FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Vertical vs. Horizontal Exhaustion – California Supreme Court Issues Ruling Favorable to Policyholders

May 11, 2020 — Alan Packer & James Hultz - Newmeyer Dillion
For years, when faced with damage or injury spanning several policy periods, excess general liability insurers have argued that all potentially applicable underlying policies must be exhausted before the excess drops down to provide coverage (“horizontal exhaustion”). Insureds, on the other hand, insist that they are entitled to immediately access an excess policy for any given policy year, if that year’s underlying policy has exhausted (“vertical exhaustion”). Vertical exhaustion not only enables insureds to directly tap into the excess insurance for which they paid substantial premiums, but also enables the insured to moderate risk given that different lower level policies might (1) be needed for other claims, (2) have larger self-insured retentions, or (3) have other less favorable coverage provisions. Allowing an insured to proceed via vertical exhaustion would also eliminate the heavy administrative and logistical burden that could result from having to pursue and exhaust all underlying coverage on multi-year claims. In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 1671560 (April 6, 2020), the California Supreme Court has come down in favor of policyholders and vertical exhaustion. The Montrose case involved contamination that allegedly occurred between 1947 and 1982 and different liability insurance towers (comprised of primary and excess layers) for each year. The insured, Montrose, maintained a tower of insurance coverage, year by year, and faced claims asserting damage that spanned several decades. Montrose sought coverage from excess insurers under a vertical exhaustion approach. Not surprisingly, Montrose’s excess insurers insisted that horizontal exclusion was required and that Montrose was required to exhausted all other policies with lower attachment points in every single involved policy period. The California Supreme Court ruled in Montrose’s favor, holding that the insured may insist upon full coverage from an excess insurer once the layer directly below it has exhausted. The Court reasoned that the burden of spreading the loss among insurers is one that is appropriately borne by insurers, not insureds. Reprinted courtesy of Alan H. Packer, Newmeyer Dillion and James S. Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Packer may be contacted at alan.packer@ndlf.com Mr. Hultz may be contacted at james.hultz@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Congratulations 2024 DE, MA, MD, NJ, NY, and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

June 17, 2024 — White and Williams LLP

White and Williams congratulates the fifteen attorneys nominated as Super Lawyers and ten attorneys named Rising Stars across our Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Philadelphia offices. Lawyers are selected through a process that takes into consideration peer recognition and professional achievement. The lawyers named to this year’s list represent a multitude of practices throughout the firm.

 Super Lawyers 2024

Attorney	Super Lawyers Denoted Practice Area (s)
David B. Chaffin	Business Litigation
Robert G. Devine	Personal Injury, Employment Litigation, Products Liability
David D. Gilliss	Surety, Construction Litigation, Administrative Law

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

---

Does the Russia Ukraine War Lead to a Consideration in Your Construction Contracts?

April 04, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Material costs are still affecting the construction industry. Supply chain impacts too. The volatility started with COVID-19 (and, in certain cases, before with the imposition of tariffs) and has continued through present date. But what about the war between Russia and Ukraine and the impact this has had or may have on the supply chain? I think the spillover from the war (with oil, gas, the energy sector, etc.), including the imposition of any sanctions, is not fully realized other than the concern exists in an economy that is already battling through material costs and supply chain disruptions. How does this affect you? It may not. Or you may regularly enter into construction contracts in which you would be smart to address material costs and supply chain impacts. The reason being is that everything from a risk standpoint should begin with your construction contract. Not addressing an issue does not actually mitigate the risk. Confronting the issue does mitigate the risk because you are contractually addressing a concern and know where the other party stands relating to that concern so that business decisions can be made. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Proving Contractor Licensure in California. The Tribe Has Spoken

October 21, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
As I mentioned in an earlier post, in California you must “prove” you’re a licensed contractor in a construction case. But in whose hands are you entitled to place your fate – the judge or the jury? Well, the tribe has spoken. Jeff Tracy, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera In Jeff Tracy, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera, Case Nos. B258563 and B258648, California Court of Appeals for the Second District (September 15, 2015), general contractor Jeff Tracy, Inc. doing business as Land Forms Construction (“Land Forms”) was walloped with a nearly $5.5 million judgment for being improperly licensed on a park project owned by the City of Pico Rivera (“City”). The judgment followed a bench trial over Land Form’s objection that it was entitled to a jury trial. 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

---

Robinson+Cole’s Amicus Brief Adopted and Cited by Massachusetts’s High Court

July 31, 2024 — Erica Whaley - Construction Law Zone
Earlier this year, the Associated Subcontractors of Massachusetts hired Robinson+Cole attorney Joseph Barra to submit an amicus brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for consideration in the appeal pending before it in Business Interiors Floor Covering Business Trust v. Graycor Construction Co., Inc. In its June 17, 2024 decision in that case, the Court interpreted the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act, which applies to private construction projects and “requires that parties to a construction contract approve or reject payment within” an allotted time period and in compliance with certain procedures else such payments will be deemed approved. Two years ago, the Massachusetts Appeals Court, in Tocci Building Corp. v. IRIV Partners, LLC, decided that an owner who fails to timely advise its general contractor of the reasons as to why it was withholding payment, coupled with failure to certify that such funds are being withheld in good faith, violates the Prompt Pay Act and makes the owner liable for funds owed.[1] However, the Tocci Building Court left open the question of whether one who violates the Prompt Pay Act forfeits its substantive defenses to non-payment, such as fraud, defective work, or breach of material obligation of the contract. The facts of Business Interiors involve a general contractor, Graycor, which subcontracted Business Interiors to perform certain flooring work for a movie theatre in Boston’s North End. When Graycor failed to formally approve, reject, or certify, in good faith, its withholding of payment of three of Business Interiors’ applications for payment as prescribed by the Prompt Pay Act, Business Interiors brought suit alleging, among other things, breach of contract. Business Interiors then moved for summary judgement arguing that Graycor’s failure to comply with the Act rendered it liable for the unpaid invoices. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robinson + Cole

---

Whose Employee is it Anyway?: Federal Court Finds No Coverage for Injured Subcontractor's Claim Based on Modified Employer's Liability Exclusion

September 28, 2020 — Jeffrey J. Vita & Kerianne E. Kane - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
In Nagog Real Estate Consulting Corp. v. Nautilus Insurance Co.,1 the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that an insurer had no duty to defend its insureds against claims brought by an injured subcontractor, based on an overbroad employer’s liability exclusion in the policy. Nautilus Insurance Company issued a commercial general liability policy to developer Nagog Homes LLC and its related construction company, Nagog Real Estate. The policy was endorsed with an Employer’s Liability Exclusion (the L205 Endorsement) that expanded the scope of the standard exclusion in the coverage form to include bodily injury claims of employees of “any” insured and their contractors or subcontractors, as opposed to simply the employees of the named insured. Nagog Homes was the developer, and Nagog Real Estate was the general contractor for a residential construction project. An employee of the framing subcontractor hired by Nagog Real Estate was injured while working on the project and sued both Nagog entities for his injuries. Nautilus, relying on the modified employer’s liability exclusion, denied coverage for the lawsuit based on allegations that the Nagog entities hired the framing subcontractor to perform work, which effectively made the plaintiff an employee of one or both of the Nagog entities. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita , Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Ms. Kane may be contacted at kek@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George Successfully Oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal

September 11, 2023 — Colleen E. Hastie & Jeffrey George - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George successfully opposed Plaintiff’s motion to vacate a prior dismissal of plaintiff’s medical malpractice action brought before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. The lawsuit, commenced by Plaintiff in 2015, alleged medical malpractice stemming from treatment Plaintiff received at a New York medical facility after falling out of a window at a rental property owned by Traub Lieberman’s client (“Property Owner”). Property Owner moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint or preclude Plaintiff from offering evidence in support of its claims, or in the alternative, compel plaintiff to produce all outstanding discovery. The Medical Facility cross-moved for the same relief. Defendants agreed to adjourn the motion until after plaintiff’s deposition, but plaintiff made no effort to secure an adjournment with the court and plaintiff filed no opposition to the motion, allowing the motion to be granted on default. Plaintiff waited nearly a year to file a motion to vacate the default judgment, despite receiving notification of the default from defense counsel. Property Owner, in opposing plaintiff’s motion, pointed to plaintiff’s long history of dilatory conduct and failure to comply with discovery orders in support of its position that plaintiff failed to show any good cause for its default on the motion to dismiss. Reprinted courtesy of Colleen E. Hastie, Traub Lieberman and Jeffrey George, Traub Lieberman Ms. Hastie may be contacted at chastie@tlsslaw.com Mr. George may be contacted at jgeorge@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insured Versus Insured Clause Does Not Bar Coverage

September 17, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fifth Circuit considered whether coverage was barred under the policy's insured versus insured provision. Kinsale Ins. Co. v. Georgia-Pacific, L.L.C., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12976 (5th Cir. July 27, 2015). Georgia-Pacific hired Advanced Services, Inc. for demolition work at Georgia-Pacific's idled plywood plant. A fire occurred at the plant, damaging equipment Advanced had leased from H&E Equipment for the demolition work. Several lawsuits followed. One was brought by H&E against Advanced. Advanced filed a third-party demand for indemnification against Georgia-Pacific for any damages Advanced was required to pay H&E. 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

---