Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Common Law Indemnification - A Primer

April 12, 2021 — Brian F. Mark - Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.
“Common law indemnification is generally available ‘in favor of one who is held responsible solely by operation of law because of his relationship to the wrongdoer.’” McCarthy v. Turner Constr., Inc., 17 N.Y.3d 369, 375 (2011), quoting Mas v. Two Bridges Assocs., 75 N.Y.2d 680, 690 (1990). What is Common Law Indemnification and Who Can Assert it? Indemnification, in general terms, is the right of one party to shift a loss to another and may be based upon an express contract or an implied obligation. Bellevue S. Assoc. v. HRH Constr. Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 282 (1991). Based on a separate duty owed the indemnitee by the indemnitor, common law indemnification, or implied indemnification, permits one who was compelled to pay for the wrong of another to recover from the wrongdoer the damages paid to the injured party. D’Ambrosio v. City of New York, 55 N.Y.2d 454, 460 (1982); Curreri v. Heritage Prop. Inv. Trust, Inc., 48 A.D.3d 505, 507 (2d Dept. 2008). The premise of common law indemnification is vicarious liability, defined as “liability that a supervisory party (such as an employer) bears for the actionable conduct of a subordinate or associate (such as an employee) based on the relationship between the two parties” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Common law indemnification “reflects an inherent fairness as to which party should be held liable for indemnity.” McCarthy, 17 N.Y.3d at 375. It is a restitution concept which permits shifting the loss because, to fail to do so, would result in the unjust enrichment of one party at the expense of the other. Mas, 75 N.Y.2d at 680, 690; Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center v. Islam, 172 A.D.3d 1342, 1343 (2d Dept. 2019). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian F. Mark, Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.
Mr. Mark may be contacted at bfm@hurwitzfine.com

Construction Law Alert: Unlicensed Contractors On Federal Projects Entitled To Payment Under The Miller Act

May 07, 2014 — Steven M. Cvitanovic and Jessica M. Lassere Ryland - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
As a matter of first impression, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Technica LLC ex rel. U.S. v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., 12-56539, 2014 WL 1674108 (9th Cir. Apr. 29, 2014), allowed an unlicensed subcontractor to recover from a prime contractor for unpaid services relating to a federal construction project under a federal Miller Act claim. California law otherwise prevents unlicensed contractors from recovering for unpaid work on non-federal projects as a penal measure intended to encourage contractors to maintain a valid license at all times. Technica LLC (“Technica”) worked as a sub-subcontractor on a large federal fence replacement project (the “Project”). Over the course of a year, Technica supplied nearly a million dollars worth of labor, materials, and services for the Project. However, Technica received only $287,861.81 in partial payments for its work. Technica proceeded to file suit in district court against the prime contractor Candelaria Corporation (“Candelaria”) and its payment surety Carolina Casualty Insurance Company (“CCIC”) under the Miller Act to recover amounts owed to it on the subcontract against the payment bond. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP and Jessica M. Lassere Ryland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Lassere Ryland may be contacted at jlassere@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Colorado Drillers Show Sensitive Side to Woo Fracking Foes

September 03, 2014 — Zain Shauk and Bradley Olson – Bloomberg
A fight over fracking is looming in Texas. Another stand-off is shaping up in Colorado. Yet drillers’ reactions couldn’t be more different. In Texas, drillers are doing their noisy in-your-face fracking as usual. Meanwhile, on a small farm about an hour from the Colorado Rocky Mountains, the oil industry is giving fracking a makeover, cutting back on rumbling trucks and tamping down on pollution. Oil companies in Colorado are responding to a rising tide of resentment as local communities and environmental activists vie to impose measures to ban fracking or restrict drilling. A series of ballot initiatives and other grass roots opposition around the country is seen as threatening the booming shale industry, even in oil-friendly Texas, where the U.S. energy renaissance began. Reprinted courtesy of Zain Shauk, Bloomberg and Bradley Olson, Bloomberg Mr. Shauk may be contacted at zshauk@bloomberg.net; Mr. Olson may be contacted at bradleyolson@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Duke Energy Appeals N.C. Order to Excavate Nine Coal Ash Pits

April 17, 2019 — Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record
Duke Energy Progress said April 11 it will appeal the North Carolina Dept. of Environmental Quality’s order issued earlier this month to excavate nine remaining large coal ash pits at six power plants in the state and move ash to lined landfills; the firm claims the new mandate at sites previously deemed low-risk will cost up to $5 billion to implement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Insurance Measures Passed by 2015 Hawaii Legislature

June 10, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The 2015 Hawaii legislative session passed three insurance-related bills which have all been signed by the governor. Bills that have been enacted are the following: SB0589 - We previously devoted this post to the legislation. The bill provides relief for residents in lava zones on the Big Island. The bill limits the number of property policies that an insurer can refuse to renew in a lava zone. Further, a moratorium on the issuance of policies can be lifted in a state of emergency due to the threat of imminent disaster from a lava flow. SB0736 - Provisions relating to reimbursement for accident and health or sickness insurance benefits are amended. Further, the bill provides that prior to initiating any recoupment or offset demand efforts, an entity must send a written notice to the health care provider at least 30 days prior to engaging in recoupment or offset efforts. An entity may not initiate recoupment or offset efforts more than 18 months after the initial claim payment was received by the health care provider or health care entity. 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

Broker Not Negligent When Insured Rejects Additional Coverage

January 31, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii

The broker was not negligent when it proposed additional coverage that was rejected by the insured. Cromer v. Rosenzweig Ins. Agency Inc., 2017 N.Y. App Div. LEXIS 8969 (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 21, 2017).

Plaintiff was injured while employed as a painter at property owned by Allen Skriloff. Coverage was denied because injuries to employees, contractors and employees of contractors were excluded. Plaintiff sued Skriloff and obtained a jury verdict of $6.1 million. Skirloff assigned to plaintiff all rights and claims held against the insurer and insurance brokers.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

Insurer's Motion in Limine to Dismiss Case for Lack of Expert Denied

June 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer's motion in limine seeking to dismiss the insureds' complaint due to the absence of expert testimony. Fabozzi v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74069 (E.D. N.Y. May 30, 2014). During the policy period, the insureds noticed their house had serious structural problems, including cracks in the walls and floors that were pitched toward the rear of the house. The insureds had to move from their house. When they submitted a claim, it was denied by Lexington because the losses were caused by "wear and tear, deterioration, earth movement, settlement, shrinking, bulging or expansion of the property leading to cracking of structural components." The insureds sued. Lexington filed a motion in limine to preclude the testimony of the insureds' expert and to dismiss the complaint for inability to offer prima facie proof of a covered loss absent such expert testimony. 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

New York Appellate Court Applies Broad Duty to Defend to Property Damage Case

January 03, 2022 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In the recent case of New York Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. Eastman Cooke & Associates, 153 N.Y.S.3d 840, 841 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dept. 2021), New York’s first department affirmed a duty to defend under New York law. In the underlying action, the plaintiff alleged property damages due to prolonged construction work in a different unit of the subject property. The underlying plaintiff sued the owner of the subject property, which in turn sued Eastman Cooke, the general contractor at the premises. New York Marine denied coverage to Eastman Cooke, asserting that the underlying suit did not seek damages occurring during the New York Marine policy period, and commenced a declaratory judgment action. The trial court held—and the First Department affirmed—that New York Marine has a duty to defend Eastman Cooke. Initially, the court found that the underlying suit alleged property damage as required for coverage, because there were allegations regarding loss of use of the property. The court also found that the underlying suit alleged damages occurring during the New York Marine policy period. Although the underlying complaint alleged that the underlying plaintiffs were reimbursed for damages occurring during the New York Marine policy period by another insurer, the court held that the evidence was that the payments only covered a certain part of the damages sought. Accordingly, because there was a reasonable possibility that some unreimbursed damages may fall within the New York Marine policy period. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES