FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Significant Ruling in PFAS Litigation Could Impact Insurance Coverage

October 10, 2022 — Sara C. Tilitz & Lynndon K. Groff - White and Williams LLP
Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS, have served as a key component in numerous industrial and consumer products for decades. These “forever chemicals,” which have been associated with environmental contamination and adverse health outcomes, have garnered steadily-growing attention from regulatory authorities, the plaintiffs’ bar, and, by extension, the insurance industry. The current “case to watch” regarding PFAS is the multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Judge Gergel presiding. The MDL is comprised of well over 2,000 cases brought by both individual plaintiffs and state and local governments arising out of the manufacturing and/or use of aqueous film forming foam, also known as AFFF. The use of AFFF, which was historically employed in firefighting operations, including those undertaken by the United States military, allegedly causes the release of two types of PFAS into the environment – PFOS and PFOA. On September 16, 2022, Judge Gergel denied a motion for partial summary judgment filed by defendant 3M Company and other AFFF defendant manufacturers on the government contractor immunity defense. Although not an insurance coverage decision, the ruling is significant in the context of PFAS litigation and could have insurance coverage implications. Reprinted courtesy of Sara C. Tilitz, White and Williams LLP and Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams LLP Ms. Tilitz may be contacted at tilitzs@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

San Francisco International Airport Reaches New Heights in Sustainable Project Delivery

November 21, 2022 — Aileen Cho - Engineering News-Record
Ten years ago, Geoff Neumayr decided he was tired of “doing design and construction by combat.” San Francisco International Airport had completed a master plan for the complex and the front of the airport facilities doing things the traditional way. Reprinted courtesy of Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Court Forces Insurer to Play Ball in COVID-19 Insurance Coverage Suit

December 13, 2022 — Latosha M. Ellis & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
One of the threshold issues in COVID-19 insurance coverage cases that have been brought across the country is whether the policyholder’s allegations meet the applicable pleading standard in alleging that the virus caused physical loss or damage. In many cases, the courts have gotten it wrong, effectively holding policyholders to a higher standard than required. But recently, a California federal judge righted those wrongs by acknowledging the correct pleading standard in that case, which is whether the allegations state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The Court, here, correctly recognized that the policyholder, the Los Angeles Lakers, met that pleading standard when it alleged that the COVID-19 virus can cause physical loss or damage by physically altering property. In its complaint, the Los Angeles Lakers alleged that the virus physically altered its property by changing its chemical and physical property conditions, creating viral vectors that required remedial measures before the property was safe again. Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 591 F. Supp. 3d 672 (C.D. Cal. 2022), adhered to on reconsideration, 2022 WL 16571193 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2022). The Court agreed that these allegations by the Lakers adequately pled physical alteration to support a claim for property damage. The insurer requested reconsideration of the decision, and the Court emphatically affirmed its prior decision, explaining its rationale as follows: The Court lacks the scientific expertise necessary to conclude, based solely on the allegations in the FAC . . . that it is not plausible for the Lakers’ property to have been physically altered by the Virus, which the Lakers adequately alleged. Consequently, the Court, in the March 17 Order, concluded that the Lakers’ theory was plausible. Whether the Lakers can actually prove its theory will be determined at summary judgment or trial. Reprinted courtesy of Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@HuntonAK.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Texas Supreme Court Holds that Invoking Appraisal Provision and Paying Appraisal Amount Does Not Insulate an Insurer from Damages Under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act

September 16, 2019 — John C. Eichman & Grayson L. Linyard - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In two cases decided June 28, 2019, the Texas Supreme Court held that an insurer’s invocation of a contractual appraisal provision after denying a claim does not as a matter of law insulate it from liability under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act (“TPPCA”). But, on the other hand, the court also held that the insurer’s payment of the appraisal award does not as a matter of law establish its liability under the policy for purposes of TPPCA damages. In Barbara Techs. Corp. v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 17-0640, 2019 WL 2666484, at *1 (Tex. June 28, 2019), State Farm Lloyds issued property insurance to Barbara Technologies Corporation for a commercial property. A wind and hail storm damaged the property, and Barbara Tech filed a claim under the policy. State Farm denied the claim, asserting that damages were less than the $5,000 deductible. Barbara Tech filed suit against State Farm, including for violation of the TPPCA. Six months later, State Farm invoked the appraisal provision of the policy. More than a year after the suit was filed, appraisers agreed to a value of $195,345.63. State Farm then paid that amount, minus depreciation and the deductible. Barbara Tech amended its petition to include only TPPCA claims. Reprinted courtesy of John C. Eichman, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Grayson L. Linyard, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Eichman may be contacted at jeichman@HuntonAK.com Mr. Linyard may be contacted at glinyard@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Implied Warranty Claims–Not Just a Seller’s Risk: Builders Beware!

May 10, 2021 — Carin Ramirez - Colorado Construction Litigation
One of the thorns in the side of every construction defect defense litigator is the implied warranty claim. The “implied warranty” is a promise that Colorado law is “implied” into every contract for a sale of a new home that the home was built in a workmanlike manner and is suitable for habitation. Defense attorneys dislike the implied warranty claim because it is akin to a strict liability standard. All that is required to provide the claim is that an aspect of construction is found to be defective — i.e., inconsistent with the building code or manufacturer’s installation instructions — regardless of whether the work was performed to the standard of care. The implied warranty claim is therefore easier to prove than a negligence claim, where a claimant must prove that a construction professional’s work fell below a standard of reasonable care. Additionally, it is not a defense to an implied warranty claim that the homeowners or the HOA are, themselves, partially liable for the defects where damage is due in part to insufficient or deferred maintenance, as it is for negligence claims. The only redeeming aspect to the implied warranty claim was that, until recently, it was believed that it could only be asserted by a first purchaser against the seller of an improvement, because the implied warranty arises out of the sale contract. Recently, the Colorado Court of Appeals opinion in Brooktree Village Homeowners Association v. Brooktree Village, LLC, 19CA1635, decided on November 19, 2020, extended the reach of the implied warranty — though just how far remains to be seen. Specifically, a division of the Court of Appeals held that an HOA can assert implied warranty claims on behalf of its members for defects in common areas, even where there is no direct contractual relationship between the parties to base the warranty upon. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Carin Ramirez, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Ramirez may be contacted at ramirez@hhmrlaw.com

---

Nuclear Fusion Pushes to Reach Commercial Power Plant Stage

August 05, 2024 — Mary B. Powers, Debra K. Rubin, Peter Reina & David Godkin - Engineering News-Record
The quest to develop nuclear fusion—the process that energizes the sun and other stars—as an earth-based power source dates back more than a century when Albert Einstein and other scientists theorized how enormous amounts of energy could be produced when atoms fuse. That research was partly diverted for wartime weapons priorities but later targeted to develop fusion for commercial-scale energy—what sector proponents have called the “holy grail” for decades since. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record, Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record, Peter Reina, Engineering News-Record and David Godkin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Mr. Reina may be contacted at reina@btinternet.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California insured’s duty to cooperate and insurer’s right to select defense counsel

April 14, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Travelers Property Casualty Co. v. Centex Homes, No. C 10-02757 (N.D. Cal. April 1, 2011), general contractor Centex was sued by homeowners for construction defects. Centex tendered its defense to Travelers as an additional insured under policies issued by Travelers to two Centex subcontractors. Travelers agreed to defend Centex under a reservation of rights and selected defense counsel to defend Centex. Centex refused to accept the defense, asserting that it was entitled to select defense counsel. Travelers filed suit against Centex seeking a declaratory judgment that Centex had breached the duty to cooperate condition in the Travelers’ policy.



Read the full story...



Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Industry News: New Partner at Burdman Law Group

March 30, 2016 — Burdman Law Group
Burdman Law Group, a boutique civil litigation law firm with offices in California, Nevada, and Arizona, is pleased to announce that Pieter M. O’Leary, was named a Partner in January 2016. Mr. O’Leary is an experienced litigator who has represented individuals and businesses in both state and federal court in actions involving breach of contract, negligence, construction, fraud, product defect, and business torts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---