FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Insurance Client Alert: Denial of Summary Judgment Does Not Automatically Establish Duty to Defend

January 28, 2015 — Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In McMillin Companies v. American Safety Indemnity (No. D063586, filed 1/20/15), a California appeals court ruled that an insurer's loss of a summary judgment motion on the duty to defend does not necessarily establish that a duty to defend existed. McMillin was the general contractor for a series of residential construction projects, sued in a construction defect action brought by 117 homeowners. McMillin tendered its defense to its subcontractors' insurers, including American Safety (ASIC), claiming status as an additional insured (AI). ASIC denied the tender. McMillin sued ASIC and other insurers alleging breach of contract and bad faith for the failure to defend McMillin as an additional insured. Eventually, all of the other insurers settled, leaving ASIC as the sole defendant. ASIC moved for summary judgment, but the trial court denied the motion, ruling that ASIC had failed to carry its burden of disproving coverage under a blanket additional insured endorsement in the policy. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com, Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

#3 CDJ Topic: Underwriters of Interest Subscribing to Policy No. A15274001 v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. D066615

December 30, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Michael R. Vellado and Nicole R. Kardassakis of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP analyzed the appeals case that “reversed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of ProBuilders Specialty Insurance Company (“ProBuilders”) and held that the ‘other insurance’ clause in the ProBuilders policy did not relieve it of its duty to participate in the defense of its insured, Pacific Trades Construction & Development, Inc. ('Pacific Trades')." Read the full story... Another discussion of the ProBuilders appeal ruling occurred on the California Construction Law Blog, written by Yas Omidi of Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP. Omidi explained the appeal’s court decision: “In reversing the trial court’s decision, the appellate court characterized ProBuilder’s ‘other insurance’ clause as an ‘escape clause’—i.e., a clause that attempts to have coverage, paid for with the insured’s premiums, evaporate in the presence of other insurance.” Furthermore, she noted that “California public policy disfavors such clauses.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex

June 10, 2015 — Kristen Lee Price and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego, et al. (No. D063992, filed 5/28/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a controversial plan to eliminate vehicles from various plazas in historic Balboa Park. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal considered a question of first impression involving the interpretation of San Diego Municipal Code section 126.0504. Balboa Park, designated a National Historic Landmark in 1940, is a large urban park in the center of San Diego. The City of San Diego (“City”) recently approved a proposed plan (“Project”) to eliminate vehicles from the plazas within the Balboa Park complex and to return the plazas to purely pedestrian zones. Subsequently, a community group named Save Our Heritage Organisation (“SOHO”) filed a petition for a writ of mandate alleging, among other things, the City erroneously approved the Project. SOHO contended Municipal Code section 126.0504 mandated two key findings be made before the Project could be approved: (1) that the intended purpose of the property would not be adversely affected; and (2) without the proposed project, the property would not be put to a “reasonable beneficial use.” SOHO argued that although the City made the requisite findings, those findings lacked substantial evidentiary support. The trial court agreed with SOHO and directed the City to rescind the site development permit. The City argued on appeal that Municipal Code section 126.0504 vested it with “discretion to make a qualitative determination of whether an existing use of the property, even if deemed beneficial, is also a reasonable use of that property under all of the facts and circumstances applicable to the particular property in question.” The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed. Reprinted courtesy of Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Is Equipment Installed as Part of Building Renovations a “Product” or “Construction”?

April 10, 2019 — Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
A statute of repose terminates the right to file a claim after a specified time even if the injury has not yet occurred.[1] The construction statute of repose bars claims arising from construction, design, or engineering of any improvement upon real property that has not accrued within six years after substantial completion.[2] But what constitutes an “improvement upon real property” necessitating application of the six-year bar, and when does the bar NOT apply? The Washington Court of Appeals recently addressed these questions in Puente v. Resources Conservation Co., Int’l.[3] There, the personal representative of the estate of Javier Puente sued several parties after Mr. Puente, an employee of a manufacturer, suffered fatal boric acid burns in 2012 while performing maintenance on a pump system installed at the manufacturer’s facility in 2002. The estate alleged claims of negligence and liability under the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA).[4] The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants, concluding that the installed pump system constituted a statutory “improvement upon real property” and the six-year statute of repose applied. The estate appealed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

---

2022 California Construction Law Update

December 27, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s been a trying year as we approach the end of 2021. From the pandemic approaching nearly two years to concerns regarding climate change to the impact of inflation on everything from the cost of groceries to housing affordability. During the first half of the 2021-2022 legislative session, a total of 2,421 bills were introduced in 2021 of which 836 made it to the Governor’s desk and 770 were signed into law. This is up from the 2,223 bills introduced in 2020 of which 428 bills made it to the Governor’s desk and 372 were signed into law, due in large part, to the fact that legislators were not required to shelter-in-place as they were in 2020. Not surprisingly, for the construction industry, many of the bills were focused on the hot topics of the year including housing affordability and climate change. However, there were also the typical changes to project delivery methods and a few changes to the Licensing Law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Insurers Need only Prove that Other Coverage Exists for Construction Defect Claims

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Writing on the Sheppard Mullin web site, Scott Hennigh looks at the implications of the 2012 California case Axis Surplus Insurance. A condominium complex was covered by two insurance policies, covering different time periods. During a construction defect claim, one insurer argued that the claim was not covered. The other insurer settled and sued that both needed to contribute to the settlement. The court held that when multiple insurers are in conflict, the burden to prove that coverage does not exist lies solely on the party claiming it. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

It's a Wrap! Enforcing Online Agreements in Light of the CPRA

March 08, 2021 — Kyle Janecek – Newmeyer Dillion
We're all familiar with it at this point. A popup comes up on your device informing you of a change to terms and conditions, or otherwise asking for permission. For those operating websites, they know that this inconvenience is required to comply with various legal requirements. What they may not be aware of yet, is that these requirements, and popups, are about to become much, much, more prevalent. Recently, the California Privacy Rights Act ("CPRA"), passed by the voters of the State of California, includes new language specifying how consent is supposed to be obtained for the collection of personal information, amending the California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA"). This new manner of consent rules out browsewrap agreements, and would require that popups increase as website operators shift focus to clickwrap agreements, if they have not already. Browsewrap and Clickwrap Typically, online agreements comprising Terms of Service or a Privacy Policy can be broken into either (a) browsewrap agreements - agreements that imply assent or agreement to online terms by the mere act of using a website or an online service after a clear and conspicuous notice that terms exist or (b) clickwrap agreements - agreements that show assent or agreement to online terms by having an individual click or otherwise agree to. While the best option to ensure enforceability is always the one that leaves the most documented signs of assenting to terms (i.e. a clickwrap agreement), both are typically recognized and enforced under California law. The practical effect of this is that to get consent, all that is technically needed is either to (a) show actual consent by having the person click on an "I agree" button, or (b) provide that the website visitor had ample notice that terms existed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kyle Janecek, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Janecek may be contacted at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com

---

California Reinstates COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave

February 21, 2022 — Jessica L. Daley - Newmeyer Dillion
On February 9, 2022, Governor Newsom signed California Legislature Senate Bill 114 (SB 114), which reinstates supplemental paid sick leave for qualifying reasons relating to COVID-19. Employers may recall SB 95, which expired on September 30, 2021, and was substantially similar to SB 114. Like its predecessor, SB 114 applies to employers with 26 or more employees and provides up to 80 hours of supplemental paid sick leave to full-time employees who are unable to work (including telework) for a reason relating to COVID-19. While this legislation goes into effect on February 19, 2022, it will retroactively apply back to January 1, 2022 and remain in effect until September 30, 2022. REASONS FOR LEAVE – TWO PERIODS Unlike SB 95, SB 114 breaks the total possible 80 hours of COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave (CSPL) for full-time employees into two 40-hour periods. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jessica L. Daley, Newmeyer Dillion
Ms. Daley may be contacted at jessica.daley@ndlf.com

---