coverage Case

November 08, 2017 — Ciaran Way & Robert F. Walsh – White and Williams LLP
On October 18, 2017, in R.T. Vanderbilt Company v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, the Connecticut Supreme Court certified four issues for appeal, which relate to trigger, allocation, pollution exclusions, and the occupational disease exclusion in the context of asbestos bodily injury claims. This post identifies the issues the Connecticut Supreme Court will decide on appeal and sets forth the Appellate Court’s ruling on each issue. Issue 1: Whether a “continuous trigger” theory of coverage applies to asbestos-related disease claims and whether expert medical testimony on the timing of injury should be precluded The Appellate Court applied a continuous trigger, and found that the trial court properly excluded testimony from medical experts the insurers had proffered to prove that the asbestos disease process did not support a continuous trigger. Reprinted courtesy of Ciaran Way, White and Williams LLP and Robert Walsh, White and Williams LLP Ms. Way may be contacted at wayc@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Walsh may be contacted at walshr@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Lay Testimony Sufficient to Prove Diminution in Value

September 25, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The trial court erred in excluding lay testimony on diminution of value of the insured's property and by requiring expert testimony. Woodrum v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS 429 (Ga. Ct. App. June 27, 2018). During a thunderstorm, a large tree fell onto the roof the insured's house, causing significant damage. The damage was reported to their insurer, Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company. When there was disagreement on the amount of the loss, an appraisal was invoked. An award was agreed to and payment was made by Georgia Farm. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

New Mandatory Bond Notice Forms in Florida

December 16, 2019 — Brian A. Wolf & Miles D. Jolley - Smith Currie
Subcontractors and suppliers must now use new, statutory notice of nonpayment forms to preserve payment bond claims, and sign each notice of nonpayment under oath. The State of Florida instituted changes to the statutes governing public-project payment bonds (section 255.05, Florida Statutes) and private-project payment bonds (section 713.23, Florida Statutes). The changes went into effect on October 1, 2019. Previously, notices of nonpayment were not required to be signed under oath. Now, the law requires the use of specific statutory notice forms that claimants must sign under oath. Previously, there were no statutory penalties for claimants who exaggerated the amount claimed against a payment bond. Now there are specific statutory penalties against a claimant who willfully or negligently signs a notice of nonpayment that includes a claim for work not performed or materials not furnished, or who is guilty of signing a notice prepared with willful or gross negligence. Public construction payment bonds are governed by section 255.05, Florida Statues, also known as Florida’s Little Miller Act. This statute requires all payment bond claimants who don’t have a direct contract with the general contractor to serve both the bonding company and the general contractor with a notice of nonpayment no later than 90 days after their last date of work or last delivery of materials. The amended statute now requires that the claimant use the statutory notice form and sign the form under oath. If the claimant includes exaggerated claims, or intentionally makes a claim for work or materials not provided, or otherwise prepares a notice with gross negligence, then the bonding company and the general contractor will be able to use such as a complete defense to an otherwise valid bond claim. Reprinted courtesy of Brian A. Wolf, Smith Currie and Miles D. Jolley, Smith Currie Mr. Wolf may be contacted at bawolf@smithcurrie.com Mr. Jolley may be contacted at mdjolley@smithcurrie.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Reconciling Prompt Payments and Withholding of Retention Payments

March 30, 2016 — Eric J. Rollins, Esq. – Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
It is common in California for the owners of a project to make monthly payments to a contractor for work as it is completed, but withhold a certain percentage as a guarantee of future satisfactory performance. Contractors almost always pass these withholdings on to their subcontractors. Unsurprisingly, disputes can arise regarding when the withheld retentions must be paid. Civil Code section 8814, subdivision (a), states that a direct contractor must pay each subcontractor its share of a retention payment within ten days after receiving all or part of a retention payment. However, an exception exists -- a direct contractor may withhold from the retention paid to a subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount, whenever a “good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and a subcontractor.” (See Cal. Civ. Code, § 8814, subd. (c).) The problem with the statute is that it offers no help in defining a “good faith dispute,” and the California courts have historically not provided much guidance either. Can a “good faith dispute” be any dispute between the contracting parties, e.g., a dispute regarding change orders, mismanagement, etc.? Or must the dispute relate specifically to the retention? Unfortunately for California litigants, the answer may depend on the appellate district in which the parties find themselves. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric J. Rollins, Esq., Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
Mr. Rollins may be contacted at eric.rollins@ndlf.com

Purely “Compensatory” Debts Owed by Attorneys to Clients (Which Are Not Disciplinary or Punitive Fees Imposed by the State Bar) Are Dischargeable In Bankruptcy

April 28, 2016 — Renata L. Hoddinott & David W. Evans – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Scheer v. The State Bar of California (4/14/16 – Case no. 2:14-cv-04829-JFW) reversed the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s decision that a suspended attorney’s debt was nondischargeable in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7). In Scheer, the client (Clark) retained attorney Scheer to help modify his home mortgage loan. Clark paid Scheer $5,500 before any modification occurred. Clark then fired Scheer and sought return of the $5,500 under California’s mandatory attorney fee dispute arbitration program. An arbitrator concluded that, although Scheer performed competently, she violated California Civil Code §2944.7(a) by receiving advance fees for residential mortgage modification services. Although the arbitrator believed that Scheer’s violations were neither willful nor malicious, he concluded California law required a full refund of the improperly collected fees. Scheer made a few payments against the arbitration award but, claiming a lack of funds, failed to pay the outstanding balance. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion to Reject Claim for Construction Defects Upheld

August 15, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Third Circuit upheld the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the insurer on a claim seeking coverage for construction defects. Lenick Constr. v. Selective Way Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15197 (3d Cir. June 6, 2018). Westrum was the general contractor for a 92 unit development, and it subcontracted with Lenick to perform rough and finish carpentry and to install paneling, windows, and doors provided by the developer. After the project was completed, it was discovered that some units experienced water infiltration, leaks and cracked drywall. The condominium development sued Westrum, alleging contract and warranty claims. Westrum impleaded Lenick, asserting claims for breach of contract and indemnification. Lenick sought a defense from its insurer, Selective. Selective defended under a reservation of rights. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Deadlines. . . They’re Important. Project Owner Risks Losing Claim By Failing to Timely Identify “Doe” Defendant

December 21, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Earlier this year I filed a complaint in a court which I won’t identify other than to say that it wasn’t the San Francisco Superior Court. Immediately upon filing the complaint the Court gave notice of a trial date. As counsel for the party bringing the action, I appreciate this, as it eliminates the back and forth jostling that can sometimes occur when trying to get a trial date. Here’s the kicker though. While I appreciate getting a trial date straight out of the gate. The date I got was . . . wait for it . . . not until 2022! Those who litigate in California state courts know that the courts are understaffed and overworked. But you’ve got to give this un-named court credit for being upfront. Forget the “well, let’s see where this goes” niceties. Trial within a year? Fugetaboutit. Trial within a year and a half. Don’t even think about it. Trial within two years. It’s about as good as you’re going to get. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

When Do You Call Your Lawyer?

October 08, 2014 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
The National Association of Home Builders recently conducted a survey asking its members about the legal issues they faced in the last 12 months and whether they consulted their attorney to deal with the problem. Below are some highlights of the survey. Legal Issue % of Homebuilders % Contacted Counsel Warranty/call back claims 34% 51% Contract disputes 22% 84% Defective Install/Workmanship 20% 83% OSHA Issues 13% 33% CGL Coverage Questions 11% 73% Construction Liens 10% 57% Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES