Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

New York Court Temporarily Enjoins UCC Foreclosure Sale

September 21, 2020 — Steven E. Ostrow, Timothy E. Davis, Steven E. Coury & Kristen E. Andreoli - White and Williams
New York courts have become a battleground for challenges to foreclosure sales under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Another trial court of the New York State Supreme Court (New York County) issued a preliminary injunction in Shelbourne BRF LLC v. SR 677 Bway LLC, halting a mezzanine lender’s August 19, 2020 UCC foreclosure sale. The decision confirms that the impact of the pandemic on the value of commercial real estate, and upon traditional steps taken to conduct a foreclosure auction, are both key factors that courts will continue to consider in determining whether a UCC foreclosure sale scheduled during the pandemic can be conducted in a commercially reasonable manner as required by the UCC. THE CASE In Shelbourne, the mezzanine borrowers owned the membership or equity interests in the companies (collectively, the “Property Owner”) that held title to a 12-story office building in Albany, New York. As security for the $3.35 million mezzanine loan, the mezzanine borrowers pledged their equity interests to the mezzanine lender. In May 2020, the mezzanine lender declared a default under the mezzanine loan as a result of the Property Owner’s default under the $28.5 million senior loan secured by a mortgage against the office building. The mezzanine lender then scheduled a public UCC foreclosure sale of the equity interests in the Property Owner for August 19, 2020. If the sale had been held, the equity interests in the Property Owner (and right to control the Property Owner and office building) would have been transferred to the successful bidder, either the mezzanine lender or a third party purchaser. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys Steven E. Ostrow, Timothy E. Davis, Steven E. Coury and Kristen E. Andreoli Mr. Ostrow may be contacted at ostrows@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Davis may be contacted at davist@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Coury may be contacted at courys@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Andreoli may be contacted at andreolik@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Remembering Joseph H. Foster

April 20, 2016 — White & Williams LLP
We are saddened to share the news of the loss of our longtime partner and good friend, Joseph H. Foster. Mr. Foster was a nationally recognized trial attorney who began his career at White and Williams LLP in 1958, becoming a partner in 1963, and continued to practice law, coming into the office every day, until he was hospitalized before his passing. A true giant in the Pennsylvania legal community, Joe exemplified the best of the legal profession and was widely admired and respected among the bar and bench for his lasting and impactful contributions. Mr. Foster served as the Chair of the Litigation Department and a member of the firm’s Executive Committee. During his tenure at White and Williams, he grew to become one of the most respected trial lawyers in Pennsylvania. He promoted a culture of excellence in client services and was the proverbial lawyer’s lawyer, treating his adversaries with courtesy and respect and always looking to find justice in the matters he handled. He was active in training at the firm, mentoring generations of trial lawyers and personally moving for the admission of hundreds of new attorneys at the firm, including an annual ceremony in Federal Court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White & Williams LLP

Parol Evidence can be Used to Defeat Fraudulent Lien

March 27, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Parol or extrinsic evidence can be used to defeat an argument that a lien is a fraudulent lien. And, just because a lien amount exceeds the total contract amount does not presumptively mean the lien is willfully exaggerated or recorded in bad faith. Finally, a ruling invalidating a construction lien can create the irreparable harm required to support a petition for writ of certiorari. All of these issues are important when dealing with and defending against a fraudulent lien and are explained in a recent case involving a dispute between an electrical subcontractor and its supplier. In Farrey’s Wholesale Hardware Co., Inc. v. Coltin Electrical Services, LLC, 44 Fla.L.Weekly D130a (Fla. 2d DCA 2019), there were various revisions to the supplier’s initial purchase order, both from a qualitative and quantitative perspective, and a ninth-revised purchaser order was issued and accepted. The electrical subcontractor claimed that deliveries were late, unassembled, and did not include the required marking (likely the UL marking), to pass building inspections. As a result, the subcontractor withheld money from the supplier and the supplier recorded a lien in the amount of $853,773.16 and filed a foreclosure lawsuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Expert Excluded After Never Viewing Damaged Property

October 28, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Plaintiff's expert was excluded for never having seen the property. Wehman v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117445 (D. N.J. Sept. 3, 2015). Plaintiff's home was damaged by Superstorm Sandy on October 29, 2012. He reported his loss to State Farm on Octorber 25, 2013, claiming that some roof shingles had come loose during the storm. No other damage was reported. An investigator for State Farm visited the property. The investigator determined that the damage to the roof was not caused by Sandy, but by age, wear and tear, all of which were excluded causes under the policy. Plaintiff informed the investigator there was no damage to the interior of the home and denied the investigator's request to enter the house to inspect. Plaintiff then sued State Farm for breach of contract and bad faith. Plaintiff designated Timothy Fife of Gulf Coast Estimating Services as his expert in the litigation. Fife's estimate of damages consisted of twelve pages of allegedly required repairs for both the interior and exterior of Plaintiff's property totaling $86,351.01. Fife never visited the property to inspect and never spoke with Plaintiff regarding the condition of the property prior to Sandy or the damage allegedly caused by Sandy. Instead, Fife relied upon an inspection conducted by someone else. 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

Supreme Court of California Rules That Trial Court Lacking Subject Matter Jurisdiction May Properly Grant Anti-SLAPP Motion on That Basis, and Award Attorney’s Fees

January 19, 2017 — David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Barry v. The State Bar of California (No. S214058 – 1/5/2017), the California Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of the State Bar of California’s (“State Bar”) underlying anti-SLAPP motion (Code of Civil Procedure §425.16) on the grounds that plaintiff Patricia Barry (“Barry”), an attorney, had failed to show a probability of prevailing because, among other reasons, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Barry’s claims. The Court confirmed that the absence of subject matter jurisdiction did not prevent a trial court from basing a decision to grant an anti-SLAPP motion on that ground, or to award the prevailing defendant its attorney’s fees. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Funding the Self-Insured Retention (SIR)

August 17, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Unlike a deductible, a self-insured retention (referred to an “SIR”) is, as the name suggests, a self-insured obligation of the insured before its insurer picks up coverage. The SIR needs to be exhausted by the insured (as the primary self-insurance component) before the carrier’s excess defense and indemnification obligations kick-in under the terms of the policy. However, an insured can generally exhaust an SIR by paying legal fees and costs associated with a claim. Oftentimes, the language in the policy requires the SIR to be paid for by the named insured or an insured under the policy. This was an issue addressed by the Florida Supreme Court in Intervest Const. of Jax, Inc. v. General Fidelity Ins. Co., 133 So.3d 494 (Fla. 2014). In this matter, a personal injury claimant asserted a claim against the contractor dealing with a residential home. The contractor hired a subcontractor to install attic stairs and the subcontract required the contractor to indemnify it. The owner of the house injured herself on the attic stairs and sued the contractor. The contractor, in turn, sought indemnification against the subcontractor that installed the attic stairs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Once Again: Contract Terms Matter

May 11, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I know, you’ve heard this over and over again here at Construction Law Musings: courts in Virginia will interpret a contract strictly and in a manner that gives meaning to its unambiguous terms. A recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court, White Oak Power Constructors v. Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, reinforces this point. The basic facts of the case relevant to this discussion and the Court’s opinion are these. Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) hired White Oak Power Constructors (White Oak) to build a natural gas power plant. The contract between ODEC and White Oak provided for liquidated damages for delay and also contained a risk of loss provision making ODEC responsible for certain losses or damages due to property damage at the plant. I highly recommend that you read the facts of the case in full to get the details of the terms of these clauses. Needless to say (or this case wouldn’t be the subject of a construction law blog), the project ran past completion date and liquidated damages were assessed to the tune of more than $50,000,000.00. The delay was alleged to have been caused in substantial part by property damage due to weather, fire, and ice among other causes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

KY Mining Accident Not a Covered Occurrence Under Commercial General Liability Policy

December 04, 2018 — Phillip A. Perez - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In Am. Mining Ins. Co. v. Peters Farms, LLC,1 the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that a mining error was not a covered accident under a commercial general liability insurance policy. The central issue was whether an insured mining company’s unauthorized removal of minerals from a neighboring property was an “occurrence” that unintentionally caused “property damage” as defined by the mining company’s commercial general liability policy (“CGL Policy”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Phillip A. Perez, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Perez may be contacted at pap@sdvlaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES