FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Florida Appellate Court Holds Four-Year Statute of Limitations Applicable Irrespective of Contractor Licensure

June 22, 2016 — Clay Whittaker – Florida Construction Law Update
In Brock v. Garner Window & Door Sales, Inc.,[1] Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal rejected a novel attempt to circumvent Florida’s well-established four-year statute of limitations for all actions founded on the construction of an improvement to real property. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract as a result of water intrusion damage following the installation of windows.[2] It was undisputed that Plaintiff commenced the litigation more than four years following the discovery of the allegedly latent defect in the window installation.[3] Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the window contractor could not rely on the four-year statute of limitations because the window subcontractor was not a licensed contractor and, therefore, the five-year statute of limitations for actions founded on written contracts should apply. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Clay Whittaker, Cole, Scott, & Kissane, P.A.
Mr. Whittaker may be contacted at clay.whittaker@csklegal.com

---

COVID-19 Case Remanded for Failure to Meet Amount in Controversy

September 14, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court remanded to state court a loss of rent claim because the amount in controversy requirement was not met. Geragos & Geragos Fine Arts Bldg., LLC v. Travelers Indemn. Co., 2020 U.S Dist. LEXIS 127427 (C.D. Cal. July 20, 2020). Geragos suffered loss of rental income due to the COVID-19 tenant relief measures implemented in Los Angeles. The tenant relief orders would remain in effect for the duration of the emergency period, the end date of which was not presently set. Geragos submitted a claim for loss of rental income to Travelers. When the claim was denied, Geragos sued in state court. Travelers removed to federal district court. Geragos moved to remand the case back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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

---

California Joins the Majority of States in Modifying Its Survival Action Statute To Now Permit Recovery for Pain, Suffering And Disfigurement

January 03, 2022 — Krsto Mijanovic & Elizabeth D. Rhodes - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
On January 1, 2022, California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”)Section 377.30 et seq., as amended by Senate Bill 447, otherwise known as the “survival action” statute1, goes into effect. On that date, all plaintiffs filing new civil cases filed on or after January 1, 2022, and before January 1, 2026, and plaintiffs in any action or proceeding granted trial preference pursuant to CCP Section 36 before January 1, 2022, will be expressly allowed to recover damages for a decedent’s pain, suffering, or disfigurement in a survival action.2 This is a significant change in California law. In that regard, California is now the 46th state to permit this form of recovery. As reported in the Legislative Counsel’s Digest3, Consumer Attorneys of California and Consumer Federation of California, which co-sponsored Senate Bill 447, opined to the Legislature that the prior law provided a “death discount” to defendants which incentivized bad faith delays in resolution, and caused unnecessary congestion of the already overburdened court system. These argued issues will be vetted by the Legislature using the four-year reporting requirement that is also part of the amendment to the statute, requiring plaintiffs who recover this newly permitted category of damages to report the valuation and details of the case to the Judicial Council within 60 days of the judgment or other operative court document being entered in the court’s docket.4 The amendment will be evaluated by the Legislature for amendment or extension on or before January 1, 2026. Reprinted courtesy of Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Elizabeth D. Rhodes, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Rhodes may be contacted at erhodes@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

CA Supreme Court Finds “Consent-to-Assignment” Clauses Unenforceable After Loss Occurs During the Policy Period

August 26, 2015 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court (No. S205889; filed 8/20/15), the California Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 934, holding that notwithstanding the presence of a consent-to-assignment clause in a liability policy, Insurance Code section 520 bars an insurer from refusing to honor the insured’s assignment of coverage after a loss has taken place during the policy period. In Henkel, the Supreme Court limited the ability of corporate successors to obtain coverage under predecessors’ policies on a contract theory. The Henkel Court held that where a successor corporation contractually assumed liabilities of the predecessor corporation, the insurance benefits would not automatically follow. The Henkel Court ruled that if the predecessor company’s policy contains a consent-to-assignment clause, any assignment of insurance policy benefits to a successor corporation required the insurer’s consent. The Court said that policy benefits are not transferable choses in action unless at the time of corporate transfer they could be reduced to a monetary sum certain. The Court reasoned that historic product or environmental liabilities might not even be known to the predecessor at that time, much less reduced to a sum certain, so coverage for such risks could not be considered a transferable chose in action. Thus, where the liability was inchoate at the time of the corporate transaction, the Henkel Court said that coverage would not necessarily follow because the insurer’s duties had not yet attached. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Vermont Supreme Court Reverses, Finding No Coverage for Collapse

May 18, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision for collapse coverage. Commercial Constr. Endeavors, Inc. v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co., 2019 Vt. LEXIS 173 (Vt. Sup. Ct. Dec. 13,2019). Commercial Construction Endeavors, Inc. (CCE) built a livestock barn. By late December 2014, the barn was partially complete, with the foundation laid, wood framing erected, and roof trusses installed. In late December, strong winds caused the structure to collapse. CCE started clearing debris and rebuilding the barn, incurring additional labor and material costs. CCE reported the collapse to Ohio Security. The policy covered loss to "Covered Property." Ohio Security determined that the loss was covered for "Off-Premises Property Damage Including Care, Custody or Control." This endorsement provided coverage for damage to real property upon which CCE was performing operations where the damage resulted from those operations. Ohio Security paid CCE $24,750, the full amount available under the endorsement, less a $250 deductible. 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

---

Fannie-Freddie Propose Liquidity Rules for Mortgage Insurers

July 16, 2014 — Clea Benson and Zachary Tracer – Bloomberg
Ms. Benson may be contacted at cbenson20@bloomberg.net; Mr. Tracer may be contacted at ztracer1@bloomberg.net Private mortgage insurers looking to do business with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have to hold minimum amounts of liquid assets under standards proposed by the companies and their regulator. To back loans packaged into securities by the U.S.-owned mortgage-finance giants, insurers would have to hold liquid assets worth at least 5.6 percent of their risk exposure, and possibly more depending on the quality of the loans they cover, according to the proposal released today by the companies and the Federal Housing Finance Agency. “Mortgage insurance counterparties must be able to fulfill their intended role of providing private capital, even in adverse market conditions,” FHFA Director Melvin L. Watt said in an e-mailed statement. Ms. Benson may be contacted at cbenson20@bloomberg.net; Mr. Tracer may be contacted at ztracer1@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Clea Benson and Zachary Tracer, Bloomberg

---

Endorsement to Insurance Policy Controls

March 28, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: an insurance policy is a complicated reading and this reading gets compounded with endorsements that modify aspects of the policy. What you think may be covered may in fact not be covered by virtue of an endorsement to the insurance policy. This is why when you request an insurance policy you want to see the policy PLUS all endorsements to the policy. And when you analyze a policy, you need to do so with a full reading of the endorsements. An endorsement to an insurance policy will control over conflicting language in the policy. Geovera Speciality Ins. Co. v. Glasser, 47 Fla.L.Weekly D436a (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (citation omitted). The homeowner’s insurance coverage dispute in Glasser illustrates this point. Here, the policy had a water loss exclusion. There was an exception to the exclusion for an accidental discharge or overflow of water from a plumbing system on the premises. But there was an endorsement. The endorsement modified the water loss exclusion to clarify that the policy excluded water damage “in any form, including but not limited to….” Examples were then given which did not include the accidental discharge or overflow of water from a plumbing system. 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

---

Duty to Defend For Accident Exists, But Not Duty to Indeminfy

March 05, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Seventh Circuit found there was a duty to defend the additional insured under the policy, but not a duty to indemnify. Kmart Corp. v. Footstar, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1775 (7th Cir. Feb. 4, 2015). By agreement, Footstar operated the footwear department in hundreds of Kmart stores around the country. Footstar's footwear departments were in designated areas of the Kmart stores. Section 18.1 of the Master Agreement required Footstar to defend and indemnify Kmart from "all damage . . . arising out of Footstar's performance or failure to perform under this Agreement." The same section also required Footstar to obtain additional insurance coverage for Kmart. 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

---