Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Court of Appeal Shines Light on Collusive Settlement Agreements

October 21, 2015 — Kristian B. Moriarty & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Diamond v. Reshko, (filed 8/20/2015, No. A139251) the California Court of Appeal, First District, held that a defendant was entitled to introduce evidence at trial reflecting amounts paid by co-defendants in settlement of a plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff, Christine Diamond, was injured during an automobile accident that occurred while she was a passenger in a taxi driven by Amir Mansouri. Christine, and her husband Andrew, filed suit against Mr. Mansouri, the Yellow Cab Collective (“Yellow Cab”), and the driver of the vehicle that collided with the taxi, Serge Reshko. Before trial, Mansouri and the Yellow Cab Collective settled with Plaintiffs, but agreed to appear and participate as defendants at the jury trial of the action. Mansouri and Yellow Cab paid a total of $400,000 to Plaintiffs in settlement. Reshko filed a pre-trial motion seeking an order permitting Reshko to admit evidence of the settlement between Plaintiffs and the other defendants. The trial court refused to rule on the motion before trial. Ultimately, evidence of the settlement between Plaintiffs, Mansouri and Yellow Cab was excluded during trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs in the total amount of $745,778, finding Mansouri 40 percent at fault, and Reshko 60 percent at fault. The Trial Court entered judgment against Reshko in the sum of $406,698. Reshko appealed the judgment. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that evidence of the settlement should have been admitted at trial because the settling defendant’s position should be revealed to the court and jury to avoid committing a fraud on the court, and in order to permit the trier of fact to properly weigh the settling defendant’s testimony. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Struggling Astaldi Announces Defaults on Florida Highway Contracts

April 22, 2019 — Scott Judy - Engineering News-Record
Astaldi Construction Corp. announced on March 28 that it was voluntarily defaulting on four contracts with the Florida Dept. of Transportation. Included among those was a $108.3-million contract covering the 3.5-mile-long Section 7A for the $1.6-billion Wekiva Parkway project. Astaldi’s default on that project comes nearly a year after the contractor commenced work on April 1, 2018. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Judy, ENR
Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com

Recent Decision Further Jeopardizes Availability of Additional Insured Coverage in New York

July 08, 2024 — Nina Catanzaro & Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Additional insured endorsements often provide “blanket” coverage to persons or organizations as required by a written contract. However, the wording of the “blanket” language is critically important, as the inclusion of certain phrases in an additional insured endorsement can result in a denial of coverage for the upstream party. For example, risk transfer issues can arise when an additional insured endorsement provides coverage to parties “when you [the named insured] and such person or organization [the additional insured] have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement.” Courts in New York (among other jurisdictions) have interpreted this phrase to require contractual privity – that is, only the entity that contracted directly with the named insured is entitled to additional insured coverage, even if the named insured agreed in that contract to provide additional insured coverage for others as well. The same goes for the phrase “any person or organization with whom you [the named insured] have agreed to add as an additional insured by written contract.” Reprinted courtesy of Nina Catanzaro, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Catanzaro may be contacted at NCatanzaro@sdvlaw.com Ms. Barrese may be contacted at BBarrese@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Chinese Drywall Manufacturer Claims Product Was Not for American Market

October 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. Claimed in a hearing at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that when they sold about $8.5 million of contaminated drywall to Venture Supply Inc. of Virginia, that they had no awareness that the drywall would be sold in the United States. Joe Cyr, an attorney for Taisan told the court that “Venture Supply never said it was going to distribute the goods in Virginia.” One of the judges on the three-judge panel, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, was skeptical of Taishan’s claim, asking, “it was packed and labeled for the Virginia market, isn’t that correct?” When asked by a judge if Taishan was trying to avoid accountability, Cyr said that Tiashan “has not said that it doesn’t want to be accountable for its drywall.” Taishan holds the position that claims against it should be arbitrated in the People’s Republic of China. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Less Than Valiant Effort”

June 21, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A Miller Act claimant in federal court in New Jersey in relation to a VA medical center project found itself on the wrong end of the law and was sent packing by the court. The claimant had supplied products for the project to general contractor Valiant Group, LLC, pursuant to a purchase order from the GC. The general contractor allegedly refused to pay the supplier, leading to the claim against the GC and its payment bond surety in the amount of $126,900. The supplier also sought recovery under the federal Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3901-07. State law claims were asserted as well. Chipping away at the federal law claims – the claims forming the asserted basis for federal court jurisdiction for the case – the court first dispensed with the Prompt Payment Act claim. According to the court, allegations that the general contractor had “wrongfully and improperly withheld remuneration… despite [having] ‘received payment from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’" – whether or not accurate – did not trigger the Act. The court wrote: “The Prompt Payment Act was enacted ‘to provide the federal government with an incentive to pay government contractors on time by requiring agencies to pay penalties . . . on certain overdue bills . . . [and] was later amended to include provisions applicable to subcontractors.’… Absent from the Act, however, are ‘any explicit provisions for subcontractor enforcement if the prime contractor fails to make timely payment.’… This is because the Act ‘merely requires that the prime contractor's contract with the subcontractor include the specified payment clause. [It] does not require the prime contractor to actually make payments to the subcontractor[.]’… The Act, therefore, does not ‘give subcontractors an additional cause of action for an alleged breach by a general contractor of a subcontract.’” 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

Hunton Insurance Team Wins Summary Judgment on Firm’s Own Hurricane Harvey Business Income Loss

March 23, 2020 — Michael S. Levine & Michelle M. Spatz - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A Texas judge has ruled that Hunton Andrews Kurth is entitled to coverage from Great Northern Insurance Co., a unit of Chubb, Ltd. (“Chubb”), for losses its predecessor firm suffered when Hurricane Harvey closed its Houston office and disrupted business in 2017. The court agreed with Hunton’s position that the policy, written specifically for a law firm, covered its business income loss until the firm’s operations were restored to their pre-loss levels. The court rejected in its entirety Chubb’s argument that coverage lasted only until the physical damage that closed the building had been repaired. Rather, siding with Hunton, the court found that the policy language affords, in addition to ordinary business income coverage during the damage period, “extended period” coverage that commences after the damaged property is repaired and after the firm’s operations resume. From August 27 to August 31, 2017, the firm was forced to close its Houston office due to flooding and damage caused by Hurricane Harvey. While employees were permitted to return to the office on August 31, income did not return to its pre-loss level until September 14, 2017. The firm submitted a claim to Chubb for the loss sustained from August 27 to September 14, but Chubb paid only for income loss suffered during the 3-day closure period, and refused to cover the loss suffered after the building reopened. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michelle M. Spatz, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Property Damage to Non-Defective Work Is Covered

February 18, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The New Hampshire Supreme Court found some of the property damage evolving from the insured's portion of the work was covered under its liability policy. Cogswell Farm Condo. Ass'n v. Tower Group, Inc., 2015 N.H. LEXIS 3 (N.H. Jan. 13, 2015). Lemery Building Company, Inc. constructed and developed 24 residential condominium units. After units were sold, the Cogswell Farm Condominium Association sued Lemery, asserting that the "weather barrier" components of the units were defectively constructed and resulted in damage to the units due to water leaks. Cogswell then sued its insurer, Tower Group, Inc., seeking a declaratory judgment that its claims against Lemery were covered. The trial court eventually determined that exclusions J (1) and J (6) both applied to exclude coverage. Exclusion J (1) excluded coverage for "property damage" to property that Lemery "owns, rents, or occupies." Exclusion J (6) excluded coverage for property damage to "[t] hat particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because [Lemery's] work was incorrectly performed on it." 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

Construction Spending Had Strongest Increase in Four Years

January 13, 2014 — CDJ STAFF
The Commerce Department announced a 1% gain in construction spending, from October to November, which is the biggest gain that construction has seen since March 2009, according to The Spokesman-Review. The gain brought construction spending to an adjusted annual rate of $934.4 billion. The Spokesman-Review further reports that residential construction rose 1.9% in November, while commercial construction rose 2.7%. Government construction, on the other hand, fell 1.8%. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES