FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Builder’s Be Wary of Insurance Policies that Provide No Coverage for Building: Mt. Hawley Ins. Co v. Creek Side at Parker HOA

July 31, 2013 — Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
On the heels of a recent order regarding coverage under a Comprehensive General Insurance policy issued by Mt. Hawley Insurance Company (“Mt. Hawley”), builders should be very wary of CGL policies providing no coverage for property damage. On January 8, 2013, District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson granted a motion for declaratory judgment filed by Mt. Hawley. The order states that the subject insurance policies issued by Mt. Hawley to Mountain View Homes II, LLC (“MV Homes”), the builder developer of the Creek Side at Parker development (the “Project”), did not provide coverage for any of the work performed by MV Homes or its subcontractors on the Project. MV Homes originally began construction on the Project in 2002 and completed construction in 2005. MV Homes was insured by National Fire and Marine Insurance Company (“National Fire”) and Mt. Hawley. In December 2008, Creek Side at Parker Homeowners Association, Inc. (“the HOA”) served notice on MV Homes. The HOA then instituted a construction defect lawsuit on June 1, 2009 against MV Homes and others. MV Homes initially demanded a defense and indemnity from National Fire, which provided a defense. Then, after two years, MV Homes demanded a defense and indemnity from Mt. Hawley in July 2011. Mt. Hawley denied coverage and did not provide a defense. The case was settled soon after, and National Fire reserved or assigned claims against Mt. Hawley. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
Brady Iandiorio can be contacted at Iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

---

Grupo Mexico Spill Sparks Public Scrutiny of $150 Million Mop-Up

September 17, 2014 — Nacha Cattan – Bloomberg
Mexico is sending federal officials to Sonora state to oversee Grupo Mexico SAB (GMEXICOB)’s $150 million cleanup of a copper mine spill that the government says contaminated the water supplies of at least 24,000 people. The special commission of environmental and agriculture ministry officials will monitor the company’s pledge to clean Mexico’s worst mining spill, which occurred Aug. 6 in the northern state that borders Arizona. Grupo Mexico said last week it would create a $150 million trust after its Buenavista del Cobre operation dumped 11 million gallons of copper sulfate solution into two Sonora rivers. Industrias Bachoco SAB de CV and Ford Motor Co. (F) operate plants in Hermosillo, south of the contaminated waterways. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nacha Cattan, Bloomberg
Ms. Cattan may be contacted at ncattan@bloomberg.net

---

Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Earth Movement Exclusion Denied

October 28, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

After carefully dissecting the earth movement exclusion, the court denied the insurer’s motion for summary judgment. High Street Lofts Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109043 (D. Colo. Sept. 26, 2011).

The City of Boulder performed road repair work near High Street’s property, some of which involved the use of a vibrating compactor to compact and set the roadbed. High Street noticed damage to its building, such as cracks in walls, sloping of floors and separations of porches from the building itself. High Street contacted the City of Boulder, who forwarded the complaint to its contractor, Concrete Express, Inc.

High Street also filed a claim with its business insurer, American Family, who denied the claim. American Family relied on an opinion letter by High Street’s engineer. The letter indicated that the damage was the result of "soil consolidation/settlement," in response to the construction activities. Based on this letter American Family concluded the claim was excluded under the policy’s earth movement exclusion.

High Street sued American Family, who moved for summary judgment.

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

---

Eleventh Circuit’s Noteworthy Discussion on Bad Faith Insurance Claims

November 01, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s opinion in Pelaez v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 2021 WL 4258821 (11th Cir. 2021) is a non-construction case that discusses the standard for pursuing a bad faith claim against an insurer. This case dealt with an automobile accident. While the facts of the case are interesting and will be discussed, the takeaway is the Eleventh Circuit’s noteworthy discussion on the standard for bad faith claims and how they should be evaluated. This discussion is included below–with citations–because while the term “bad faith” is oftentimes thrown around when it comes to insurance carriers, there is indeed an evaluative standard that is applied to determine whether an insurance carrier acted in bad faith. In Pelaez, a high school student driving a car crashed with a motorcycle. The motorcycle driver was seriously injured and airlifted to the hospital. The accident was reported to the automobile liability insurer of the driver of the car. The insurer through its investigation initially believed the motorcycle driver was contributory negligent. Eleven days after the crash, after learning additional information, the insurer tendered its bodily injury policy limits of $50,00 to the motorcycle driver even though it never received a settlement demand. The insurer sent a tender package to the motorcycle driver’s lawyer that included a $50,000 check for the bodily injury claim and a proposed release. The accompanying letter told the attorney to contact the insurer with any questions about the release and to edit the proposed release with suggested changes. The insurer also wanted to inspect the motorcycle in furtherance of adjusting the property damage claim which also had a policy limit of $50,000. A location of where the motorcycle could be inspected was never provided. 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

---

Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2020 Southern California Super Lawyers List

April 27, 2020 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Seven Haight attorneys have been selected to the 2020 Southern California Super Lawyers list. Congratulations to:

• William G. Baumgaertner
• Bruce Cleeland
• Peter A. Dubrawski
• Angela S. Haskins
• Michael J. Leahy
• Jennifer K. Saunders
• S. Christian Stouder

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

---

Payne & Fears LLP Recognized by Best Lawyers in 2024 “Best Law Firms” Rankings

November 27, 2023 — Payne & Fears LLP
Payne & Fears LLP has been recognized by Best Lawyers 2024 “Best Law Firms” list. Firms included in the 2024 edition of Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms” are recognized for professional excellence with consistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. Payne & Fears LLP has been ranked in the following practice areas:

• Metropolitan Tier 1
  • Orange County
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Employment Law – Management
    • Insurance Law
    • Labor Law – Management
    • Litigation – Labor & Employment
    • Litigation – Real Estate

• Metropolitan Tier 2
  • Las Vegas
    • Commercial Litigation

• Metropolitan Tier 3
  • Orange County
    • Litigation – Intellectual Property

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

---

Construction Termination Issues Part 5: What if You are the One that Wants to Quit?

August 21, 2023 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
Architects and Engineers are sometimes pleasantly surprised to find out that they, also, can terminate those crazy, hard to deal with Owners—at least, if the Owners fail to make payments as required. You can also terminate for Owner delays to the work, or where you think the contractor should be fired but the Owner disagrees. Again, the standard 7 days written notice is required. (See B101 §9.4). Do you have to walk off the job if they are not paying you? No—you could exercise the smaller remedy of suspending services (with 7 days written notice) until payments are caught up or the contract performance is corrected by the Owner. (See B101 §9.1). Suspension rather than outright termination is a softer approach when working with an owner you do not want to burn (too many) bridges with. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

---

City Potentially Liable for Cost Overrun on Not-to-Exceed Public Works Contract

June 29, 2017 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
On a public works construction project, a contractor incurred additional costs and asserted a claim against the city. The city denied the claim because the contract had a not-to-exceed price, and the city council and mayor did not approve contract modifications to exceed that amount. City ordinances require approval for contract modifications and change orders exceeding ten percent of the original not-to-exceed amount. But the contractor argued that the ordinance did not apply because the excess costs did not result from a contract modification or change order. In addition, the contractor argued that, in refusing to approve an increase in the not-to-exceed amount, the city breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The court concluded that these questions were factual issues for the jury to decide. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

---