FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

North Carolina Supreme Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage,” Allocation and Exhaustion-Related Issues Arising Out of Benzene-Related Claims

January 04, 2023 — White and Williams LLP
On December 16, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court decided Radiator Specialty Co. v. Arrowood Indem. Co., 2022 N.C. LEXIS 1122 (Dec. 16, 2022), in which it addressed coverage issues arising out of claims by individuals alleging injury from exposure to benzene contained in the insured’s products. Affirming in part and reversing in part the intermediate appellate court’s decision, the court held: (1) an “exposure trigger” applied; (2) defense and indemnity costs were subject to pro-rata allocation; and (3) vertical exhaustion applied to the duty to defend under certain umbrella policies. Two justices concurred in part and dissented in part. I. Background In Radiator Specialty, the insured (RSC) was named in hundreds of underlying suits arising from individual plaintiffs’ alleged exposure to benzene contained in its products. Between 1971 and 2012, RSC was insured under primary, umbrella and excess liability policies issued by various insurers. In 2013, RSC sued the insurers in North Carolina state court, seeking coverage for approximately $45 million in defense and indemnity costs incurred for the underlying claims. In 2016, the trial court decided motions for summary judgment on a number of coverage issues. Following a bench trial in 2018, the trial court entered final judgment, which required the insurers to reimburse $1.8 million of RSC’s past costs. The rulings were appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which issued a decision in 2020. In 2021, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted RSC’s and certain insurers’ petitions for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals’ decision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

---

Insurance Client Alert: Mere Mailing of Policy and Renewals Into California is Not Sufficient Basis for Jurisdiction Over Bad Faith Lawsuit

January 28, 2015 — Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Greenwell v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (No. C074546, filed 1/27/15), a California appeals court held that the use of a mailing address to send policies and renewals into California did not support jurisdiction for a California resident's bad faith lawsuit against a Michigan insurer over property coverage for a fire loss to a building in Arkansas. In Greenwell, the insured was a California resident engaged in real estate investment. He purchased an apartment building in Little Rock, Arkansas. Using the services of an insurance broker in Little Rock, he purchased a package of general liability and commercial property insurance for the building from Auto-Owners Insurance Company, a Michigan insurer not licensed in California. The policy listed the insured's business address in California, the policy was mailed there, and renewed three times via the insured's California address. 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

---

Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes

September 14, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
We now know and can appreciate the threat of hurricanes. Not that we did not appreciate the reality of hurricanes–of course we did–but Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma created the type of actual devastation we fear because they hit close to home. The fear came to life, creating panic, anxiety, and uncertainty. It is hard to plan for a force majeure event such as a hurricane because of the capriciousness of Mother Nature. But, we need to do so from this point forward. No exception! And, I mean no exception!! A force majeure event is an uncontrollable event that cannot be anticipated with any degree of definitiveness. The force majeure event will excusably delay or hinder performance obligations under a contract. One type of force majeure event is a hurricane—an uncontrollable and unforeseen act of Mother Nature. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

---

So, You Have a Judgment Against a California Contractor or Subcontractor. What Next? How Can I Enforce Payment?

May 04, 2020 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
The Contractors’ State License Board (“CSLB”) represents the interests of the public in California construction matters. In the field of California construction, the CSLB is all powerful. The agency has the right to suspend the license of any contractor or subcontractor who does not pay on a construction related judgment against it. If you are successful in obtaining a court judgment against a contractor or a subcontractor in a construction-related case, you can utilize the services of the CSLB to suspend the contractors’ license of that contractor or subcontractor until the judgment has been paid. Once the license is suspended, the contractor or subcontractor has no legal right to work as a contractor or subcontractor and can even be arrested for doing so. Details on using the CSLB to suspend the license of a contractor or subcontractor who has a construction-related judgment against it can be accessed at this particular CSLB link: CSLB – Judgment. On receipt of notice of the construction-related judgment, the CSLB will either suspend the contractors’ license of any contractor or subcontractor who does not pay on the judgment or who does not appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeals or file bankruptcy within 90 days. There also exists an opportunity for the licensed debtor to file a bond with the CSLB. The bond will either have to be renewed annually or the judgment paid, whichever comes first. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---

Differing Rulings On Construction Defect Claims Leave Unanswered Questions For Builders, and Construction Practice Groups. Impact to CGL Carriers, General Contractors, Builders Remains Unclear

March 07, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

In the past year a number of state and federal courts have rendered a number of conflicting decisions that promise to alter or perhaps shift entirely the paradigm, of how builders manage risk.



According to a report today by Dave Lenckus in Property Casualty 360 “Nine state and federal courts and one state legislature over the past year have addressed whether a construction defect a defective product or faulty workmanship is fortuitous and therefore an occurrence under the commercial general liability insurance policy. Four jurisdictions determined it is; three said no; two ruled that a construction defect that causes consequential damage to property other than the work product is an occurrence; and one federal court contributed its conflicting case law that has developed in Oregon since its high court ruled in 2000 that a construction defect is not an occurrence”.



The article strongly suggests that in the absence of a clear consensus over what the recent rulings mean for builders and contractors coverage disputes will intensify and continue to proliferate.



Doing this on a state-by-state basis has caused a lot of confusion among buyers and sellers, said Jeffrey A. Segall, a Tampa-based senior vice president and the Florida Construction Practice leader at Willis of Florida, a unit of Willis Group Holdings.



Read Full Story...

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Florida Governor Signs Construction Defect Amendments into Law

September 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Jeffrey Gilbert and Anaysa Gallardo Stutzman of Cozen O’Connor, Rick Scott, governor of Florida, signed HB 87 into law, which “amends the notice and opportunity to cure provisions of Chapter 558, Florida’s Construction Defect Statute.” The amendments go into effect October first. HB 87 requires “property owners to provide concrete details of the alleged defects.” Gilbert and Stutzman claimed, “Overall, these amendments seek to further the intended public policy purpose of Chapter 558, which is to provide an alternative dispute resolution mechanism and result in fewer lawsuits and lower litigation costs incurred by parties involved in construction defect matters.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Contractors Board May Discipline Over Workers’ Comp Reporting

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
California recently passed AB 1794, which authorized the Employment Development Department to share information it received on new hires with other agencies. The bill also allows the Contractors State License Board to audit members based on this information to determine if contractors are engaging in workers’ compensation fraud. Writing on the Cumming & White construction litigation blog, Iman Reza notes that “the new law is intended to deter contractors from cutting corners in underreporting employees.” The CSLB will be able to discipline contractors who seek to gain an illegitimate competitive advantage by circumventing the law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Understanding Liability Insurer’s Two Duties: To Defend and to Indemnify

December 26, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A liability insurer has two duties that are the crux of a liability policy: the duty to defend the insured in legal actions and the duty to indemnify the insured from losses covered under the policy. Many times, policyholders (insureds) do not fully understand or appreciate these two important duties. They need to and this is why having private counsel assist with coverage-related considerations is an absolute must. An insurers’ duty to defend is separate from its duty to indemnify. A recent opinion out of the Middle District of Florida in Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Tate Transport Corp., 2022 WL 16963815 (M.D.Fla. 2022) clarifies the distinction between these duties with a focus on an insurer’s initial duty — the duty to defend. Please read below so you can have more of an appreciation of these duties. The court does a good job discussing Florida law with the emphasis on when an insurer’s initial duty to defend kicks-in: Duty to Defend Under Florida law, “an insurer’s duty to defend its insured against a legal action arises when the complaint alleges facts that fairly and potentially bring the suit within policy coverage.” The duty to defend is a broad one, broader than the duty to indemnify, and “[t]he merits of the underlying suit are irrelevant.” We determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend its insured based only on “the eight corners of the complaint and the policy,” and only as the complaint’s alleged facts are “fairly read[.]” The “facts” we consider in evaluating the duty to defend come solely from the complaint, regardless of the actual facts of the case and regardless of any later developed and contradictory factual record. “Any doubts regarding 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

---