Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Strikes a Deathblow to Substantial Factor Causation in Most Cases; Is Asbestos Litigation Next?

March 22, 2021 — Christian J. Singewald, Rochelle Gumapac & Timothy J. Keough - White and Williams LLP
In Doull v. Foster, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) addressed the proper causation standard in a medical malpractice case. In reaching this issue, the SJC reached far beyond the medical malpractice case before it. The SJC concluded that the substantial factor test for causation, which had been regularly employed in the Commonwealth for decades, was “unnecessarily confusing.” In doing so, the SJC effectively ended the use of the substantial factor test in all negligence cases going forward, except in toxic tort litigation. However, the SJC openly questioned its usefulness in toxic tort litigation and all but welcomed a direct challenge to its use there. Reprinted courtesy of Christian J. Singewald, White and Williams LLP, Rochelle Gumapac, White and Williams LLP and Timothy J. Keough, White and Williams LLP Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Gumapac may be contacted at gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Keough may be contacted at keought@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Tender the Defense of a Lawsuit to your Liability Carrier

January 19, 2017 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
Sometimes you come across a head scratcher. This would be a decision that does not seem to make a whole lot of sense. For instance, if you are sued and you maintain liability insurance that would potentially provide you a defense and indemnification, not notifying your insurance carrier is a head scratcher. You pay substantial dollars towards the premium of that policy. So, not then notifying your carrier about a lawsuit is a head scratcher, and I mean a head scratcher!! If you are sued, not only should the carrier be notified, but the defense of that lawsuit should be tendered to your liability carrier. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

New Opportunities for “Small” Construction Contractors as SBA Adjusts Its Size Standards Again Due to Unprecedented Inflation

September 11, 2023 — Hanna Lee Blake - ConsensusDocs
Thanks to the SBA’s November 17, 2022 adjustments to the size standards and monetary thresholds, a number of construction contractors will be able to retain their “small” status, and more contractors may benefit from federal assistance, programs, and contracts earmarked for “small” concerns. In the SBA’s view, small businesses should not lose their “small” status due solely to price level increases rather than from increases in business activity. It is anticipated that federal agencies may choose to set aside more construction contracts for competition among small businesses given the greater number of businesses that may be deemed “small” as a result of the SBA’s recent rule. In light of this, small construction contractors should consider whether it is prudent to register or update their existing profiles in the System for Award Management (SAM) to participate in federal contracting. The SBA’s Statutory Mandate The Small Business Act of 1953 (P.L. 83-163, as amended) authorized the SBA and justified the agency’s existence on the grounds that small businesses are essential to the maintenance of the free enterprise system. The congressional intent was to assist small businesses as a means to deter monopoly and oligarchy formation within all industries and the market failures caused by the elimination or reduction of competition in the marketplace. Congress delegated to the SBA the responsibility to establish size standards to ensure that only small businesses were provided SBA assistance. Since that time, the SBA has analyzed various economic factors, such as each industry’s overall competitiveness and the competitiveness of firms within each industry, to set its size standards. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hanna Lee Blake, Watt Tieder
Ms. Blake may be contacted at hblake@watttieder.com

The Law of Patent v Latent Defects

March 19, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Candice B. Macario of Gordon & Rees LLP analyzed the case Delon Hampton & Associates, Chartered v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles, and stated that “[i]n his case, a design professional successfully challenged a construction defect lawsuit brought against them, on the basis that the defect complained of was open and obvious and the County had ran out of time to bring their action.” Macario recommended “as lawsuits are filed close to the ten year statute of repose, one area to explore in a single issue case is if you can eliminate a cause of action based on patent defects. Moreover, in multi-issue cases for several construction defects, parties should always be aware of analyzing whether issues can be identified as patent and perhaps used as a tool in negotiations, settlement discussions or pre-trial motions.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Coverage Exists for Landlord as Additional Insured

September 03, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Indiana Court of Appeals determined the landlord was entitled to coverage as an additional insured under the tenant's policy. Selective Ins. Co. v. Erie Ins. Exch., 2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 365 (Ind. Ct. App. July 30, 2014). Rangeline, LLC owned a warehouse. Rangeline negotiated a lease with Hammons Storage to store insulation manufactured by Knauf Insulation. Pursuant to requirements in the lease, Hammons secured liability coverage with Erie Insurance naming Rangeline as an additional insured. After Hammons moved insulation into the warehouse for storage, the pipes of the sprinkler system burst, causing damage to the insulation. The cause of the loss was determined to be water from the system freezing, which led to the cast iron fittings cracking, causing the failure of the sprinkler heads. 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

Colorado Nearly Triples Damages Caps for Cases Filed in 2025, Allows Siblings to File Wrongful Death Claims

July 22, 2024 — Amy Johnson - Lewis Brisbois
Denver, Colo. (June 13, 2024) - On June 3, 2024, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed HB24-1472 to increase the damages caps for personal injury and wrongful death claims. The law nearly triples the amounts available to plaintiffs, which will continue to increase for inflationary adjustments beginning in 2028 and every two years thereafter. These new damages caps affect not only claims that accrue in 2025 and beyond, but they also change the caps for any civil cases filed on or after January 1, 2025. This law was enacted as a compromise to a ballot measure that would have removed any cap on damages. The new caps are as follows:

The cap on noneconomic damages for personal injuries will be $1.5 million.
The cap on noneconomic damages for wrongful death will be $2.125 million.

Plaintiffs are likely to delay filing new actions through the rest of 2024 as long as they are not up against a statute of limitations deadline. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Amy Johnson, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Johnson may be contacted at Amy.Johnson@lewisbrisbois.com

Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion

October 26, 2020 — Philip B. Wilusz & Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Those of us who suffered through law school are familiar with the argument that there are fundamental rules applicable to contract interpretation and that a certain contract language interpretation would “swallow the rule.” However, insurance companies have long advocated for an interpretation of the CGL policy’s pollution exclusion that would “swallow the coverage” that the insureds thought they were purchasing. Insurers have successfully argued in several states that the pollution exclusion’s definition of “pollutant” should be read literally, and be applied to any “solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste.” As anyone with children can attest to, the range of items and substances that can be considered an “irritant” is limitless. The logical extent of the insurer’s interpretation brings to mind the high school student who, for his science fair project, convinced his fellow students to ban “dihydrogen monoxide.”1 Citing evidence such as the fact that everyone who has ever died was found to have consumed “dihydrogen monoxide,” he convinced them of the dangers of . . . water. Similarly, an overly expansive reading of the definition of “pollutant” could lead to the absurd result of even applying it to ubiquitous harmless substances such as water. The pollution exclusion, therefore, has run amok in many states and has allowed insurers to avoid liability for otherwise covered claims. Fortunately, insureds in many states have successfully argued that the pollution exclusion is subject to a more limited interpretation based on several different theories. For example, some courts have agreed that the pollution exclusion, as initially introduced by the insurance industry, should be limited to instances of traditional environmental pollution. Others have held that the exclusion is ambiguous as to its interpretation. The reasonable expectations of the insureds do not support a broad reading of the defined term “pollutant.” Below, this article addresses a number of recent decisions that have adopted a pro policyholder interpretation of the pollution exclusion. As with most insurance coverage issues, choice of law clearly matters. Reprinted courtesy of Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Coverage for Construction Defects Under Arkansas Law

January 13, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court found there was no coverage for the insured contractor under Arkansas law when sued for construction defects by two homeowners. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Hambuchen Constr., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160364 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 18, 2016). In one case, the Pierces hired Hambuchen, the insured contractor for the construction of a new home, which was completed in 2006. Two years after moving in, the Pierces experienced water leaks at various locations inside the home and the basement flooded. Water damage rendered the back deck unstable. In 2010 and 2011, Hambuchen made repairs to stop leaks on the decks, but in 2012 the back deck again showed signs of water damage. The Pierces sued, and Auto-Owners provided a defense under a reservation of rights. In the second case, the Lessmanns hired Hambuchen in 2005 as general contractor to construct their new home. Following completion of the home, the Lessmanns complained about scratched windows. The Lessmanns filed suit against Hambuchen for breach of the construction contract by failing to build their home in a workmanlike manner. The Lessmanns filed suit in May 2009. Auto-Owners was not aware of the suit until 2015 when it received notice that the Lessmanns had filed an amended complaint. The Lessmans' suit went to trial and Hambuchen prevailed. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES