Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Sanctions Issued for Frivolous Hurricane Sandy Complaint Filed Against Insurer

February 26, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court for the district of New Jersey cracked down on a Texas law firm that filed 250 Hurricane Sandy related cases against insurers without adequate investigation. Lighthouse Point Marina & Yacht Club, LLC v. Int'l Marine Underwriters, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6430 (D. N.J. Jan. 20, 2015). The Texas firm filed more that 250 actions in New Jersey courts against insurers to recover for alleged property damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. The original complaints were nearly identical with the same typos. The complaint in this case alleged that the insurer did not pay benefits under the policy for "extreme external and internal damages, as well as other wind-related loss," but did not specify the value or nature of the damage. The insurer answered that it sent an adjuster to the property soon after the storm and found wind damages to two fences, but no damage to any building on the property. The adjuster valued the claim at $1,612.00 and recommended a payment of $612.00, after applying the $1000 deductible. 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

How Do You Get to the Five Year Mark? Some Practical Advice

August 26, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Construction Law Musings, we would like to welcome back (again) Sean Lintow Sr. of SLS Construction & Building Solutions . Sean has over 20 years working directly in the trenches in the construction arena. Since moving to Illinois, the focus of his business has shifted to helping builders, trade professionals& even code officials not only understand and meet the latest energy codes but how to improve their methods to accomplish it better and more affordably. Currently he is RESNET Rater, AEE CEA (Certified Energy Auditor), ENERGY STAR partner & verifier, EPA Indoor airPLUS verifier, Level 2 Infrared Thermographer, Volunteer Energy Rater for Habitat for Humanity, and Builders Challenge Partner & Verifier. You may also want to check out his great resources on The HTRC (Homeowners & Trades Resource Center). I would like to thank Chris for inviting me back for my 6th musing on this great site. I would also like to give him a Belated Happy Birthday for reaching 5 years since going solo. Reaching five years is a big milestone for many businesses as most new ventures (I think it is 85% or maybe even 90%) fail during that time. Therefore, a big congrats to you Chris & here is to another five plus years. For the most part the blame game for failure comes down to; wrong product offerings (market to saturated, not interested in, etc…), their ability to market, or poor business skills (not charging enough, realizing what they are spending, etc…) as the main point of failures. There is another group though that never seems to get much press and that is the ones that seemingly are blindsided by the dreaded “ignorance of the law” is no excuse… Not only does this effect many large companies but also many solo operations which is where I do want to focus today, especially on 4 “lesser” known issues. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Insurer Prevails on Summary Judgment for Bad Faith Claim

July 16, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court granted summary judgment to the insurer on the insured's claim for bad faith due to denial of the claim. Treigle v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87786 (E.D. La. May 19, 2023). The insured's home sustained serious water damage due to Hurricane in August 2021. Her policy with State Farm excluded losses related to surface water and mold. The insured reported the loss from Hurricane Ida after she returned to her home and found two inches of standing water in the house. State Farm advised the insured to hire a water mitigation company to help with the water. The insured contacted 7 Brothers Company to start mitigation, including tearing out the disposing of wet building materials. 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

No Bad Faith in Insurer's Denial of Collapse Claim

July 15, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer on the insured's claims for collapse and bad faith. Christopher M. Wolpert Saddletree Holding, LLC v. Evanston Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10377 (10th Cir. April 30, 2024). On May 7, 2019, Saddletree filed a claim with Evanston for damages sustained to its building which was used as a community events center. After a winter of heavy snowfall, Saddletree discovered that the building's steel support columns had buckled two or more inches and the roof had deflected downward approximately six inches. Evanston retained an engineer to inspect the building. The engineer determined that the damage was the result of the building's inadequate "design and/or construction." Evanston disclaimed coverage under the policy's exclusion for damage caused by "hidden or latent defects" or "any quality in property that causes it to damage or destroy itself." 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

Claim Preclusion: The Doctrine Everyone Thinks They Know But No One Really Knows What it Means in Practice

April 25, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Generally, I think restraint in litigation is a good thing. Don’t go crazy on your claims, don’t go nut-so in your discovery, and don’t present your case at trial in a way that causes the judge and/or jury to raise their eyebrows or shake their heads in disbelief. But, as with nearly everything, there’s always an exception. One of which is: don’t hold back on a claim because you “think” you might be able to bring it later, because you might not be able to as the next case, 5th and LA v. Western Waterproofing Company, Inc., 87 Cal.App.5th 781 (2023), demonstrates. The 5th and LA Case At the outset, let me first say how much I enjoyed reading this case based on the writing alone. The case, as the 2nd District Court of Appeals states, involves “a second lawsuit about an increasingly leaky roof.” In 2012, property owner 5th and LA hired roofing contractor Western Waterproofing Company, Inc. to remove and recoat a parking lot that served also served as the roof over retail and office space below. Western completed its work in July 2012 and almost immediately 5th and LA noticed water that the coating was failing causing water leaks to the interior of the building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Chicago Developer and Trade Group Sue City Over Affordable Housing Requirements

September 03, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Chicago Tribune reported that Hoyne Development and Home Builders Association of Greater Chicago are suing the city of Chicago, claiming that the “Affordable Requirements Ordinance is unconstitutional because it involves the taking of private party without ‘just compensation,’ violating the Fifth Amendment.” Shannon Breymaier, spokeswoman for Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, however, disputes the claims, and told the Chicago Tribune in an email that the city planned to “defend the ordinance vigorously.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Genuine Dispute Summary Judgment Reversed for Abuse of Discretion and Trial of Fact Questions About Expert Opinions

July 27, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Fadeeff v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (No. A155691, filed 5/22/20 ord. pub. 6/8/20), a California appeals court held that triable issues of fact and the trial court’s failure to address a request for a continuance precluded summary judgment for an insurer under the genuine dispute doctrine. In Fadeeff, the policyholders made a claim to State Farm for smoke damage to their home from the 2015 Valley Fire in Hidden Valley Lake, California. With State Farm’s approval, the insureds retained the restoration company, ServPro, to assist with smoke and soot mitigation. State Farm documented smoke and soot on the interior walls, ceilings and carpeting, and on all exterior elevations, including on the deck and handrail. State Farm made a series of payments on the claim totaling about $50,000. The insureds then hired a public adjuster and submitted supplemental claims for further dwelling repairs and additional contents replacement, totaling approximately $75,000. State Farm responded by using its own independent adjuster to investigate, who was neither licensed as an adjuster, nor as a contractor. State Farm also retained forensic consultants for the structure and the HVAC system, but neither the independent adjuster nor the consultants were aware that State Farm had an internal operation guide for the use of third-party experts in handling first party claims, which guidelines were therefore not followed. In addition, the consultants made allegedly superficial inspections, with one attributing smoke and soot damage to other sources of combustion, including the insureds’ exterior propane barbecue, an internal wood fireplace and wood stove and candles that had been burned in the living room. None of the consultants asked the insureds when they had last used any of the sources of combustion. 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

Top Developments March 2024

April 22, 2024 — Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter
CLAIMS-MADE COVERAGE Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Syngenta Crop Prot. LLC, 2024 Del. LEXIS 68 (Del. Feb. 26, 2024) Delaware Supreme Court concludes that a letter from a lawyer informing an insured of possible lawsuits without identifying potential plaintiffs or demanding payment is not a “claim for damages” within the meaning of claims-made CGL and umbrella liability policies. Citing case law from Delaware and other jurisdictions, it reasoned that, in the ordinary sense, a “claim for damages” (which the policies did not define) is “a demand or request for monetary relief by or on behalf of an identifiable claimant.” According to the court, the letter in question did not meet this definition because it did not identify any claimants “except in the vaguest terms” or request monetary relief on any claimant’s behalf, but rather communicated only a threat of future litigation. As a result, the letter was not a claim made before the policy periods at issue. POLLUTION EXCLUSION Wesco Ins. Co. v. Brad Ingram Constr., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1488 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2024) A divided Ninth Circuit panel, applying California law, holds that a pollution exclusion* in a CGL policy does not preclude a duty to defend an underlying suit alleging physical injury from exposure to “clouds of toxic dust” deposited in the environment by a wildfire and released during clean up efforts. Citing MacKinnon v. Truck Ins. Exch., 73 P.3d 1205 (Cal. 2003), the majority explained that determining whether a “pollution event” (i.e., “environmental pollution”) resulting in excluded injury has occurred involves consideration of “the character of the injurious substance” and whether the exposure resulted from a “mechanism specified in the policy.” It concluded that a potential for coverage (and, therefore, a defense obligation) existed because, although wildfire debris may be considered a “pollutant” in certain circumstances, the mechanism alleged in the underlying complaint – “expos[ure] . . . to clouds of toxic dust during the loading and unloading of [the underlying plaintiff’s] truck” – did not clearly constitute an “event commonly thought of as pollution.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES