Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Court Finds That SIR Requirements are Not Incorporated into High Level Excess Policies and That Excess Insurers’ Payment of Defense Costs is Not Conditioned on Actual Liability

April 22, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Deere & Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (No. A145170, filed 2/25/19), a California appeals court held that the insured was not required to pay additional self-insured retentions (SIRs) in order to trigger higher level excess coverage because the retained limits applicable to the first layer of coverage did not also apply to the higher-layer excess policies. In Deere, the insured was sued for injuries from alleged exposure to asbestos-containing assemblies used in Deere machines. In a declaratory relief action against its umbrella and excess insurers, the case was tried on: (1) whether the higher-layer excess policies were triggered once the first-layer excess policy limits, which were subject to an SIR paid by Deere, had been exhausted; and (2) whether the insurers’ indemnity obligation extended to Deere’s defense costs incurred in asbestos claims that had been dismissed. The trial court found in favor of the insurers, concluding that the retained limits in the first layer of coverage also applied to the higher-layer excess, which was not triggered until Deere paid additional SIRs. The court also concluded that the insurers were not obligated to pay defense costs when underlying cases were dismissed without payment to a claimant either by judgment or settlement. Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

2020s Most Read Construction Law Articles

January 25, 2021 — ConsensusDocs
2020 was . . . well . . . well it was memorable. Among many other things, construction was recognized as essential and ConsensusDocs published industry firsts in addressing prefabricated construction and lean for design-build, as well as 8 comprehensively revised performance and payment bonds. We also saw unprecedented readership of our construction law newsletter. As we celebrate the end of 2020 and wish you a happy new year, we continue a new a tradition of recognizing the below most read construction law articles of the year. The ConsensusDocs Team. 5. Level 10 Construction v. Sea World LLC: Can Force Majeure Save Sea World? By: Jamey B. Collidge Associate, Troutman Pepper. 4. The Designer’s Pre-bid Standard Of Care In A Design-Build Project By: Joshua A. Morehouse Associate, Peckar & Abramson P.C. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims

February 10, 2020 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
Is an insured (or putative insured) entitled to recover its legal expenses if it is successful in coverage litigation? In some states, no. In many other states, yes – based on either a statute or the common law. In New York, an insured may recover such expenses if it was “cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations,” and, while forced into that posture, the insured defeats the insurer’s claim. Mighty Midgets, Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 389 N.E.2d 1080, 1085 (N.Y. 1979). As a corollary to that rule, the insured is not entitled to its expenses “in an affirmative action brought by [the insured] to settle its rights. . . .” Id. at 1085. Earlier this week, the New York federal court in United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Lux Maint. & Ren. Corp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2019) became the latest to apply the Mighty Midgets rule, awarding several insureds their legal expenses after defeating the insurer’s declaratory judgment action. In Lux, the CGL insurer of a façade-renovation contractor sued the contractor (its named insured) and several owners of a hospital (putative additional insureds) at which the façade-renovation work took place, claiming that the insurer did not owe a defense or indemnity to any of those companies in connection with an underlying bodily injury action brought by an employee of the contractor who was injured while performing the work. The insurer and the putative additional insureds filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the coverage issues, with the putative additional insureds also seeking to recover their legal expenses for defending against the insurer’s action. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that, based on the contractor’s agreement to provide coverage for the hospital owners, and a comparison between the underlying allegations and the policy, the insurer owed the hospital owners coverage as additional insureds to the contractor’s policy; the court also concluded that the insurer owed coverage for the contractor’s contractual defense and indemnity obligations to the hospital owners. After concluding that the insurer’s claim that it did not owe coverage lacked merit, the court turned to the additional insureds’ request for their legal expenses. The court examined the “well settled” rule under New York law “that an insured cannot recover his legal expenditure in a dispute with an insurer over coverage, even if the insurer loses and is obligated to provide coverage,” but also New York’s “limited exception” to that rule, “under which an insured who is ‘cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations, and who prevails on the merits, may recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against the insurer’s action.’ ” Lux, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805, at *18 (quoting Mighty Midgets, 389 N.E.2d at 1085). Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Real Property Alert: Recording Notice of Default as Trustee Before Being Formally Made the Trustee Does Not Make Foreclosure Sale Void

February 18, 2015 — Krsto Mijanovic and Annette F. Mijanovic – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Ram, et al. v. OneWest Bank, FSB, et al. (filed 2/6/15, No. A139055), the California Court of Appeal held that a nonjudicial foreclosure sale is not void merely because the notice of default was recorded by an entity who had not yet been substituted as trustee. The court also held that because the sale was voidable, rather than void, the plaintiffs were required to allege an ability and willingness to tender their debt in addition to alleging that they were prejudiced by the irregularity in the foreclosure process. Plaintiffs were borrowers who purchased a home subject to a deed of trust. After they defaulted on their loan, nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings were initiated, and the beneficiary of the deed of trust, OneWest Bank, FSB ("OneWest"), purchased the property at the foreclosure sale. Plaintiffs sued OneWest and other entities for wrongful foreclosure, alleging that the sale was void because the entity identified as the trustee on the notice of default, Aztec Foreclosure Corporation ("Aztec"), had not been formally substituted as trustee until after the notice of default was recorded. The trial court sustained OneWest's demurrer and plaintiff appealed. Reprinted courtesy of Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Annette F. Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Mijanovic may be contacted at amijanovic@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Four Dead After Crane Collapses at Google’s Seattle Campus

July 29, 2019 — The Associated Press (Lisa Baumann & Nicholas K. Geranios) - Bloomberg
Seattle (AP) -- Four people died and three were injured when a construction crane on the new Google Seattle campus collapsed Saturday, pinning six cars underneath. One female and three males were dead by the time firefighters got to the scene, Fire Chief Harold Scoggins said. Two of the dead were ironworkers, not crane operators, as had been previously stated, and the two others were people who had been in cars, Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan said Saturday night. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

Michigan Lawmakers Pass $4.7B Infrastructure Spending Bill

April 11, 2022 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
Michigan lawmakers have passed legislation appropriating $4.7 billion for state infrastructure, including more than $1 billion for various water projects.About $750 million will go toward drinking water infrastructure such as projects to replace lead service lines or remove contaminants like PFA substances, potentially harmful chemicals used in industrial and consumer products that are have been found in water. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Goes Green in Orange County

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Construction has completed on ParkLanding, which is the first residential project in Orange County with a green roof. Developed in partnership with the City of Buena Park Redevelopment Agency, the project replaces an abandoned 2-acre site with affordable apartments. The design was done by Newport Beach-based Newman Garrison + Partners. During the design process, attention was paid to sustainable element, including better performing insulation, and more efficient HVAC, electrical, and plumbing systems. The development was designed with the intention of achieving a LEED Gold rating. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Court-Side Seat: Coal-Fired Limitations, the Search for a Venue Climate Change and New Agency Rules that May or May Not Stick Around

February 15, 2021 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
This is a brief review of recent significant environmental and administrative law rulings and developments. With the change in presidential administrations, the fate of at least some of the newly promulgated rules is uncertain. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT BP PLC v. City and County of Baltimore On January 19, 2021, the Court heard oral argument in BP PLC v. City and County of Baltimore. The respondents filed a Greenhous Gas Climate Change lawsuit in state court, alleging that BP, like other energy companies, is liable for significant damage caused by the sale and promotion of petroleum products while knowing that the use of these products and the resulting release of greenhouse gases damages the environment and public property. Several similar lawsuits have been filed in state courts, pleading common law violations as well as trespass and nuisance law violations The energy companies have tried, unsuccessfully to date, to remove these cases to federal court. The petitioners argue that the federal removal statutes allow the federal courts of appeal to review the lower court’s remand, thus opening the possibility that some of the issues presented in these cases can be tried in federal court, presumably a friendlier forum. A decision on this procedural issue should be rendered in a few months. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES