FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Attorneys Fees Under California’s Prompt Payment Statutes. Contractor’s “Win” Fails the Sniff Test

October 02, 2015 — Roger Hughes – California Construction Law Blog
This past month, the California Court of Appeals for the Third District, in James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. v. West Bay Builders, Inc., Case No. C072169 (August 27, 2015), handed down a decision in a construction contract battle that has raged since 2007. And, once again, the winner is . . . in the words of Justice Andrea Lynn Hoch who authored the opinion . . . . “no prevailing party in [the] case” and hence “no prevailing party attorney’s fees [ ] awarded.” Background In Harris, subcontractor James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. (“Harris”) sued general contractor West Bay Builders, Inc. (“West Bay”) for extra work performed on a school construction project in Stockton, California. Among its claims, Harris asserted that West Bay was liable under California’s prompt payment statutes for failure to timely pay Harris. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Hughes may be contacted at rhughes@wendel.com

---

Mercury News Editorial Calls for Investigation of Bay Bridge Construction

July 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Editors at the San Jose Mercury News called for investigations of the construction of the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge: “It's time for public officials, especially members of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, state legislators and Gov. Jerry Brown, to demand thorough independent analyses.” Problems with the $6.5 billion structure were found about nine months ago, which led to questions regarding the “integrity and maintenance costs” that were allegedly covered up by Caltrans officials. Issues raised included questions “about the strength of thousands of bolts, including at the base of the tower and the connections of the main cable; cracked welds in the suspension span; and rusting of the single cable holding up the bridge.” The Mercury editors, however, do not show much optimism about the situation: “It's likely that, absent a political outcry, Caltrans will sign off. From the start, agency officials have failed to adequately oversee the construction and thrown public money at problems while trying to cover-up their own failures. Brown, ultimately responsible for Caltrans, has dismissed concerns about the bridge's integrity.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Up in Smoke - 5th Circuit Finds No Coverage for Hydrochloric Acid Spill Based on Pollution Exclusion

October 19, 2020 — Kerianne E. Kane & David G. Jordan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an insurer was not obligated to pay damages associated with a hydrochloric acid spill based on a pollution exclusion in the policy. In Burroughs Diesel, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America,1 a trucking company sued its property insurer, Travelers Indemnity Company of America (“Travelers”) when it refused to pay a claim for a storage tank leak which resulted in over 5,000 gallons of hydrochloric acid entering the property and causing significant damage to buildings, vehicles, tools, and equipment. The acid was initially dispensed in liquid form, but quickly became a cloud that engulfed the property. Travelers denied coverage for the claim based on the pollution exclusion because “acids” fell within the policy’s definition of “pollutants.” The trucking company sued Travelers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, alleging breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing for refusing to pay the claim. The trucking company argued that coverage was warranted because there is an exception to the pollution exclusion if “the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape is itself caused by any of the ‘specified causes of loss,’” and the hydrochloric acid cloud was a form of “smoke,” which is a specified cause of loss covered by the policy. The District Court entered summary judgment in favor of Travelers, finding that the trucking company failed to demonstrate that an exception to the pollution exclusion applied. The trucking company appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Reprinted courtesy of Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Ms. Kane may be contacted at kek@sdvlaw.com Mr. Jordan may be contacted at dgj@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

North Carolina Supreme Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage,” Allocation and Exhaustion-Related Issues Arising Out of Benzene-Related Claims

January 04, 2023 — White and Williams LLP
On December 16, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court decided Radiator Specialty Co. v. Arrowood Indem. Co., 2022 N.C. LEXIS 1122 (Dec. 16, 2022), in which it addressed coverage issues arising out of claims by individuals alleging injury from exposure to benzene contained in the insured’s products. Affirming in part and reversing in part the intermediate appellate court’s decision, the court held: (1) an “exposure trigger” applied; (2) defense and indemnity costs were subject to pro-rata allocation; and (3) vertical exhaustion applied to the duty to defend under certain umbrella policies. Two justices concurred in part and dissented in part. I. Background In Radiator Specialty, the insured (RSC) was named in hundreds of underlying suits arising from individual plaintiffs’ alleged exposure to benzene contained in its products. Between 1971 and 2012, RSC was insured under primary, umbrella and excess liability policies issued by various insurers. In 2013, RSC sued the insurers in North Carolina state court, seeking coverage for approximately $45 million in defense and indemnity costs incurred for the underlying claims. In 2016, the trial court decided motions for summary judgment on a number of coverage issues. Following a bench trial in 2018, the trial court entered final judgment, which required the insurers to reimburse $1.8 million of RSC’s past costs. The rulings were appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which issued a decision in 2020. In 2021, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted RSC’s and certain insurers’ petitions for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals’ decision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

---

Pancakes Decision Survives Challenge Before Hawaii Appellate Court

March 12, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
In 1997, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) decided Pancakes of Hawaii, Inc. v. Pomare Prop. Corp., 85 Haw. 286, 944 P.2d 83 (Haw. Ct. App. 1997). Although not an insurance coverage case, Pancakes addressed the duty to defend in terms of a contractual indemnity obligation. Under challenge in a recent appeal before the ICA, the Court reaffirmed the holding in Pancakes. Arthur v. State of Hawaii, Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands, 2015 Haw. App. LEXIS 109 (Haw. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2015). The decision is long with detailed facts complicated and many indemnities running in favor of various parties. This post focuses on the decision's discussion of Pancakes. A resident, Mona Arthur, of the Kalawahine Streamside Housing Development, was killed when she apparently slipped and fell from a hillside adjacent to the project. She was on the hillside tending to her garden there. At the bottom of the hill was a two foot fence in front of a drainage ditch, where Mona allegedly hit her head. 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

---

One Insurer's Settlement with Insured Does Not Bar Contribution Claim by Other Insurers

October 30, 2013 — Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law Hawaii
The New Jersey Supreme Court held that one insurer could seek contribution from another insurer who settled with and secured a release from the insured. Potomac Ins. Co. v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Ass'n Ins. Co., 2013 N.J. LEXIS 847 (N.J. Sept. 16, 2013) The township of Evesham retained Roland Aristone, Inc. to be its general contractor for construction of a new middle school. After completion of the school, the roof leaked. Evesham sued Aristone for the construction defects. Aristone tendered to its various CGL carriers. Two insurers, Selective Way Insurance Company and OneBeacon Insurance Company, defended. Two others, Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Insurance Company (PMA) and Royal Insurance Company, denied coverage. Aristone sued PMA and Royal, and ultimately settled with PMA for $150,000 in exchange for Aristone's release from all claims, including claims for defense fees and costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Insurer's Refusal to Consider Supplemental Claim Found Improper

June 17, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eleventy Circuit reversed the district court's finding that the insurer had properly rejected the insured's supplemental claim. Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Concourse Plaza A Condomiium Association, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 8958 (11th Cir. April 15, 2024). On September 10, 2017, Hurrican Irma struck Concourse Plaza's building, causing wind and water damage. Great Lakes sent a adjuster to inspect the property. The adjuster found damages to the building were $31,035.21, well below the policy's deductible. Accordingly, Great Lakes advised that the net amount of the claim was zero. Concourse Plaza responded on September 4, 2020, just shy of three years after the cliam accured. Concourse Plaza disputed the damages estimate, but did not include a competing estimate. The letter said an estimate was being prepared and Great Lakes should consider the letter as notice of the intent to pursue additional benefits for the loss pursuant to the policy's notice provisions and Florida law. 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

---

What’s in a Name? Trademarks and Construction

April 25, 2022 — Carol Wilhelm and J.P. Vogel - Construction Executive
Every company, no matter the industry, relies on its name and reputation to develop customers and generate revenue. Think about the brands that dominate American culture such as Nike, Wal-Mart, Amazon or McDonald’s, then imagine those businesses without the ability to adequately protect their names, slogans and logos. No doubt the vultures would circle and brand power would most likely become short lived or otherwise diluted to the point of non-existence. The construction industry is not exempt, and the industry leaders benefit from identifiable names and logos, built over years of reputation and brand building. While the tools necessary to protect your company’s brand exist at the state and federal level, many business owners or leaders are unfamiliar with the trademark process and unaware of the consequences of not utilizing those tools. Trademark Registration Trademarks are “concise and unequivocal identifiers” that provide potential customers with essential information about your business. With a single word, tagline, logo, color—essentially anything that can carry meaning—potential customers learn to associate particular product or service characteristics and expected quality level with a particular source. That is, your mark is the way that consumers connect your expertise and reputation to your business and nobody else’s. It serves a critical role in reducing consumer search costs and capturing your hard-earned business opportunities. Reprinted courtesy of Carol Wilhelm and J.P. Vogel, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Vogel may be contacted at jpvogel@grayreed.com Ms. Wilhelm may be contacted at cwilhelm@grayreed.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---