Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Alabama Court Upholds Late Notice Disclaimer

August 20, 2018 — Brian Margolies - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In its recent decision in Evanston Ins. Co. v. Yeager Painting, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130316 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 3, 2018), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama had occasion to consider an insured’s reporting obligations under a general liability policy. Evanston’s insured, Yeager, was hired to sandblast water tanks, and in turn, subcontracted out the work to a third party. On May 19, 2012, an employee of the subcontractor was severely injured in connection with a work-site accident. It is not entirely clear when Yeager provided notice of occurrence to Evanston, although Evanston advised by letter dated January 30, 2013 that it would be further investigating the matter subject to a reservation of rights. Evanston subsequently denied coverage by letter dated April 10, 2013, the disclaimer based on a subcontractor exclusion on the policy. Notably, Evanston’s letter advised that Yeager should immediately contact Evanston if any facts changed or if it had any additional information concerning the matter. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

California’s Fifth Appellate District Declares the “Right to Repair Act” the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims

September 03, 2015 — Stephen A. Sunseri – Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLP
August 26, 2015 - The Fifth Appellate District ruled SB800 (California's "Right to Repair Act" [the "Act"]) provides the sole remedy for homeowners in construction defect actions. The court found "no other cause of action is allowed to recover for repair of the defect itself or for repair of any damage caused by the defect." (McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court of California (Aug. 26, 2015, No. F069370) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2015 WL 5029324].) The court issued a blistering criticism of the Fourth Appellate District's prior opinion in Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, which severely limited the reach of the Act to actions not involving property damage and allowing property damage claims to proceed freely under common law without any constraints posed by the Act. In McMillin, the court reviewed whether a homeowner was required to follow the Act's prelitigation procedures even after dismissing a cause of action arising under the Act. In deciding the issue, the court quoted directly from the first line of the Act (Civ. Code § 896) and found "[i]n any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction … , the claimant's claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of" the standards set out in the Act. The court recognized the statutory exceptions to this rule, such as for claims arising under contract, or any action for fraud, personal injuries, or statutory violations. (Civ. Code., § 943.) However, this result directly conflicts with the Fourth Appellate District's decision in Liberty Mutual, which found homeowners can circumvent the entire Act by simply alleging property damage claims. McMillin rejects Liberty Mutual's "reasoning and outcome" as being inconsistent with the express language of the Act. McMillin found that Liberty Mutual failed to fully analyze the statutory language of the Act, which (on its face) limits any action for construction deficiencies to the requirements of the Act. McMillin concludes the Legislature intended that all construction defect actions (for new residences sold on or after January 1, 2003), are subject to the requirements of the Act, including the prelitigation procedures, regardless of whether a complaint expressly alleges a cause of action under the Act or not. McMillin is a great victory for homebuilders, but battle lines are now clearly drawn between the two appellate districts. McMillin directly conflicts with Liberty Mutual, and because of this conflict, the issue will need to be resolved by the California Supreme Court. Until such review is granted, the conflict will remain and trial courts will likely continue to conflate the issue. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephen A. Sunseri, Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLP
Mr. Sunseri may be contacted at ssunseri@gdandb.com

Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s

January 04, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As any reader of this construction law blog knows, mechanic’s liens make up much of the discussion here at Construction Law Musings. A recent case out of Fairfax County, Virginia examined the question of whether contractual privity between the general contractor and owner of the property at issue is necessary. As a reminder, in most situations, for a contract claim to be made, the claimant has to have a direct contract (privity) with the entity it sues. Further, for a subcontractor to have a valid mechanic’s lien it would have to have privity with the general contractor or with the Owner. The Fairfax case, The Barber of Seville, Inc. v. Bironco, Inc., examined the question of whether contractual privity is necessary between the general contractor and the Owner. In Bironco, the claimant, Bironco, performed certain improvements for a barbershop pursuant to a contract executed by the two owners of the Plaintiff. We wouldn’t have the case here at Musings if Bironco had been paid in full. Bironco then recorded a lien against the leasehold interest of The Barber of Seville, Inc., the entity holding the lease. The Plaintiff filed an action seeking to have the lien declared invalid because Brionco had privity of contract with the individuals that executed the contract, but not directly with the corporate entity. 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

The Contingency Fee Multiplier (For Insurance Coverage Disputes)

September 10, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The contingency fee multiplier: a potential incentive for taking a case on contingency, such as an insurance coverage dispute, where the insured sues his/her/its insurer on a contingency fee basis. In a recent property insurance coverage dispute, Citizens Property Ins. Corp. v. Agosta, 43 Fla.L.Weekly, D1934b (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), the trial court awarded the insured’s counsel a contingency fee multiplier of two times the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees. The insurer appealed. The Third District affirmed the contingency fee multiplier. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Seller Faces Federal Charges for Lying on Real Estate Disclosure Forms

October 02, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Homeowners Glenn and Kathryn Jasen allegedly mislead buyers Kelly Magbee and family when they checked “no” on questions regarding sinkhole activity on real estate disclosure forms, according to On Your Side News. Furthermore, “Citizens Property Insurance Co. failed to file a sinkhole certification on a Spring Hill home in 2009. The company slipped the form into county records five years later- in Sept. 2014 – after questions from 8 On Your Side.” If the insurance company had filed the sinkhole documentation, then the Magbees would have been told about the sinkhole prior to the purchase of the home. According to On Your Side News, Magbee and family moved out of the home “after a crack opened in the living room.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives First Tier Ranking by U.S. News and World Reports

December 02, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Ok, it may not be an Oscar, or even an Emmy, but we’re humbled and honoured just the same. Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group has received a first-tier ranking by the U.S. News and World Reports in its 2016 Best Law Firms rankings. This is the third year in a row that the firm’s Construction Practice Group has received this honor. Joining it on stage is the firm’s Real Estate, Bankruptcy, and Real Estate Litigation practices which also received first-tier rankings and the firm’s Land Use practice which received a second-tier ranking. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

San Francisco Office Secures Defense Verdict in Legal Malpractice Action

November 25, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
San Francisco, Calif. (October 31, 2024) - After a ten-day jury trial in San Francisco Superior Court, Partner Alex Graft recently secured a defense verdict in a legal malpractice action arising out of underlying litigation with the claimants’ homeowners association. The claimants alleged his client attorneys negligently advised them that the terms of the settlement agreement would result in the creation of a so-called independent board of directors for the homeowners association. It did not come to fruition. After the attorneys withdrew, they sued for their outstanding fees, which elicited a cross-complaint alleging malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Client Alert: Design Immunity Affirmative Defense Not Available to Public Entities Absent Evidence of Pre-Accident Discretionary Approval of the Plan or Design

April 15, 2014 — R. Bryan Martin & Melinda M. Carrido – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On April 8, 2014, in Martinez v. County of Ventura, Case No. B24476, the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal reversed the jury's defense verdict for the County of Ventura, holding that the County's evidence in support of its Design Immunity defense to a public property dangerous condition claim was insufficient as a matter of law. Plaintiff filed suit against the County of Ventura (the "County") after sustaining paraplegic injuries when his motorcycle struck an asphalt berm abutting a raised drain (the top-hat drain system) on a road in the County. The drain system consisted of a heavy steel cover on three legs elevated eight to ten inches off the ground, with a sloped asphalt berm to channel water into the drain. Plaintiff alleged that the top-hat drain system constituted a dangerous condition of public property pursuant to California Government Code section 835. Under this Section, a public entity is liable for "injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury sustained, and the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition a sufficient time before the injury to have taken preventative measures." The jury found the top-hat drain system constituted a dangerous condition of public property. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Melinda M. Carrido, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Carrido may be contacted at mcarrido@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES