Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

New Jersey Senate Advances Bad Faith Legislation

July 18, 2018 — TLSS Insurance Law Blog
New Jersey is the latest to join the list of states that have enacted or are considering enacting legislation that would authorize policyholders to file civil suits against first-party insurers for unfair business practices, such as unreasonably delaying or denying benefit payments, engaging in false advertising, or otherwise committing a wide range of unfair or deceptive practices. On June 7, the New Jersey Senate passed a bill entitled the New Jersey Insurance Fair Conduct Act. The Act would create a new statutory cause of action pursuant to which a first-party insurer would be liable for bad faith based on a single statutory violation, thereby entitling an aggrieved policyholder to collect triple damages and attorneys’ fees. The proposed legislation is now before the state’s General Assembly for further consideration. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP

No Coverage for Additional Insured After Completion of Operations

March 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fifth Circuit held there was no duty to defend an additional insured for alleged negligence after completion of the project. Woodward v. Acceptance Indemn. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2569 (5th Cir. Feb. 11, 2014). Pass Marianne, L.L.C. contracted for the construction of condominiums. The general contractor was Woodward. DCM Corporation, L.L.C. was a subcontractor for the concrete work. DCM worked on the project from January to October 2006. The entire project was completed in August 2007. Pass Marianne sold the condominiums to Lemon Drop Properties in October 2007. Lemon Drop sued Pass Marianne and Woodward a year after purchasing the condominium. Pass Marianne filed a cross-claim against Woodward alleging faulty construction and damage arising out of the construction. The claims were arbitrated. A significant issue in the arbitration was the fault of the concrete subcontractor, DCM. 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

Texas Supreme Court Finds Payment of Appraisal Award Does Not Absolve Insurer of Statutory Liability

April 19, 2021 — Allison Griswold & Sarah Smith - Lewis Brisbois
The Texas Supreme Court recently published its long-awaited decision in the Hinojos v. State Farm Lloyds. In it, the court affirmed its holding in Barbara Technologies, finding that payment of an appraisal award does not absolve an insurer of statutory liability when the insurer accepts a claim but pays only part of the amount it owes within the statutory deadline, and a policy holder can proceed with an action under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act. In 2013, Louis Hinojos made a claim for storm damage to his home. State Farm’s initial inspection resulted in an estimate below the deductible, but Hinojos disagreed and requested a second inspection. At the second inspection, the adjuster identified additional damage resulting in a payment to Hinojos of $1,995.11. Hinojos then sued State Farm – and State Farm invoked appraisal approximately 15 months after suit was filed. The appraisal resulted in State Farm tendering an additional payment of $22,974.75. State Farm moved for summary judgment, arguing that timely payment of an appraisal award precluded prompt payment (or Chapter 542) damages. The trial court granted summary judgment and Hinojos appealed (notably Barbara Technologies had not yet been decided). The Court of Appeals affirmed State Farm’s victory on the basis that “State Farm made a reasonable payment on Hinojos’s claim within the sixty-day statutory limit….” Hinojos petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for review. Reprinted courtesy of Allison Griswold, Lewis Brisbois and Sarah Smith, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Griswold may be contacted at Allison.Griswold@lewisbrisbois.com Ms. Smith may be contacted at Sarah.Smith@lewisbrisbois.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Supreme Court Shifts Gears on “Reverse CEQA”

February 23, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
The California Supreme Court has shifted gears on so-called “reverse CEQA” under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The Supreme Court, in a much-anticipated decision, in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Case No. S213478 (December 17, 2015), held that public agencies subject to CEQA are not required to analyze whether existing environmental conditions may impact a proposed project’s future users or residents – also known as “reverse CEQA” or “CEQA in reverse” – as opposed to the more traditional analysis of a proposed project’s impact on the environment, unless: 1. The proposed project risks exacerbating existing environmental hazards – in which case, it is the proposed project’s impact on the environment not the environment’s impact on the proposed project, which compels the evaluation; or 2. A reverse CEQA analysis is already required under statute, for example, on certain airport, school and housing projects. 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

Following My Own Advice

October 21, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
I often advise clients on the use of E-Verify and the importance of getting policies and in place to ensure compliance. This is particularly true for clients that do federal and state work. Now it’s my turn to follow my own advice. I was recently appointed to represent the Nebraska Board of Engineers and Architects. As such, I am a contractor for the State of Nebraska. That means I have to use E-Verify. Here is a refresher of “our” E-Verify obligations as a contractor for the State. Nebraska adopted an E-Verify law in 2009. Nebraska statute section 4-114 requires all contractors that are awarded a contract by a state agency or political subdivision to register with ta federal immigration verification system. Although not explicit in the statute, the Department of Labor has indicated that the obligation to E-Verify applies only to new employees that will be working on the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

What To Do When the Government is Slow to Decide a Claim?

October 02, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
You may know this situation all too well. You’ve submitted your certified claim to the contracting officer and there it sits. You ask for a decision and they say soon, but it’s not soon. And pretty soon, several months have gone by. Since the Court of Federal Claims’ decision in Rudolph and Sletten, Inc. v. U.S., the government may have to decide in 60 days or your claim will be deemed denied which would allow you to file your claim in the Court of Federal Claims. Background Rudolph and Sletten (R&S) were awarded a contract to construct the La Jolla Laboratory. On August 20, 2013, R&S submitted a certified claim seeking $26,809,003 as compensation for costs due to alleged government-caused delays and disruption, additional consultant costs and extra work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

Do Construction Contracts and Fraud Mix After All?

October 27, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
On several occasions here at Construction Law Musings, I’ve discussed the fact that, with a few exceptions, fraud claims and written construction contract based claims do not mix. One of the exceptions to the so called “economic loss rule” that would seem to preclude both fraud and contract claims in the same lawsuit is where fraud is used to induce the contract in the first place. This exception would only apply where an independent duty, wholly outside of the duties created by the contract, is properly plead and proven to the court. For the same reason, namely a separate duty outside of the contract, the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (“VCPA”) may allow for an exception that would allow a cause of action under this statute. Up until recently, the courts of Virginia have used these exceptions sparingly. However, the recent Loudoun County, VA Circuit Court opinion in Interbuild, Inc. v. Sayers (opinion also found at Virginia Lawyers Weekly) may signal a broadening of these exceptions. In the Interbuild case, the Court considered a claim for fraud in the inducement and breach of the VCPA. The basic facts plead by the plaintiffs were that Interbuild induced them into the contract through statements that it had been an established business since 1981, the project did not require a building permit, it had obtained all necessary subcontractor prices and would provide full-time project supervision, the project would be completed within 16 weeks, 4000 PSI concrete would be used for the project and that the project would be located in the agreed-upon area depicted and that they reasonably relied on these representations in deciding to enter into the contract to build their recreational facility. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Court of Federal Claims: Upstream Hurricane Harvey Case Will Proceed to Trial

July 02, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On May 24, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims decided one of what may be many cases involving the terrible flooding wrought by Hurricane Harvey in the Houston, TX region. The Court of Federal Claims has divided thousands of pending claims into “upstream” and “downstream” categories, depending on whether the flooded properties were located upstream or downstream of two U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) flood control reservoirs that were constructed in the 1940s and 1950s. The case is In re Upstream Addicks and Barker (Texas) Flood-Control Reservoirs; however, the Court of Federal Claims’ order in this case applies to “all upstream cases.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES