FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Georgia Court of Appeals Upholds Denial of Coverage Because Insurance Broker Lacked Agency to Accept Premium Payment

December 07, 2020 — Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine & Rachel E. Hudgins - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In American Reliable Insurance Company v. Lancaster, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a property insurer’s summary judgment motion concerning the insurer’s denial of a fire loss claim. The basis of the denial was that the policyholders had failed to pay the policy premium. The policyholders, Charlie and Wanda Lancaster, claimed that they had paid their policy premiums for several years to their insurance agent, Macie Yawn. In October 2014, American Reliable mailed a renewal notice to the Lancasters notifying them that premium payments had to be made directly to the insurer. After it did not receive payment from the Lancasters, American Reliable sent them a cancellation notice in December 2014, again notifying them that payments be made directly to the insurer. The Lancasters denied having received either notice from American Reliable, but the record included a receipt for certificate of mailing. After the Lancaster’s home burned down in 2015, American Reliable denied coverage on the grounds that the policy had been cancelled for nonpayment of premium. In the subsequent coverage action, the trial court denied American Reliable’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that a factual issue existed as to the actual and apparent agency of the insurance agent, Yawn. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in deciding that there was a factual issue concerning Yawn’s agency. Specifically, the Court of Appeals ruled that the record showed American Reliable had terminated Yawn’s agency to accept policy premiums, and that the Lancaster’s received notice of that termination in the renewal and cancellation notices. In addition to determining that Yawn was not an actual agent, the Court held that Yawn did not have apparent agency, because the notices sent to the Lancasters stated that the premium payment was to be paid to American Reliable, not to the agent. Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Appellate Court of Maryland Construes Notice Conditions of A312 Performance Bond in Favor of Surety

January 02, 2024 — Joel P. Williams - White and Williams LLP
The Appellate Court of Maryland issued a reported opinion in a case construing an American Institute of Architects (“AIA”) A312 performance bond. In Wildewood Operating Company, LLC v. WRV Holdings, LLC, et al. 2023 Md. App. LEXIS 720 (Oct. 30, 2023), the Appellate Court of Maryland held that a performance bond surety was discharged from liability where the owner/obligee failed to give the surety notice of the contractor’s default termination until after a third party had completed the work. The project concerned the construction of an assisted living facility in St. Mary’s County, Maryland. The owner, Wildewood Operating Company, LLC, entered into an A312-2010 performance bond with Clark Turner Construction, LLC, as contractor, and First Indemnity of America Insurance Company, as surety. When Clark Turner failed to complete certain stormwater management work adjacent to the site, Wildewood, Clark Turner, and other parties entered into a Work Agreement to address completion of the work. The surety was not a party to the Work Agreement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joel P. Williams, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Williams may be contacted at williamsj@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Nevada Assembly Passes Construction Defect Bill

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Nevada Speaker says that AB401 gives contractors what they want, but a contractors’ group has asked a Senate committee to kill the bill. Supporters of AB 401 say that it clarifies what qualifies as a construction defect and shortens the statute of limitations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Honors Construction Attorney

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly has named Grace V. B. Garcia one of its 2013 Top Women of the Law. She is an attorney at Morrison Mahoney LLP in Boston, and her practice focuses on construction law, product liability, premises liability, commercial litigation, and American with Disability Act cases. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

To Sea or Not to Sea: Fifth Circuit Applies Maritime Law to Offshore Service Contract, Spares Indemnity Provision from Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act

March 29, 2017 — Richard W. Brown & Afua Akoto – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Faced with the issue of whether maritime or state law should be applied to determine the validity of an indemnity clause in a Master Services Contract (MSC), the Fifth Circuit affirmed that where there is no historical treatment of the contract in question (1), it would consider six factors established in Davis (2). In Doiron, the Apache Corporation and STS (3) entered a broad-form blanket MSC, under which STS agreed to perform flow-back services, a process designed to dislodge solid objects from inside a well, on Apache’s well located off shore of Louisiana. The MSC also contained an indemnification provision, which required STS to defend and indemnify Apache and its company groups against all claims of property injury or bodily injury. During the flow-back operation, Larry Doiron Inc. (LDI), one of the Apache Company groups, supplied a crane barge for use by STS employees. Subsequently, the crane knocked over an STS employee, causing him to suffer severe injuries. LDI then made a formal demand to STS for defense and indemnification. STS rejected the demand and argued that the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act applied to the MSC instead of maritime law. Pursuant to the Act, indemnity clauses in agreements pertaining to wells for oil, gas or water are void as against public policy. But, under maritime law, the enforcement of such provisions is not barred. Therefore, if the MSC was construed under the Act, STS had no duty to defend or indemnify LDI. Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Afua S. Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

It’s a Jolly Time of the Year: 5 Tips for Dealing with Construction Labor Issues During the Holidays

December 18, 2022 — Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction Law
It’s that time of year again – the holiday season is upon us, and for those in the construction industry, that can mean a few extra challenges when it comes to maintaining efficiency on the job site. Here are five best practices for dealing with labor during the holiday season:

1. Communicate early and often: Make sure to clearly communicate any changes to the schedule or workload to your team as early as possible. This will give them time to plan and prepare, and help prevent any potential issues from arising.
2. Offer incentives: Consider offering incentives to encourage your team to stay focused and productive during the holiday season. This could be something as simple as a bonus or extra time off, or something more creative like a gift card or other prize.
3. Stay organized: The holiday season can be a busy time, so it’s important to stay organized and on top of your schedule. This means keeping track of deadlines, delegating tasks effectively, and staying in close communication with your team.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew DeVries, Burr & Forman LLP
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at mdevries@burr.com

---

Home Buyer Disclosures, What’s Required and What Isn’t

February 05, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Sandy Gadow of the Washington Post, while all states require a property disclosure statement, “the extent of what must be revealed can vary from state to state, county to county and even city to city.” Gadow stated that while, “Federal law requires certain disclosures, such as the existence of asbestos or lead-based paint in the home or other known health or safety risks. But the enforcement of other disclosures (such as reporting certain environmental conditions pertinent to the area, or the existence of Megan’s Law offenders) will be determined by local ordinance or law.” Gadow recommends home buyers go to their state’s Department of Real Estate to discover the Seller Disclosure requirements. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

M&A Representation and Warranty Insurance Considerations in the Wake of the Coronavirus Pandemic

April 06, 2020 — Lori Smith & Patrick Devine - White and Williams Taking Care of Business Blog
Increasingly, M&A transactions are using representation and warranty insurance (RWI) to bridge the gap between a buyer’s desire for adequate recourse to recover damages arising out of breach of representations in the purchase agreement and a seller’s desire to minimize post-closing risk and holdbacks or purchase price escrows traditionally used as the means to satisfy such obligations. When it works, RWI provides a significant benefit to both parties: it mitigates the buyer’s risk in the event that the seller’s representations and warranties prove untrue, and it permits the seller to reduce the portion of the purchase price that it would otherwise have to leave in escrow to cover future claims for breach of those representations and warranties. However, as the coronavirus pandemic ravages the global economy, insurers are now expressly adding COVID-19 exclusions to their RWI policies. If RWI insurers decline coverage for these losses, the allocation of risk in the representations and warranties (and related indemnity provisions) will be more critical than the parties contemplated when they negotiated the transaction documents. Unlike in the case of a natural disaster, insurers cannot quantify the economic fallout that may result from the coronavirus pandemic. This uncertainty breeds systemic concern about the number of insurance claims that covered parties of all varieties will bring, which in turn creates an industry-wide reluctance to cover the claims. Based on discussions with market participants, we understand that, at the present time, 70% to 80% of RWI insurers are broadly excluding losses resulting from COVID-19 and similar viruses, epidemics, and pandemics (including government actions in response thereto), 5% to 10% are narrowly excluding specific coronavirus-related losses that are more likely to be implicated in a particular transaction (e.g., losses caused by business interruption), and 10% to 15% may be willing to narrow their exclusions upon completion of the underwriting process, depending on their comfort level after conducting rigorous and heightened diligence. Insurers’ concerns are wide-ranging, but the representations and warranties causing the greatest distress appear to be those regarding customer retention, supply chain matters, undisclosed liabilities, and the absence of changes between the date of the seller’s most recent financial statements and the transaction closing date. Reprinted courtesy of Lori Smith, White and Williams and Patrick Devine, White and Williams Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Devine may be contacted at devinep@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---