FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Texas Supreme Court Authorizes Exception to the "Eight-Corners" Rule

February 28, 2022 — Jared De Jong, Nathan A. Cazier & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & Fears
For decades, an insurer’s duty to defend under Texas law was determined exclusively by reviewing the insurance contract and the allegations of the complaint under the “eight-corners rule.” All of this changed last week when, in a long-awaited decision, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that courts may consider extrinsic evidence to determine the existence of coverage in certain limited situations. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. BITCO Gen. Ins. Corp., No. 21-0232, 2022 WL 413940 (Tex. Feb. 11, 2022). In Monroe, a drilling contractor was sued for damages arising out of the allegedly botched drilling of an irrigation well. The underlying lawsuit alleged that negligent drilling caused damage to surrounding farmland. However, the complaint did not allege when the damage occurred. The contractor’s insurers, BITCO General Insurance Corporation (“Bitco”) and Monroe Guarantee Insurance Company (“Monroe”) disputed whether Monroe owed a duty to defend. Although Bitco agreed to provide a defense, Monroe refused, arguing that the property damage happened before its policy period. Bitco sued Monroe for contribution. In the trial court, the insurers stipulated that a drill bit became stuck before Monroe’s policy incepted, a fact that would have supported Monroe’s “prior damage” defense. On summary judgment, though, the trial court ruled this stipulated fact could not be considered under Texas’ eight-corners rule. Monroe appealed, and the Fifth Circuit, which had previously endorsed an exception to the eight-corners rule under Northfield Insurance Co. v. Loving Home Care, Inc., 363 F.3d 523, 531 (5th Cir. 2004), certified the question to the Texas Supreme Court. Reprinted courtesy of Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears, Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Mr. Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com Mr. Cazier may be contacted at nac@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Mississippi Sues Over Public Health Lab Defects

October 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The state of Mississippi “is suing architects and designers of a new Public Health Lab, saying the $28 million lab wasn't up to containing deadly diseases, biohazards and chemicals,” reported The Clarion-Ledger. Dale Partners Architects, Earl Walls Associates, Eldridge and Associates, and Environmental Management Plus have been named as defendants. "The estimated damages are $3 million," attorney Dorsey Carson told The Clarion-Ledger. "This building is where they test tuberculosis, or where they would test anthrax or any other (biohazards). You don't have a choice – it has to meet rigorous standards." Charlie Alexander, a partner with Dale Partners, stated that “any allegations of design defects by his company and its team ‘are unfounded,’” reported The Clarion-Ledger. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Illinois Legislature Enables Pre-Judgment Interest in Personal Injury Cases

February 01, 2021 — Justin Zimmerman - Lewis Brisbois
On January 13, 2021, the Illinois General Assembly passed HB 3360, which will enable pre-judgment interest of 9% in personal injury cases. The legislation was sponsored by Madison County, Illinois-area representative Jay Hoffman (D-Belleville) and Illinois state senator Dan Harmon (D-Oak Park). Under current Illinois law, plaintiffs are not entitled to pre-judgment interest in personal injury cases because the nature and extent of a plaintiff’s damages cannot be calculated in advance and liability is uncertain (compared, for example, to a breach of contract claim). If signed by the governor, personal injury actions in Illinois will be subject to 9% per annum pre-judgment interest accruing “on the date the defendant has notice of the injury from the incident itself or a written notice." Notably, the bill will also impact pending litigation as interest begins to accrue on the effective date of the legislation for cases already filed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Justin Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Zimmerman may be contacted at Justin.Zimmerman@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Construction Contractor “Mean Tweets” Edition

June 04, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Back in the day, if someone had a problem with you the rules of school yard jungle dictated that they had better tell it to your face or you had the right to call them out on it. That, of course, was back then. These days, with social media seemingly everywhere (e.g., Yelp, Twitter, Facebook, etc.), if someone has a problem with you they tell you . . . as well as the rest of the world . . . to your digital face. Jimmy Kimmel has even made it a “thing” with his celebrity “Mean Tweets” segments. In Paglia & Associates Construction, Inc. v. Hamilton, 98 Cal.App.5th 318 (2023), homeowner Vanessa Hamilton was sued by her contractor Paglia & Associates Construction, Inc. doing business as Protech Construction after she posted critical comments to her blog and on Yelp about work performed by Paglia at her home. The Paglia Case In or about 2016, after a tree fell on her house, Hamilton’s insurer, Safeco, recommended Paglia to perform the repairs. Paglia and Hamilton entered into a repair contract in 2016 but Paglia did not finish the work until sometime in 2017 claiming that the repair was extensive because Hamilton’s circa 1923 home was in poor condition and current building codes required extensive reconstruction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolution Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

January 10, 2018 — Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter

On December 28, 2017, the Ohio Court of Appeals (Eighth District) held in GrafTech International, Ltd., et al. v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., et al., No. 105258 that coverage for alleged injurious exposures to coal tar pitch was barred by a liability insurance policy’s absolute pollution exclusion. Applying Ohio law, the court concluded that Pacific Employers had no duty to defend GrafTech or pay defense costs in connection with claims by dozens of workers at Alcoa smelting plants that they were exposed to hazardous substances in GrafTech products supplied to Alcoa as early as 1942.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

---

The California Legislature Passes SB 496 Limiting Design Professional Defense and Indemnity Obligations

November 21, 2017 — Mark Himmelstein & Jenny Guzman – Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
Originally published by CDJ on June 15, 2017 Since 2008 when the California legislature limited subcontractor indemnity obligations, the design professional community has been shouting “what about us?” Well, the legislature finally responded and a new law that limits design professional’s defense and indemnity obligations to their percentage of fault goes into effect on January 1, 2018. THE NEW LAW – SB 496 SB 496 amends California Civil Code section 2782.8 and states that indemnity agreements must be limited to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the indemnitee (i.e. no more Type I indemnity with design professionals). The amendment also provides that “in no event shall the cost to defend charged to the design professional exceed the design professional’s proportionate percentage of fault”, with a limited opportunity for reallocation in the event another defendant is judgment proof. However, the duty to defend still remains and still arises at the time of the tender of the defense (both issues that were unsuccessfully targeted by the design professional lobbyists). Reprinted courtesy of Mark Himmelstein, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP and Jenny Guzman, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP Mr. Price may be contacted at mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com Ms. Zucker may be contacted at jenny.guzman@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Structural Defects in Thousands of Bridges in America

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Writing under the pseudonym “Babbage,” a technology blogger at The Economist takes note of some of the depressing facts about America’s infrastructure. Babbage notes that most of the United States’ transportation infrastructure was “built in a furious burst of road construction during the 1950s and 1960s.” Citing a report from the American Society of Civil Engineers, President Obama recently warned that “we’ve got about $2 trillion of deferred maintenance.” Some of this deferred maintenance can cost lives. The 2007 collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis killed 13 people and injured 145 others. The cost of fixing structural defects in the nation’s bridges was estimated at $32 billion in 2004. In that year, about 66,500 bridges were deemed structurally defective. Another 84,000 were termed “structurally obsolete,” meaning they could be used, but with restrictions on vehicle weight and speed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Court of Appeals Finds a Proximate Cause Standard in Additional Insured Endorsements

June 15, 2017 — Geoffrey Miller - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority, et al., No. 2016-00096, the New York Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision with regard to the meaning of “caused, in whole or in part, by” in the additional insured context. In a split decision, the court rejected Burlington Insurance Company’s argument that the language implied a “negligence” standard, but held that coverage was provided to the additional insured only where the named insured’s acts or omissions were the proximate cause of the injury:

While we [the majority] agree with the dissent that interpreting the phrases differently does not compel the conclusion that the endorsement incorporates a negligence requirement, it does compel us to interpret ‘caused, in whole or in part’ to mean more than ‘but for’ causation. That interpretation, coupled with the endorsement’s application to acts or omissions that result in liability, supports our conclusion that proximate cause is required here.[1]

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey Miller, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Miller may be contacted at gjm@sdvlaw.com

---