Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

The Fourth Circuit Applies a Consequential Damages Exclusionary Clause and the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Claims by a Subrogating Insurer Seeking to Recover Over $19 Million in Damages

February 23, 2016 — William L. Doerler – White and Williams LLP
In Severn Peanut Company, Inc. v. Industrial Fumigant Company, 807 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. (N.C.) 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit), applying North Carolina law, considered whether a consequential damages clause in a contract between the Severn Peanut Company, Inc. (Severn) and Industrial Fumigant Company (IFC) barred Severn and its subrogating insurer, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers), from recovering over $19 million in damages that Severn suffered as the result of a fire and explosion at its Severn, North Carolina plant. The Fourth Circuit, rejecting Severn’s unconscionability and public policy arguments related to the consequential damages clause and finding that the economic loss doctrine barred Severn from pursuing negligence claims, affirmed the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment in IFC’s favor. As noted in the Severn decision, the facts showed that Severn and IFC signed a Pesticide Application Agreement (PAA) requiring IFC to use phosphine, a pesticide, to fumigate Severn’s peanut storage dome and to apply the pesticide “in a manner consistent with instructions . . . and precautions set forth in [its] labeling.” With respect to damages, the PAA specified that IFC’s charge for its services, $8,604 plus applicable sales tax, was “based solely upon the value of the services provided” and was not “related to the value of [Severn’s] premises or the contents therein.” In addition, the PAA specified that the $8,604 sum to which the parties agreed was not “sufficient to warrant IFC assuming any risk of incidental or consequential damages” to Severn’s “property, product, equipment, downtime, or loss of business.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

Nevada Senate Bill 435 is Now in Effect

February 24, 2020 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
ATTENTION: Nevada liability departments and auto insurance carriers! Nevada Senate Bill No. 435 was recently signed into law and there are two key points to be aware of: Disclosure of Policy Limits Demand and Voiding Releases. These both deal with pre-litigation situations. 1) Nevada law now requires a motor vehicle insurer to disclose the limits of the policy if the claimant provides a HIPAA authorization which allows the carrier to “receive all medical reports, records and bills related to the claim from the providers of health care.” This is a change from the previous Nevada statute which required the disclosure of policy limits only after litigation was commenced. However, it appears from the language of the statute that there are limits to this new mandate. Section 4 of the new law is written in such a way to allow the argument that the new law applies only to accidents that occurred after 10/1/19, and that the insurance company has to request the HIPAA waiver from the claimant in order for the disclosure requirement to apply. The plaintiff’s bar is already attempting to address this language in the legislature. As written, subsection (4) is governed by subsection (1) which states that the insurance company “may require the claimant … to provide … a written authorization.” The following subparts all appear to be triggered only by the act of the insurance company requesting a HIPAA waiver. The plaintiff’s bar is pushing for clarifying language that would make it clear that once the claimant sent a HIPAA waiver, irrespective of whether the document was requested by the insurance company or not, the insurance company is required to disclose policy limits. This is not how the law reads on its face, and the change would make a significant difference from a practical perspective. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Texas Federal Court Delivers Another Big Win for Policyholders on CGL Coverage for Construction-Defect Claims and “Rip-and-Tear” Damages

March 14, 2022 — Blake A. Dillion, Jared De Jong & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & Fears
Insurers regularly argue that commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies are not performance bonds and therefore there is no coverage for claims seeking damages for defective or faulty workmanship. Insurers also argue there is no coverage for so-called “tear-out” or “rip-and-tear” damages, where fixing property damage requires replacing defective work that has not itself been damaged. Fortunately, in a newly decided case, a Texas federal district court rejected both arguments by an insurer. Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company v. McMillin Texas Homes, LLC, No. SA-20-CV-01332-XR, 2022 WL 686727 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2022). As with most construction-defect claims, this case involved homeowner claims against a residential developer, McMillin Texas Homes (“McMillin”). After the homes were completed, homeowners complained about defects in the artificial stucco exterior finish and filed suit. McMillin tendered to its insurer, Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company (“Amerisure”). Amerisure then sued McMillin for declaratory relief, arguing that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the homeowner claims. McMillin filed a counterclaim alleging Amerisure breached its policies by refusing to defend or indemnify McMillin. Reprinted courtesy of Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears, Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com Mr. De Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Art Dao, Executive Director of the Alameda County Transportation Commission, Speaks at Wendel Rosen’s Infrastructure Forum

April 01, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
On March 2, 2015, Art Dao, Executive Director of the Alameda County Transportation Commission, spoke to a packed house at the Wendel Rosen Construction Practice Group’s Infrastructure Forum on the Commission’s plans for nearly $8 billion in transportation improvement funding approved by voters this past year under Measure BB. The Alameda County Transportation Commission The Commission, which was formed in 2010 following the merger of the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency and the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority, serves as the congestion management agency for the County of Alameda and is responsible for planning, funding and delivering transportation programs and projects throughout the county. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/23/24) – Construction Backlog Rebounds, Real Estate Sustainability Grows, and Split Incentive Gap Remains Building Decarbonizing Barrier

November 18, 2024 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In our latest roundup, construction output decreased, office utilization unchanged, September apartment starts fell 15% from a year ago as developers pulled permits, and more!

Developers pulled permits for a seasonally adjusted rate of 398,000 apartments in buildings with five units or more, a 17.4% YOY drop and a 10.8% decrease compared to August 2024. (Leslie Shaver, Multifamily Dive)
Construction input prices decreased 0.9% in September due to dips in two of three energy subcategories, reflecting the trend of overall material price stabilization over the past 12 months. (Sebastian Obando, Construction Dive)
Thanks in part to the Federal Reserve’s lowering of the interest rate, construction backlog rebounded in September after slumping at the end of the summer. (Joe Bousquin, Construction Dive)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

Alaska Supreme Court Finds Insurer Owes No Independent Duty to Injured Party

December 14, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
After the victim incurred injury inflicted by an insured party, the Alaska Supreme Court determined that the insurer owed no duty to the injured party. Martinez v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 2020 Alaska LEXIS 111 (Alaska Sept. 4, 2020). Joshua Martinez lost control of his truck and crashed into Charles Burnett's cabin. The cabin's heating fuel tank was damaged, and fuel drained onto the property and under the cabin. Burnett further alleged he suffered bodily injuries. Martinez was insured by GEICO under an auto policy. Two days after the accident, the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) advised GEICO to hire a qualified environmental consultant and crew to clean up the fuel spill. Burnett told GEICO he wanted to do the cleanup himself and offered to do so for $25,000, the approximate amount of the consultant retained by GEICO. DEC did not consider Burnett qualified to handle the cleanup. 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

Modified Plan Unveiled for Chicago's Sixth-Tallest Tower

February 15, 2018 — Jeff Yoders – ENR
The Chicago Plan Commission on Jan. 18 approved a $700-million development that, as presented, would include the city’s sixth-tallest building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com

Energy Company Covered for Business Interruption Losses Caused by Fire and Resulting in Town-Ordered Shutdown

February 15, 2021 — David G. Jordan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In the case of NextSun Energy Littleton, LLC v. Acadia Ins. Co., the United States District Court of Massachusetts held that once direct physical damage from a covered peril causes a covered business interruption loss, any increase in the duration of such business interruption, due to the enforcement of an ordinance or law, extends the coverage period provided for lost income. The Court further held that a policy exclusion for business interruption due to the enforcement of any ordinance or law not in force at the time of the loss only applies when the ordinance or law itself, not the enforcement action that it authorizes, was not in force at the time of the loss. The case involved a solar panel company, NextSun Energy Littleton (NextSun), that operated solar panel arrays providing electricity to the town of Littleton, Massachusetts. Due to a fire, 88 of the solar panels were damaged, and the Town immediately issued a “red-tag” order halting all energy-generating activity pending a safety inspection. The plaintiff purchased insurance for its panels along with “Energy Generating Income” (EGI) coverage, from the defendant, Acadia Ins. Co. (Acadia). The EGI policy covered “direct physical loss or damage” to “renewable energy generating equipment” and also covered the actual loss of surplus power income incurred during the interruption period. However, it excluded interruption of energy-generating income “caused by the enforcement of any ordinance, law, or decree … not in force at the time of loss.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES