Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Massachusetts Judge Holds That Insurer Breached Its Duty To Defend Lawsuit After Chemical Spill

October 16, 2018 — Lawrence J. Bracken, II & Alexander D. Russo - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A District Court Judge for the District of Massachusetts recently ruled that Ace Property and Casualty Insurance Co. breached its duty to defend its insured in a lawsuit brought by Plaistow Project, LLC, after a family owned laundromat leaked chemicals onto Plaistow Project’s property. Plaistow Project, LLC v. ACE Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 16-CV-11385-IT, 2018 WL 4357480, (D. Mass. Sept. 13, 2018). Plaistow Project sued State Line Laundry Services in state court, and ACE denied coverage under the pollution exclusion in State Line Laundry’s insurance policy. Plaistow Project then settled with State Line Laundry. Under the settlement terms, Plaistow Project was assigned State Line Laundry’s rights against ACE. In the subsequent coverage litigation, Plaistow Project alleged that ACE had breached its duty to defend State Line Laundry under its insurance policy. ACE argued that (1) the burden was on the policyholder to demonstrate that the policy’s “sudden and accidental” exception applied to the policy’s pollution exclusion; and (2) the policyholder could not show the “sudden and accidental” exception applied based on the complaint. Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence J. Bracken, II, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Alexander D. Russo, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Bracken, may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Mr. Russo may be contacted at arusso@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurers in New Jersey Secure a Victory on Water Damage Claims, But How Big a Victory Likely Remains to be Seen

April 03, 2019 — Kevin Sullivan - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
Property insurance policies commonly cover water damage caused by an accidental discharge or leakage of water from an on-site plumbing system and commonly exclude water damage caused by a sewer backup. So it’s not surprising that the cause of water damage is a common battleground between policyholders and insurers. In Salil v. Ohio Security Insurance Co., 2018 WL 6272930 (N.J. App. Div. Dec. 3, 2018), insurers scored a victory when the court held that the release of water and sewage into a restaurant was subject to a $25,000 sublimit for water damage caused by a sewer backup. But claims adjusters and policyholders confronted with water damage claims in New Jersey will no doubt continue to do battle over whether the Salil decision was a decisive victory for insurers or a limited one. In Salil, the insured landlord leased its building to a restaurant operator. After the insured’s tenant reported water and odor at the restaurant, the insured contacted a plumber, who informed the insured that a clog in the restaurant’s toilet caused Category 3 water to flow into the restaurant. The insured allegedly sustained approximately $160,000 in restoration costs and loss of business income. The plumber used a snake to clear the sewer line to remedy the issue. The restoration company confirmed the cause of the loss was a sewer back up. On this basis, the insurer determined that the cause of loss was a sewer backup. The policy excluded coverage for water damage caused by a sewer back-up, but an endorsement restored that coverage, subject to a $25,000 sub-limit for “direct physical loss or damaged caused by water… which backs up into a building or structure through sewers or drains which are directly connected to a sanitary sewer or septic system.” Pursuant to this endorsement, the insurer paid its $25,000 sublimit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at ksullivan@tlsslaw.com

Florida Decides Against Adopting Daubert

January 28, 2019 — Rahul Gogineni - The Subrogation Strategist
In Delisle v. Crane Co., 2018 Fla. LEXIS 1883, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S 459, the Supreme Court of Florida reaffirmed that the appropriate test for admissibility of an expert opinion about new or novel scientific evidence is the “Frye” test, not the “Daubert” test. As result of developing mesothelioma, Richard Delisle sued sixteen defendants, including Crane Company (Crane) and R.J. Reynolds, claiming that each exposed him to asbestos, which is a leading cause of mesothelioma. At trial, Crane and R.J. Reynolds sought to preclude the expert opinions of Mr. Delisle’s causation experts. The trial denied the motions and the jury awarded Mr. Delisle $8 million. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams
Mr. Gogineni may be contacted at goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com

HUD Homeownership Push to Heed Lessons From Crisis, Castro Says

January 14, 2015 — Clea Benson – Bloomberg
Now that regulators have fixed the worst abuses of the 2008 credit crisis, it’s time to start promoting homeownership again, according to the top U.S. housing official. The Department of Housing and Urban Development will do its part, spending this year focusing on ways to help more Americans buy homes, HUD Secretary Julian Castro said today in a Washington speech outlining the agency’s priorities. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Clea Benson, Bloomberg
Ms. Benson may be contacted at cbenson20@bloomberg.net

Insured Fails to Provide Adequate Proof of Water Damage Through Roof

December 10, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment due on the insured's claims for water damage to a church. Unity Church of God in Christ of York v. Church Mutual Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163204 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 11, 2024). Unity Church alleged that it suffered a sudden and accidental direct physical loss to its church. Wind damage to the roof of the church allowed rainwater to leak into the sanctuary of the church. Notice was given to Church Mutual Insurance Company, but coverage was denied. Unity Church filed suit alleging breach of contract. Church Mutual answered and asserted a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that the water damage to the church was outside the policy's coverage because the damage was caused by rain. Church Mutual filed for summary judgment. 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

Colorado Court of Appeals Enforces Limitations of Liability In Pre-Homeowner Protection Act Contracts

February 14, 2013 — Heidi Gassman — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Keirns Construction Co. (“Keirns”) hired Landmark Engineering, Ltd. (“Landmark”) to provide a geotechnical investigation and foundation designs for two duplexes Keirns built in Larimer County. Keirns and Landmark signed one contract in 2001 for the geotechnical work and two separate contracts in 2005 for the foundation design of the two duplexes. Each contract contained an identical “risk allocation clause,” which had language specifically limiting Landmark’s liability to Keirns. The risk allocation clause also had language specifically prohibiting claims against individuals and only allowing claims against a corporation. After the two duplexes were built, foundation problems developed, and Keirns filed suit against Landmark for breach of contract and negligence. Keirns also filed suit against two individual employees of Landmark, Wayne Thompson and Larry Miller, for negligence. Messrs. Thompson and Miller performed the geotechnical and design services pursuant to the contracts. Landmark and Messrs. Thompson and Miller filed a motion seeking to enforce the risk of allocation clauses in the contracts, thereby limiting Landmark’s liability. Messrs. Thompson and Miller also filed a summary judgment motion seeking their dismissal from the case based on the prohibition in the risk allocation clause against asserting claims against individuals. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heidi Gassman
Ms. Gassman can be contacted at gassman@hhmrlaw.com

Be Mindful Accepting Payment When Amounts Owed Are In Dispute

August 29, 2022 — Nicholas Korst - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
After completing work on a project, or even during a project, it is not uncommon for some portion of the contract balance and/or a claim to be in dispute. As a contractor or subcontractor, it is important to be careful what is signed (or not signed) upon receipt of any payment both during and after completion of work on a project. One of the most common documents signed related to a receipt of payment is a lien/claim release document. This can be in the form of a conditional, unconditional, progress and/or final release. The language included in the release document is critically important, especially as it pertains to disputed amounts. As a contractor or subcontractor, if there are known disputes related to amounts owing, whether it be contract balance, disputed change order(s), a delay or inefficiency claim, or any other amounts believed to be owed, it is important to include language in the lien release that expressly carves out the disputed amounts. The same should be done for disputes related to extensions of time. This allows the contractor to accept the payment and release rights for the undisputed work, but continue to reserve its right to pursue the amounts in dispute later. If disputed amounts are not carved out, those amounts may effectively be waived and the subcontractor or contractor may lose all rights to recovery. As a subcontractor in Alaska recently learned, there are potentially other ways a contractor may waive or lose its rights to recover amounts in dispute – without even signing a waiver or release document. In Smallwood Creek, Inc. v. Build Alaska General Contracting, LLC et al., the general contractor sent the subcontractor a check described as “final payment.” The subcontractor believed it was owed more than what the general contractor had sent and refused to accept the check. Months later, the subcontractor deposited the check. The subcontractor reversed course again and attempted to repay the general contractor the amount deposited. The general contractor refused, claiming the subcontractor’s acceptance of payment constituted satisfaction of all amounts owing to the subcontractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas Korst, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Korst may be contacted at nicholas.korst@acslawyers.com

Coverage Denied for Condominium Managing Agent

May 24, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Determining there were no allegations of bodily injury or property damage in the underlying lawsuit, the court found there was no duty to defend or indemnify the condominium's managing agent. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Certified Mgmt., 2018 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 71124 (D. Haw. April 27, 2018). Frederick Caven sued Certified Management, dba Associa Hawaii ("Associa") on behalf of himself and a class. Caven alleged that he owned a condominium and was a member of the Regency homeowners' association. The suit alleged that Associa was the managing agent for the association. Caven sold his unit in April 2016. Caven asked Associa for condominium documents to provide to the purchaser. Associa charged Caven $182.29 to download 197 pages of condominium documents for Regency. Associa also charged Caven $286.46 for a one-page "fee status confirmation," a document prepared by Associa which contained financial and other information needed to complete the sale. Caven alleged that the fees charged by Associa and other unit owners were excessive and in violation of Hawaii law. 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