FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Renee Mortimer Recognized as "Defense Lawyer of the Year" by DTCI

December 13, 2022 — Renee Mortimer - Lewis Brisbois
Highland, Ind. (November 21, 2022) - Northwest Indiana Managing Partner Renee J. Mortimer was recently named "Defense Lawyer of the Year" by the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana (DTCI). She was officially recognized at a Board & Officers dinner the evening before the DTCI's annual conference, which took place in Michigan City, Indianapolis from November 17 to 18.  The DTCI gives out three awards every year as part of its annual conference, including "Defense Lawyer of the Year," "Diplomat," and "Outstanding Young Lawyer." This year, two recipients received the "Diplomat" recognition "I am honored to receive this recognition from my peers and look forward to continuing my work with the DTCI," said Ms. Mortimer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Renee Mortimer, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Mortimer may be contacted at Renee.Mortimer@lewisbrisbois.com

---

California Superior Court Overrules Insurer's Demurrer on COVID-19 Claim

February 15, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
A Superior Court in California overruled the insurer's demurrer to the policy holder's complaint seeking business interruption coverage after government shutdown orders were issued because of the coronavirus pandemic. Goodwill Industries of Orange County, California v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., Cal. Superior Ct., Civil No. 30-2020-01169032-CU-IC-CXC (Minute Order Jan. 28,, 2021). The minute order is here [Goodwill Decision]. The insurer demurred on the ground that the insured had not alleged sufficient facts to show "direct physical loss" under the business income, extra expenses and civil authority provisions in the policy because coronavirus and COVID-19 did not physically alter the structure. 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

---

Insurance Policy’s “No Voluntary Payment” Clauses Lose Some Bite in Colorado

October 22, 2013 — Brady Iandiorio — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
The Colorado Court of Appeals recently handed down an opinion dulling the teeth of the “no voluntary payment” clauses found in many contractors’ insurance policies. In the case of Stresscon Corporation v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, 2013 WL 4874352 (Colo. App. 2013), the Court of Appeals found that an insured’s breach of the “no voluntary payment” clause does not always bar the insured from receiving benefits from its insurance company. In July 2007, at a construction project run by Mortenson (the “GC”), a partially erected building collapsed, killing one worker and gravely injuring another. The collapse was caused by a crane hook pulling a concrete component off of its supports. The GC contracted with Stresscon Corporation (“Stresscon”) to build pre-cast concrete components for the project, and in turn Stresscon hired two sub-subcontractors, RMS and Hardrock (the “Crane Team”) to work together to erect those concrete components. Stresscon and the Crane Team had liability insurance, and Stresscon was insured by Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”). The accident led to three separate lawsuits: 1) one brought by the deceased worker; 2) one brought by the injured worker; and 3) one brought by the GC against Stresscon claiming it was entitled to contract damages incurred because the project was delayed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
Brady Iandiorio can be contacted at Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

---

California Court of Appeal Finds Alleged Inadequate Defense by Insurer-Appointed Defense Counsel Does Not Trigger a Right to Independent Counsel

January 11, 2022 — Robert Dennison - Traub Lieberman
The California Second District Court of Appeal had occasion to examine an insurer’s duty to provide independent counsel (“Cumis counsel”) to its insured in a declaratory relief action entitled Nede Management, Inc. v. Aspen American Insurance Company. The action arose from a fire on a property covered by an insurance policy issued by Aspen American Ins. Co (“Aspen”). Aspen’s insureds were sued for wrongful death and negligence by tenants and squatters allegedly injured by the fire. Aspen defended three individual members of the family who owned the property and the family business, Nede Management, Inc. (“Nede”), which managed the property. The defense was subject to reservations of rights on the lack of an obligation to pay any judgment in excess of the $1 million policy limits and no coverage for punitive damages. Aspen appointed defense counsel to defend its insureds. The insureds sought independent counsel based on the assertion that defense counsel appointed by the insurer defended the action inadequately, failed to communicate an initial settlement demand within policy limits and failed to fully investigate the case. Aspen did provide Cumis counsel to Nede for a period but terminated the arrangement after revoking its reservation of rights to that entity. The underlying case eventually settled at no cost to the insureds. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert Dennison, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Dennison may be contacted at rdennison@tlsslaw.com

---

Resilience: Transforming the Energy Sector – Navigating Land Issues in Solar and Storage Projects | Episode 3 (11.14.24)

December 17, 2024 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In the latest episode of the Resilience podcast, colleague Shellka Arora-Cox and Laura Pagliarulo, CEO and founder of SolaREIT, get down to the nitty-gritty in a discussion of the interplay of solar power capacity, generation and land use. (Editor’s note: The following transcript has been edited for clarity.) Welcome to Resilience, the vodcast where we talk about the most pressing challenges and the biggest opportunities in the energy sector. I’m your host, Shellka Arora-Cox, a partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman. I’m thrilled to have Laura Pagliarulo, the CEO and founder of SolaREIT, with me today. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

---

Second Circuit Brings Clarity To Scope of “Joint Employer” Theory in Discrimination Cases

May 02, 2022 — Kevin J. O’Connor, Aaron C. Schlesinger & Lauren R. Davis - ConsensusDocs
The “joint employer” doctrine has been used with increasing frequency by the plaintiffs’ bar to broaden the scope of target defendants in discrimination cases beyond those who would be traditionally regarded as the employer. This is true even in the construction industry, which has seen a rise in cases where general contractors (“GC”) or construction managers (“CM”) are being targeted when discrimination is alleged on a construction project, even when the GC or CM is far removed from the underlying events and had no control over the employees in question. Examples of this phenomenon are where a claim of harassment or discrimination originates in the lower tier ranks of subcontractors, or even where there is a claim involving an independent contractor on a project and a discrimination lawsuit ensues. Until now, the Courts in the federal circuit which includes New York City (the Second Circuit) have been left to decipher a patchwork of case law to ascertain the scope and extent of joint employer liability in discrimination cases. In a move that is certainly welcomed by contractors, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Felder v. United States Tennis Association, et al., 19-1094, recently issued a comprehensive decision which provides a helpful summary of what must be pled and proven to broaden liability under the joint employer theory in discrimination cases. Felder provides a roadmap for risk mitigation by contractors looking to limit such claims in the future or to meet them head on when they do arise. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. O’Connor, Peckar & Abramson (ConsensusDocs), Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson (ConsensusDocs) and Lauren R. Davis, Peckar & Abramson (ConsensusDocs) Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at koconnor@pecklaw.com Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Ms. Davis may be contacted at ldavis@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

DC Circuit Upholds EPA’s Latest RCRA Recycling Rule

September 23, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of California Communities Against Toxics, et al. v. EPA. In this decision, the court rejected the latest petition to strike or vacate EPA’s 2018 revisions to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste recycling rules. In 1985, EPA promulgated a new regulatory definition of “solid waste,” which is the linchpin of the agency’s very stringent hazardous waste management rules. (See the rules located at 40 CFR Sections 260-268.) Unless a material is a “solid waste” as defined by the rules, it cannot also be a hazardous waste. The 1985 rules grappled with the challenges posed by recycling practices, and attempted to distinguish between legitimate recycling which is not subject to hazardous waste regulation, and other more suspect forms of recycling. The rules are complex and replete with nuance. In doing so, EPA was adhering to RCRA’s statutory mandate that it develop appropriate rules to govern the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste, while also promoting “properly conducted recycling and reuse.” The DC Circuit reviewed the 1985 rules in the seminal case of American Mining Congress v EPA, 824 F.2d 1177 (1987), (AMC) and stressed that only those materials that were truly discarded could be regulated as solid waste; for instance, those materials that were destined for immediate recycling or recovery in an ongoing production process were not discarded and hence were not solid waste. Over the years, the court has struggled to clarify the basic holding of AMC in numerous cases while EPA has frequently revised and amended the RCRA rules, and in particular the definition of solid waste, in an attempt to balance the policies mandated by the statute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Review your Additional Insured Endorsement

March 26, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In his blog, Construction Contractor Advisor, Craig Martin explained the importance of reviewing your additional insured endorsement. Martin pointed out that in Mississippi, the “Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in Woodward, LLC v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company, that a general contractor, named as an additional insured, did not have coverage for claims that a subcontractor performed faulty work.” The problem “was the language in the additional insured endorsement, which provided coverage for ongoing operations, not completed operations.” While Martin admitted that the case applies to Mississippi, he concluded that “the issue Midwestern readers should consider is the court’s conclusion that non-conformance with the plans, in essence a construction defect claim, arises from completed operations.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---