Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

California Supreme Court Declares that Exclusionary Rule for Failing to Comply with Expert Witness Disclosures Applies at the Summary Judgment Stage

March 01, 2017 — Bruce Cleeland & Michael J. Worth - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Perry v. Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC, 2017 No. S233096, the California Supreme Court held that when a trial court determines an expert opinion is inadmissible because expert disclosure requirements were not met, the opinion must be excluded from consideration at summary judgment if an objection is raised. Plaintiff Mr. Perry sued defendants Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC and JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, alleging personal injuries after plaintiff fell at a property owned by Bakewell and leased by Chase. Defendant Chase served plaintiff with a demand for the exchange of expert witness information. Plaintiff made no disclosure. Thereafter, the trial date was continued. Defendant Bakewell subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment. In opposition, plaintiff submitted declarations of two experts opining that the stairs on which plaintiff fell were in disrepair and failed to comply with building codes and industry standards. Reprinted courtesy of Bruce Cleeland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Michael J. Worth, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cleeland may be contacted at bcleeland@hbblaw.com Mr. Worth may be contacted at mworth@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Hurricane Harvey Victims Face New Hurdles In Pursuing Coverage

September 07, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Just as Hurricane Harvey departs the state, a new law in Texas, effective September 1, 2017, is going to make it more difficult for home and business owners to pursue claims against their insurance companies. Prior Texas law imposed liability on an insurer who violated the Insurance Code for the amount of the claim, interest on the amount of the claim at an annual interest rate of 18 percent, and reasonable attorney fees. H.B. 1774 was recently enacted to address legal actions for claims arising from damage to or loss of property due to hailstorms, lightening, wind, hurricane, rainstorm and other natural events. The bill creates additional procedural hurdles before a policy holder can file a lawsuit against the insurer. A written notice must be provided to the insurer at least 61 days before filing a lawsuit. The notice must include a statement of the acts giving rise to the claim, the specific amount alleged to be owed, and amount of reasonable and necessary attorney's fees already incurred by the policy holder. Once notice is received, the statute allows the insurers to send a written request to inspect, photograph, or evaluate the property. 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

Changes to Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act in New York Introduced

February 07, 2022 — Craig Rokuson & Lisa M. Rolle - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
As discussed in our post on Friday, January 7, 2022, Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act, mandating comprehensive, automatic disclosures regarding insurance in all cases pending in New York courts. Although the law was signed as written, Governor Hochul also made proposed amendments to the law, in the form of a “redline” in an attempt to make the law less onerous on insurance companies and businesses. On January 18, 2022, Senator Andrew Gounardes introduced Senate Bill 7882, incorporating Governor Hochul’s proposed amendments:

The time for disclosure would be 90 days of service of the answer, instead of 60.
The proof of insurance could constitute a declaration page only, if a party agrees in writing.
The required policies to be disclosed only relate to the claim litigated.

Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman and Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

PSA: Virginia Repeals Its Permanent COVID-19 Safety Standard

May 10, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In January of 2021, Virginia was one of the first states to adopt a permanent workplace safety standard setting out employer requirements for COVID safety. Later that same year, the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry updated the standard to make it less confusing and more easily complied with. Now, as of March 21, 2022, DOLI has repealed that permanent standard in response to the changes in COVID guidance and other new information. Instead of a permanent standard, DOLI provides “Guidance for Employers to Mitigate the Risk of COVID-19 to Employees.” This guidance, along with the advice of counsel, should help you in moving forward during the next phase of the COVID pandemic. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

SCOTUS Opens Up Federal Courts to Land Owners

July 15, 2019 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
For nearly 36 years, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985) severely frustrated, if not all but foreclosed, a property owner’s right to bring a claim in federal court based on a regulatory taking. Under the Fifth Amendment, a property owner whose land has been “taken” by the government is entitled to just compensation. There are two types of takings direct or “inverse” or regulatory takings. A direct taking is where the government declares that it needs your land for public use and offers to pay you compensation. You might disagree with the amount offered – and that often is the case. But, a mechanism exists whereby a neutral third party – a condemnation board – will arrive at the compensation that is owed. On the other hand, an inverse condemnation or regulatory taking occurs when the government takes some action that restricts the use of the land in such a way as to severely impact it beneficial economic use. For example, if you own a strip of commercial property and intend to develop it and then the municipality comes along and suddenly changes the zoning classification of the parcel such that you can no longer develop it in a beneficial way, then you might have a regulatory takings case. Under the Court’s Williamson County decision, property owners falling within the later category were required to exhaust state remedies before proceeding to federal court under a claim that their Fifth Amendment rights were violated. The problem with this is that, as the Supreme Court explained, it creates a Catch-22. If property owners exhaust their state remedies and the state remedies result in an unfavorable outcome, the federal court is powerless to overturn that decision under the doctrines of res judicata and the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Well, yesterday, the Court overturned Williamson County, in Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. _____ (2019). There the Court held unequivocally a “property owner has suffered a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights when the government takes his property without just compensation, and therefore may bring his claim in federal court under Section 1983 at that time.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

North Carolina Court Rules In Favor Of All Sums

July 13, 2020 — Lorelie S. Masters & Patrick M. McDermott - Hunton Andrews Kurth
A North Carolina court recently ruled in favor of all sums allocation. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC v. AG Insurance SA/NV, No. 17 CVS 5594 (N.C. Sup. Ct.). In that case, Duke Energy is seeking coverage for “liabilities linked to coal combustion residuals (‘CCRs’), i.e., coal ash, at fifteen Duke-owned power plants in North and South Carolina.” In a recent summary judgment decision, the court resolved a dispute between Duke and TIG Insurance Company, as successor to Ranger Insurance Company, about whether all sums allocation or pro rata allocation applied. The court found that “the non-cumulation provisions make plain” that all sums allocation applied. It also noted that “a large majority of the courts in other jurisdictions that have considered this issue have recognized that non-cumulation provisions such as those here compel all sums rather than pro rata allocation.” The decisions to the contrary, according to the court, had ruled “done so on public policy grounds” and not based on “the application of the rules of contract interpretation.” Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Enacts New Claims Resolution Process for Public Works Projects

January 19, 2017 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
If you’re a public entity or contractor involved in public works construction you should be aware of a new law, AB 626, which took effect on the first of this year and establishes a new mandatory claims resolution process for disputes on public works projects. Here’s what you need to know: What is the new law and where is it codified at? AB 626 added new Public Contract Code Section 9204 that according to the bill’s author, Assemblymember David Chiu of San Francisco, establishes “a claim resolution process applicable to any claim by a contractor in connection with a public works project.” 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

Policy Reformed to Add New Building Owner as Additional Insured

July 10, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The lower court correctly reformed the policy to replace the prior owner with the new owner as an additional insured under the policy. Wesco Ins. Co. v. Fulmont Mut. Ins. Co., 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2650 (N. Y. App. Div. May 11, 2023). Beyond was sued as owner of the building in a personal injury lawsuit. The former owners leased the building to the tenant who included the then-owners as additional insureds under the tenant's policy. When the deed to the building was transferred to Beyond, the additional insured endorsement in the tenant's policy was not updated to reflect the change in ownership. Beyond's insurer, Wesco, tendered the lawsuit to the tenant's insurer, Fulmont. Coverage was denied because Beyond was not an additional insured under the tenant's policy. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES