FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Not Just Another Client Alert about Cyber-Risk and Effective Cybersecurity Insurance Regulatory Guidance

April 01, 2015 — Robert Ansehl – White and Williams LLP
The prefix "cyber" was coined about 70 years ago to describe early stage computers, computer networks and virtual reality. Since then, the term has been used as a prefix for hundreds of words, however, the most recent (and newsworthy) usage is its link to the word “risk” and the correlative term “security.” Two sides of the same coin and not a day goes by when a data breach is not reported and the importance of cyber risk and cybersecurity underscored. Insurers, like other financial institutions, are at the forefront of the “cyber-curve.” Many insurers are particularly vulnerable on at least two fronts: (1) from a cyber risk/ cyber invasion perspective and; (2) an insurer’s insurance policy exposure, intentional and not, to third-parties under cyber policies, and even policies such as CGLs that may inadvertently cover such risks. A number of federal and state regulators have spoken to this issue in an effort to address cyber risks with varying degrees of specificity. At last count, in addition to a myriad of existing and proposed state laws and regulations, there are at least nine federal Bills under consideration by Congress (covering six federal agencies including one new agency) that seek to impose regulatory requirements upon the cyber-arena. Those Bills empower six regulatory agencies; including one new agency. Initially, some states required companies to notify affected persons of a data breach. As breaches became more serious, state and federal regulators sought to increase the industry’s awareness of the potential exposures and provided instructions on appropriate steps to protect data from cyber invasions. Now, state insurance regulators are examining not only the threat of data theft, but the balance sheet impact of insurance exposures for underwriting such risks for third-parties’ under cyber risk policies. The regulatory efforts continue to multiply in an effort to stem some of these risks. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert Ansehl, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ansehl may be contacted at ansehlr@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Mediation v. Arbitration, Both Private Dispute Resolution but Very Different Sorts

January 24, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I often get calls from clients, potential construction clients, and other construction and business professionals with questions about arbitration or mediation clauses in the contracts that they are reviewing or drafting. When I get these calls, it often becomes clear that, understandably, there is some confusion as to what each of these alternate dispute resolution processes entails. I thought I’d put together a quick primer on what each is and their differences. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Reminder: Pay if Paid Not All Encompassing (but Could it be?)

December 09, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
On numerous occasions, I have discussed the need to be careful with so called “pay if paid” clauses in construction contracts. While such clauses are enforceable in Virginia (when phrased correctly), there are exceptions and limitations (for instance in the Miller Act context). One such exception (that I frankly would have thought to be obvious) is that such clauses do not protect a general contractor from paying all subcontractors. Such a clause only protects a general contractor from payment to those subs for whose work the general contractor has not been paid. In other words, if a general contractor has been paid by an owner for a particular subcontractors work, it cannot use the pay if paid clause to deny payment even in the event that other subcontractors were deficient in their work or the owner has failed to pay the general contractor in full. In Precision Contractors Inc. v. Masterbuilt Companies Inc. (PDF) the Fairfax, VA Circuit Court reiterated this principal stating that nothing in the contract suggests that either party to the lawsuit had any intention to shift the risk of non-payment by the owner or non-performance of other subcontractors to the plaintiff (Precision). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Haight Brown & Bonesteel Ranked on the 2017 "Best Law Firms" List by U.S. News - Best Lawyers

November 10, 2016 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
U.S. News – Best Lawyers® ranked Haight Brown & Bonesteel on the 2017 “Best Law Firms” list in the Metropolitan Tier 1 Ranking in Los Angeles for their defense work in insurance law and personal injury litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

North Dakota Court Determines Inadvertent Faulty Workmanship is an "Occurrence"

May 10, 2013 — Tred Eyerly
Joining what it called the majority of jurisdictions, the North Dakota Supreme Court found that damage caused by faulty workmanship can be an "occurrence." K&L Homes, Inc. v. Am. Family Mutual Ins. Co., 2013 N.D. LEXIS 61 (N.D. April 5, 2013). The insured, K&L, was a general contractor who was sued after completing construction of a new home. The suit was based upon breach of contract and breach of implied warranties claims. The homeowners alleged that improper compacting of soil had caused shifting of their home, leading to property damage. K&L had hired a subcontractor to do the soil compaction work. The insurer denied coverage. K&L sued the insurer, but lost at the summary judgment stage. On appeal, K&L argued the policy should be interpreted to give effect to the document as a whole and the "subcontractor exception" to the "your work" exclusion should apply. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Hydrogen Powers Its Way from Proof of Concept to Reality in Real Estate

May 10, 2021 — Victoria Judd, Sidney L. Fowler & Robert G. Howard - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Hydrogen is the new buzzword in every industry, and real estate is no exception. Hydrogen does not emit carbon dioxide when burnt and could therefore help reduce the climate impact of buildings, which in aggregate represent one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases after industry and surface transport. To the extent that hydrogen is to become an important power source globally, it will need to enter the domestic power market. The first step appears to be the development of pilot villages. In the UK, there are several hydrogen trials in uninhabited properties or in closed private networks. There are some uninhabited houses on a Royal Air Force base in Cumbria that are exclusively heated with hydrogen and also a private gas network at Keele University which uses 20 percent hydrogen blended with natural gas. In addition, there is a small village near Newcastle that is being used as a test case: for a period of 10 months starting in spring 2021, up to 20 percent hydrogen will be blended into the natural gas network so that more than 650 homes can be partially heated by hydrogen. It is expected that a small number of additional villages will be able to heat their homes with 100 percent hydrogen as soon as 2022, with a scale up to have a hydrogen town by 2030. Reprinted courtesy of Victoria Judd, Pillsbury, Sidney L. Fowler, Pillsbury and Robert G. Howard, Pillsbury Ms. Judd may be contacted at victoria.judd@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Fowler may be contacted at sidney.fowler@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Howard may be contacted at robert.howard@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

They Say Nothing Lasts Forever, but What If Decommissioning Does?

June 10, 2019 — Stella Pulman - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
The looming decommissioning liabilities of offshore energy producers have been a focus of the federal government in recent years. One recent case out of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Taylor Energy v. United States, highlights the tension between the federal government’s desire to maintain financial security for decommissioning activities, and that of an operator whose security is tied up indefinitely while the government awaits technological advances to allow for safe decommissioning. The case relates to a trust agreement between Taylor Energy and the United States, established to secure Taylor’s decommissioning liabilities for 28 wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Taylor completed certain decommissioning work for which it was reimbursed by the trust. However, with over $400 million remaining in the trust, Taylor and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) concluded that the ecological benefits of further decommissioning would be outweighed by the ecological risks. But despite recognizing that the limitations of current technology made the environmental impacts of further decommissioning work unjustifiable, the BSEE declined to release Taylor from its decommissioning obligations and instead decided to await “changes in technology and a better understanding of the undersea environment.” Because Taylor’s decommissioning obligations remained in place, the U.S. refused to release the remaining funds in the trust. Taylor claimed that the United States should release the remaining funds in the trust because “decommissioning the remaining wells is not ‘currently technologically feasible.’” Taylor asserted that Louisiana law applied to the trust agreement, and that under Louisiana law every contract must be completed within an ascertainable term. By holding the trust funds until decommissioning was complete, Taylor argued that the government was essentially holding the funds in perpetuity given the technological infeasibility of completing decommissioning. Taylor also asserted that the agreement was premised on an impossibility (the full decommissioning of the wells), and/or a mutual mistake of the parties (that the wells could be decommissioned). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stella Pulman, Pillsbury
Ms. Pulman may be contacted at stella.pulman@pillsburylaw.com

---

Battle of Experts Cannot Be Decided on Summary Judgment

June 13, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
When two competing experts disagreed on the cause of the loss, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the insurer. Garcia v. Firs Community Ins. Co., Fla. App. LEXIS 4237 (Fla. Ct. App. March 28, 2018). Garcia, the homeowner, discovered water damage in his home, allegedly due to a roof leak. Garcia notified his insurer, First Community Insurance Company. A forensic engineer, Ivette Acosta, was retained by First Community to inspect the property. After the inspection, coverage was denied. The homeowner's policy covered direct loss to property only if the loss was a physical loss. Loss caused by ""rain snow, sleet, sand or dust to the interior of a building was excluded unless a covered peril first damaged the building causing an opening in a roof or wall and the rain, snow, sleet, sand or dust enters through this opening." Loss caused by wear and tear, marring, or deterioration was also excluded. 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

---