Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Hawaii Federal District Court Rejects Bad Faith Claim

November 30, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court for the district of Hawaii rejected the insured's argument that the insurer acted in bad faith because the insured had to contribute to a settlement of the underlying case. Hanover Ins. Co. v. Anova Food, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146114 (D. Haw. Oct. 21, 2016). After a prior round of briefing, the court determined that Hanover had a duty to defend, but rejected Anova's claim for pre-tender fees. 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

Just When You Thought the Green Building Risk Discussion Was Over. . .

May 25, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As a reader of Construction Law Musings, you no doubt realize that I am a big proponent of “green” or sustainable building. I have also been known to sound a bit like Eeyore when discussing the charge into the breach of green building without considering the potential risks. Thankfully, and despite some of the risk predictions made here (and elsewhere for that matter) there have not been but so many major court cases relating to these risks. However, as a recent article in ENR Magazine warns, this lack of litigation does not mean that you should let your guard down. Just because the economy, warnings by attorneys and others, and possible lack of financial incentive to sue have kept the litigation numbers down does not mean that the risks have gone away. LEED requirements, time horizons and other risks that have become evident during the process of vetting green building contracts and practices still must be dealt with in contracts and insurance policies. These risks are well laid out in the ENR article and in other places here at Musings so I won’t outline them in detail here. 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

Five-Year Statute of Limitations on Performance-Type Surety Bonds

December 01, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The statute of limitations on a claim against a performance-type bond is 5 years from the breach of the bond, i.e., the bond-principal’s default (based on the same statute of limitations that governs written contracts / obligations). See Fla. Stat. s. 95.11(2)(b). This 5-year statute of limitations is NOT extended and does NOT commence when the surety denies the claim. It commences upon the default of the bond-principal, which would be the act constituting the breach of the bond. This does not mean that the statute of limitations starts when a latent defect is discovered. This is not the case. In dealing with a completed project, the five-year statute of limitations would run when the obligee (beneficiary of the bond) accepted the work. See Federal Insurance Co. v. Southwest Florida Retirement Center, Inc., 707 So.2d 1119, 1121-22 (Fla. 1998). This 5-year statute of limitations on performance-type surety bonds has recently been explained by the Second District in Lexicon Ins. Co. v. City of Cape Coral, Florida, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2521a (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), a case where a developer planned on developing a single-family subdivision. 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

U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Powers of the Nation’s Bankruptcy Courts

June 11, 2014 — Earl Forte – White and Williams LLP
On June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-awaited decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, Chapter 7 Trustee of Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc., Case No. 12-1200, in which the court confirmed that the power of the nation’s bankruptcy courts to hear and decide cases involving state-created private rights in which the bankruptcy proof of claim process has not been directly invoked, is severely limited by Article III of the Constitution of the United States. The decision in Executive Benefits, while providing some clarity to practitioners and the public following the Court’s June 2011 decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), nevertheless will make a substantial portion of bankruptcy litigation matters more cumbersome and potentially more expensive to guide through the bankruptcy system. Clients and practitioners are best advised to hire knowledgeable counsel to help navigate the more complex procedural waters created by this decision. Although the Court in Executive Benefits did resolve a pending procedural question that had dogged practitioners since Stern was decided in 2011, the Court’s decision in Executive Benefits now makes it abundantly clear that many disputes that were previously heard and decided in the nation’s bankruptcy courts can no longer be decided there and must be submitted to the district courts for full de novo review and entry of a final judgment or order. It is difficult to see how this decision will not make bankruptcy litigation more cumbersome and expensive by adding an additional layer of judicial involvement to many matters, notably to fraudulent transfer and other avoidance “claw back” actions that historically have been decided in the bankruptcy courts and used famously in Madoff and other cases as an efficient device for creating value for creditors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Earl Forte, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Forte may be contacted at fortee@whiteandwilliams.com

As Some States Use the Clean Water Act to Delay Energy Projects, EPA Issues New CWA 401 Guidance

August 26, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
In just the past few weeks, three states have used their Clean Water Act 401 authority to delay, for an indefinite period, FERC-authorized pipeline expansion projects. On May 6, 2019, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality denied, without prejudice, Jordan Cove’s application for a Section 401 water quality certification. Jordan Cove plans to build an LNG export terminal at Coos Bay, Oregon, if it can obtain the necessary federal and permits. Under Section 401(a) of the Clean Water Act, any applicant for a federal permit to conduct any activity, including the operation of facilities which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters, shall provide the permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge may originate that any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of the Clean Water Act, including effluent limitations and state water quality standards. The States have a “reasonable time”—which shall not exceed one year after the receipt of the 401 application—in which to act, or the state’s authority may be waived by this inaction. The Oregon DEQ concluded that Jordan Cove has not demonstrated that its project, as presently configured, will satisfy state water quality standards. The 401 applications submitted by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. (Transco) to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the New York State Department of Environmental Protection were similarly rejected without prejudice on May 15, 2019 (New York) and June 5, 2019 (New Jersey). This use of the states’ 401 authority has frustrated plans to build and operate LNG pipelines around the country. 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

“It Just Didn’t Add Up!”

November 05, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
Overturning arbitration awards in court is difficult. One of the few bases for a challenge to an award (under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 10(a)(4), as well as most state arbitration laws) is where the arbitrator is alleged to have “exceeded [his/her] powers” afforded the arbitrator by whatever rules and agreements are in place for the arbitration. Obviously, this places a burden on the arbitrator to “color within the lines” when serving as arbitrator and issuing rulings in the case. “After extensive discovery and a 10-day hearing, the Tribunal rendered a 142-page” award, whereupon the parties both sought to have the arbitrators correct what the parties agreed was an error in the award – increasing the award by $47,710. One of the parties, however, went further, urging that the arbitrators “erroneously included damages for claims related to production revenue” that occurred before a certain date. According to the court, that party was urging that “the Tribunal erred by factoring into its award damages related to Claims 2 and 3, which the Tribunal never substantially addressed.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Partner Yvette Davis Elected to ALFA International’s Board of Directors

November 15, 2021 — Yvette Davis - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Congratulations to Haight Partner Yvette Davis who was elected by her peers to serve a three-year term on ALFA International’s 15 Member Board of Directors. The announcement was made during ALFA International’s Annual Business Meeting which took place in San Diego, California on October 20-22, 2021. About ALFA International ALFA International is the premier network of independent law firms. Founded in 1980, ALFA International was the first and continues to be one of the largest and strongest legal networks. We have 150 member firms throughout the world. Our 80 U.S. firms maintain offices in 95 of the 100 largest metropolitan areas. Our 70 international firms are located throughout Europe, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, Africa, Canada, Mexico and South America. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Yvette Davis, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com

California Judicial Council Votes to Rescind Prohibitions on Eviction and Foreclosure Proceedings

September 28, 2020 — David Rao & Lyndsey Torp - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
The California Judicial Council’s emergency rules staying evictions and judicial foreclosures are coming to an end. On March 27, 2020, the Governor of California issued executive order N-38-20, giving the Judicial Council emergency authority to act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On April 6, 2020, the Judicial Council of California voted to approve temporary emergency rules of court. Rule 1 prohibited the issuance of a summons, or the entering of a default, in an eviction action for both residential and commercial properties except as necessary to protect public health and safety. Rule 1 also continued all pending unlawful detainer trials for at least 60 days, with no new trials being set until at least 60 days after a request was filed. Rule 2 stayed all pending judicial foreclosure actions, tolled the statute of limitations, and extended the deadlines for responding to such actions. Rule 1 and Rule 2 were to remain in effect until 90 days after the Governor declared the state of emergency resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic lifted, or until repealed by action of the Judicial Council. On August 13, 2020, the Judicial Council voted 19-1 to sunset Rule 1 and Rule 2 as of September 1, 2020. Beginning September 2, 2020, California state courts are authorized to issue summons on unlawful detainer actions, enter defaults, and set trial dates on request. Stays on pending judicial foreclosure actions will be lifted. Reprinted courtesy of David Rao, Snell & Wilmer and Lyndsey Torp, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Rao may be contacted at drao@swlaw.com Ms. Torp may be contacted at ltorp@swlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES