Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Dispute Among Joint Venture Partners and Joint Venture Agreement

January 28, 2025 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a dispute involving joint venture partners and a joint venture agreement, one of the partners sued a third party (which purchased the assets of the other partner). Claims against the third party included tortious interference of the joint venture agreement between the partners, conspiracy to tortiously interfere with the joint venture agreement between the partners, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty by the other partner, and conspiracy with the other partner to breach a fiduciary duty. The dispute was tried in a non-jury trial. The other partner and the third party prevailed. A few key points on the above claims asserted against the third party that failed:

Tortious interference of the contract -- Since the trial court found that the other partner did NOT breach the joint venture agreement, the cause of action for tortious interference failed. “No cause of action for tortious interference with a contract can exist in the absence of a breach.”
Conspiracy to tortiously interfere with a contract -- “If an underlying tort [e.g., tortious interference] has not been established, a count for conspiracy to commit that tort will not lie.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Insured’s Bad Faith Insurance Claim Evaporates Before its Eyes

August 03, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Sometimes it’s right there before your eyes. Then, poof, it’s gone. This was the experience of one insured, who brought a bad faith insurance denial claim against his insurer thinking that the facts were in his favor, only to discover they were not. The 501 E .51st Street Case The Water Main Break and AGI’s Report The owner of a 10-unit apartment building built in 1963, 501 East 51st Street, Long Beach-10 LLC (just rolls off the tongue doesn’t it?), filed a bad faith action against its insurer Kookmin Best Insurance Co., Ltd., after it denied 501 East’s insurance tender following a water main break that caused the building’s foundation to subside. The water main break occurred sometimes between December 31, 2015 and January 2, 2016 next to the southwest side of the building. 501 East tendered its insurance claim to Kookmin on March 8, 2016, and in April 2016, presented a report prepared by American Geotechnical, Inc. (“AGI”) concerning damage to the building. According to the report prepared by AGI, AGI conducted a “limited geotechnical investigation” to “evaluate site conditions relating to the reported building distress following a waterline breach near the south end of the building.” The scope of AGI’s investigation was limited to “observation, photo documentation of the site conditions, [and[ floor-level survey of the interior of the first level units.” AGI’s investigation did not involve any subsurface investigation or soil testing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

2017 Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure

March 01, 2017 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
As a part of our 80 acts of Kindness commitment, Haight has registered a team to walk/run in the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure Event taking place Saturday, March 11, 2017 at Dodger Stadium from 7:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. We have a great group of partners, associates, and staff joining the Haight team to walk or run in support of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. For over 30 years, the Foundation’s efforts have funded life-saving breast cancer research and provided support to the thousands of women and men battling the disease. For 80 years, Haight Brown & Bonesteel has been one of California’s leading full service law firms. To commemorate our 80 years in business, we are giving back to the community. Throughout 2017, we will demonstrate our commitment to those in need through 80 different acts of kindness. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

Nevada Senate Bill 435 is Now in Effect

February 24, 2020 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
ATTENTION: Nevada liability departments and auto insurance carriers! Nevada Senate Bill No. 435 was recently signed into law and there are two key points to be aware of: Disclosure of Policy Limits Demand and Voiding Releases. These both deal with pre-litigation situations. 1) Nevada law now requires a motor vehicle insurer to disclose the limits of the policy if the claimant provides a HIPAA authorization which allows the carrier to “receive all medical reports, records and bills related to the claim from the providers of health care.” This is a change from the previous Nevada statute which required the disclosure of policy limits only after litigation was commenced. However, it appears from the language of the statute that there are limits to this new mandate. Section 4 of the new law is written in such a way to allow the argument that the new law applies only to accidents that occurred after 10/1/19, and that the insurance company has to request the HIPAA waiver from the claimant in order for the disclosure requirement to apply. The plaintiff’s bar is already attempting to address this language in the legislature. As written, subsection (4) is governed by subsection (1) which states that the insurance company “may require the claimant … to provide … a written authorization.” The following subparts all appear to be triggered only by the act of the insurance company requesting a HIPAA waiver. The plaintiff’s bar is pushing for clarifying language that would make it clear that once the claimant sent a HIPAA waiver, irrespective of whether the document was requested by the insurance company or not, the insurance company is required to disclose policy limits. This is not how the law reads on its face, and the change would make a significant difference from a practical perspective. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Allegations of Actual Property Damage Necessary to Invoke Duty to Defend

January 17, 2013 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

The Fifth Circuit held that under Texas law, conclusory allegations of property damage in the underlying complaint did not trigger the insurer's duty to defend. PPI Tech. Serv., L.P. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24571 (5th Cir. Nov. 29, 2012).

Royal Production Company was the lessor and operator of three leases for oil exploration. Royal retained the insured, PPI, as its agent to assist in well-planning and oversee the drilling of wells on the leases.

A well was drilled on one of the three leased areas, but in resulted in a dry hole. It was later discovered that the well had been drilled on the wrong lease. Royal sued PPI for negligence, claiming that PPI caused the drilling rig to be towed to the wrong location, resulting in a dry hole and "property damage."

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Resilience: Transforming the Energy Sector – Navigating Land Issues in Solar and Storage Projects | Episode 3 (11.14.24)

December 17, 2024 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In the latest episode of the Resilience podcast, colleague Shellka Arora-Cox and Laura Pagliarulo, CEO and founder of SolaREIT, get down to the nitty-gritty in a discussion of the interplay of solar power capacity, generation and land use. (Editor’s note: The following transcript has been edited for clarity.) Welcome to Resilience, the vodcast where we talk about the most pressing challenges and the biggest opportunities in the energy sector. I’m your host, Shellka Arora-Cox, a partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman. I’m thrilled to have Laura Pagliarulo, the CEO and founder of SolaREIT, with me today. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

President Trump Repeals Contractor “Blacklisting” Rule

March 29, 2017 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Former President Obama’s so-called “Blacklisting” rule was short-lived. On Monday, President Trump signed a joint resolution eliminating the rule, which had required bidders on federal projects with a value in excess of $500K to report state and federal labor and safety violations within the past three years. The Blacklisting rule, also known as the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order 13673, only went into effect in October 2016. 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

A Court-Side Seat: NWP 12 and the Dakota Access Pipeline Easement Get Forced Vacations, while a Potential Violation of the Eighth Amendment Isn’t Going Anywhere

August 10, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Here’s a report on several new decisions made over the past few days. U.S. SUPREME COURT U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Northern Plains Resources Council On July 8, 2020, the Court has issued a partial stay of the decision of the U.S. District Court for Montana, which had held that the nationwide use by the Corps of Engineers of its Nationwide Permit 12 to permit oil and gas pipelines must be vacated because the Corps, when it reissued these permits in 2012, failed to follow the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The breadth of this ruling seems to have surprised and alarmed many past and perspective permittees of the Corps. The stay will not apply to the ongoing Ninth Circuit litigation. FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL Vega, et al. v. Semple (The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) On June 29, 2020, the court refused to dismiss a putative class action by past and present inmates of Connecticut’s Garner Correctional Institution who alleged that state correctional officials exposed them to excessive amounts of radon gas in violation of the Eighth Amendment. These officials are alleged to have been “deliberately indifferent” to inmate safety. A 1993 Supreme Court decision, Helling v. McKiney, clearly established the law in this area, and the Garner facility opened in 1992. The defense clams of limited immunity as to federal law violations were rejected. 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