Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Statute of Limitations and Bad Faith Claims: Factors to Consider

May 16, 2022 — Anastasiya Collins - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
How much time do our clients have to bring a bad faith action against an insurer? Although we are not frequently asked this question, it is one that we constantly analyze before asserting a bad faith claim. To answer this question, we look to the statute of limitations, which is a law passed by a state legislative body that sets the maximum amount of time for a party to bring a claim based upon a particular cause of action. For policyholders, knowing which statute of limitations applies to their bad faith claim is critical because it indicates whether it is possible to initiate legal proceedings. In addition, it determines the amount in damages available in case of a successful resolution. Statute of Limitations in Breach of Contract vs. Tort Claims One key determinant of a statute of limitations for bad faith is whether the claim is brought as a tort or a breach of contract action. The consequence of framing bad faith as a tort is that a policyholder is not just limited to contract damages. The policyholder can also receive recourse for emotional distress, pain, suffering, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and other damages that the court may consider appropriate. Unfortunately, however, not every jurisdiction allows plaintiffs to bring bad faith actions as tort claims. While, for example, courts in California, Colorado, and Connecticut allow bad faith claims sounding in tort, courts in jurisdictions such as Tennessee do not. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anastasiya Collins, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Collins may be contacted at ACollins@sdvlaw.com

Would You Trade a Parking Spot for an Extra Bedroom?

August 23, 2021 — Virginia Postrel - Bloomberg
A bill wending its way through the California Legislature could suddenly make a lot more new housing economically feasible. Known as AB 1401, the legislation would abolish local parking requirements for new residential and commercial developments near bus or train stops. It applies to counties with more than 600,000 residents and cities with more than 75,000 people. The bill does not prohibit or restrict parking. It merely deregulates it, allowing developers to decide what works best for a given project. It opens up the possibility, for example, of providing parking in an off-site garage or lot. It permits tandem parking to save space or subsidized shared ride services. It doesn’t prescribe a one-size-fits-all solution to how buildings can best serve the people who use them, and it allows flexibility as transportation options evolve. Most homeowners and tenants want some sort of parking, but local mandates can be extreme — and extremely expensive. Twenty-one California towns even require more than three parking places for a three-bedroom single-family home. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Virginia Postrel, Bloomberg

Cooperating With Your Insurance Carrier: Is It a Must?

January 02, 2024 — Susana Arce - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
A majority of insurance policies require the insured to cooperate with the insurer. The cooperation clause generally states, “the insured agrees to Cooperate with us in the investigation, settlement or defense of the suit.” The “cooperation clause” is often an afterthought because once litigation has ensued an insured is focused on other important considerations. However, insureds should not forget that complying with the cooperation clause can make the difference between the insurer covering or denying a claim. The Cooperation Clause in Action The Court in HDI Glob. Specialty SE v. PF Holdings, LLC,1 highlighted the importance of cooperating with an insurance carrier. In the underlying litigation, residents of an apartment complex sued four entities, all insured by the same insurance policy: two were named insureds and two were additional insureds. The primary insurer provided a defense for the named insureds. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Susana Arce, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Arce may be contacted at SArce@sdvlaw.com

Court Finds Matching of Damaged Materials is Required by Policy

April 02, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court granted, in part, the insured's motion for summary judgment by finding that matching roof tiles were required under the policy. Bertisen v. Travelers Home and Marine Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3907 (D. Colo. Jan. 8, 2024). The insureds sued Travelers for breach of contract, common law bad faith, and unreasonable delay or denial of benefits. They alleged that their residence was damaged by a hailstorm and that Travelers breached their policy and acted in bad faith in the handling of the claim. The insureds demanded an appraisal to determine the "amount of loss" under the policy and an appraisal award was issued. Travelers then denied payment for all roof tiles that were contemplated by the appraisal award. 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

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

Appellate Court Reinforces When the Attorney-Client Relationship Ends for Purposes of “Continuous Representation” Tolling Provision of Legal Malpractice Statute of Limitations

October 20, 2016 — Stephen J. Squillario & David W. Evans – Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In Gotek Energy, Inc. v. Socal IP Law Group, LLP (No. B26668, October 12, 2016), the Second District Court of Appeal held that rather than the date on which a client file is transferred to new counsel, the attorney-client relationship ends for statute of limitations purposes when, using an objective standard, there is no “ongoing mutual relationship” nor evidence of “activities in furtherance of the relationship.” (Emphasis in opinion.) Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com 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

Flooded Courtroom May be Due to Construction Defect

September 01, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The General Services Administration wouldn’t pin it on a construction defect, but a spokesperson said that a pipe that was misaligned during installation was the likely cause of a flood in the Thomas F. Eagleton US Courthouse on August 23. According to the St. Louis Dispatch, the burst pipe caused a 17-story waterfall in the courthouse, soaking ceilings and floors, and drenching the building’s contents.

The building was dedicated eleven years ago. During the nearly ten years before the building was complete, there were construction disputes and soil contamination issues.

Read the full story…

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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES