FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Delaware Settlements with Minors and the Uniform Transfer to Minor Act

October 15, 2014 — Stephen J. Milewski – White and Williams LLP
As a Delaware lawyer, one of the most frequently asked questions I get from insurance clients is: “Do all personal injury settlements with minors need to be approved by the Court?” The answer is and always has been yes. This is true regardless of the amount of the settlement. There have, however, been some recent changes under Delaware law which may help facilitate the process and even reduce the costs associated with settling small tort cases with minors. Traditionally, when settling cases with a minor, a Petition would be filed with the trial court (Superior Court) and then a hearing would be scheduled for the parties to present to the Court the terms of the settlement, explain the plaintiff’s injuries and itemize the fee breakdown. This would be the settlement approval process. After that, the plaintiff would be required to have a guardian appointed over the proceeds, which had to be approved by Chancery Court (Delaware’s Court of Equity). The purpose of this process was to ensure the settlement money going to the minor was managed properly; the net proceeds were generally placed into a bank account not to be used by the guardian or the minor until the minor reached the age of majority. To both the plaintiff, and the insurance carrier paying out the settlement, this process was burdensome and added disproportionate costs to small settlements. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephen J. Milewski, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Milewski may be contacted at milewskis@whiteandwiliams.com

---

Court Provides Guidance on ‘Pay-When-Paid’ Provisions in Construction Subcontracts

July 13, 2020 — Ted R. Gropman & Cindy J. Lee - ConsensusDocs
On April 17, the California Court of Appeal decided Crosno Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America,1 effectively narrowing the scope of enforceable “pay-when-paid” provisions in construction subcontracts to the extent the subcontractor seeks recovery against a general contractor’s payment bond surety. Although the Crosno case involved a public works project, the rationale and holding should apply with equal force to private works projects. Basing the bulk of its decision on the Wm. R. Clarke Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co.2 case, the court found that an open-ended “pay-when-paid” provision in a subcontract is not enforceable against a subcontractor that seeks to recover on a public works payment bond claim. This article discusses the Crosno decision and the implications for contractors on both sides of the contract moving forward. Brief Case Summary In Crosno, general contractor Clark Bros., Inc. contracted with the North Edwards Water District (the District) to build an arsenic removal water treatment plant. Clark hired steel storage tank subcontractor Crosno Construction, Inc. to build and coat two steel reservoir tanks. Clark and Crosno’s subcontract included a “pay-when-paid” provision, which stated that Clark would pay Crosno within a “reasonable time” of receiving payments from the owner, but “in no event less than the time Contractor and Subcontractor require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against Owner or other responsible party to obtain payment.” After Crosno completed its work, a dispute arose between Clark and the District, and the District withheld payment from Clark (including the monies earmarked for Clark’s subcontractors). Clark sued the District for payment, and Crosno filed its own action against Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, the surety on Clark’s statutory public works payment bond, for recovery of the unpaid subcontract balance. Travelers rejected Crosno’s bond claim as premature, invoking the “pay-when-paid” subcontract language and pointing to Clark’s pending payment action against the District. The issue on appeal was whether the “pay-when-paid” provision in the subcontract blocked Crosno from recovering under the payment bond from Travelers while Clark’s lawsuit against the District was still pending. Reprinted courtesy of Ted R. Gropman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and Cindy J. Lee, Pepper Hamilton LLP Mr. Gropman may be contacted at ted.gropman@troutman.com Ms. Lee may be contacted at cindy.lee@troutman.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

First Circuit: No Coverage, No Duty to Investigate Alleged Loss Prior to Policy Period

May 18, 2020 — Eric B. Hermanson & Austin D. Moody - White and Williams
On April 1, 2020, the First Circuit, applying Massachusetts law, issued a potentially useful decision addressing the Montrose “known loss” language in ISO Form CGL policies. In Clarendon National Insurance Company v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company,[1] the court applied this language to allow denial of defense for claims of recurring water infiltration that began before the insurer’s policy period, and it found an insurer had no duty to investigate whether the course of property damage might have been interrupted, or whether other property damage might have occurred during the policy period, so as to trigger coverage during a later policy. In the underlying dispute, a condominium owner (Doherty) asserted negligence claims against her association’s property management company (Lundgren) stemming from alleged water infiltration into her condominium. The complaint said leaks developed in 2004 in the roof above Doherty’s unit, and repairs were not made in a timely or appropriate manner. The following year, the complaint said, a Lundgren employee notified Doherty that the threshold leading to her condominium's deck was rotting. In February 2006, Doherty discovered a mushroom and water infiltration on the threshold and notified Lundgren. At that time, Lundgren asked its maintenance and repair contractor (CBD) to replace the rotting threshold. According to the complaint, CBD did not do this repair in a timely manner and left debris exposed in Doherty’s bedroom. In March 2006, the complaint said, a mold testing company hired by Lundgren found hazardous mold in Doherty's unit, caused by water intrusions and chronic dampness. Lundgren’s attempts at remediation were ineffectual. In September 2008, Doherty's doctor ordered her to leave the condominium and not to return until the leaks were repaired and mold was eliminated. Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and Austin D. Moody, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Number of Occurrences Is On the Agenda at This Year's ICLC Seminar

February 05, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
This year's Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee's CLE Seminar will be conducted in Tucson, Arizona, from March 4-7, 2015. Each year, the conference offers informative, cutting-edge sessions on a variety of insurance-related topics. Participants from across the country with varying perspectives on insurance coverage, including lawyers, judges, risk managers, and insurance professionals, will be attendance. The seminar's brochure is attached here. "Number of Occurrences" will be the topic my panel presents on March 7. We will be honored to have on our panel Alaska Supreme Court Justice Peter Maassen, my old skiing and running buddy from my Alaska days. Justice Maassen's opinion in United Servs. Auto. Ass'n. v. Neary, 307 P.3d 907 (Alaska 2013) was the genesis for our topic. 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

---

DC District Court Follows Ninth Circuit’s Lead Dismissing NABA’s Border Wall Case

April 10, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On February 14, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the complaint of the National American Butterfly Association (NABA) alleging that the U.S. Government’s border wall preparation and law enforcement activities at NABA’s National Butterfly Center, located in South Texas along the Rio Grande River, violated federal environmental laws (National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA)) as well as NABA’s constitutional rights. The case is National American Butterfly Association v. Nielsen, et al. On January 25, 2017, the President issued an Executive Order to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (Secretary) to “take all appropriate steps to immediately plan, design, and construct a physical wall along the southern border” with Mexico. A few weeks later, the Secretary issued a memorandum to the U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement to implement the Executive Order. The land occupied by the NABA has been affected by these actions, as well as other actions taken by the Secretary pursuant to her authority under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), located at 8 U.S.C. § 1103. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

New WOTUS Rule

November 13, 2023 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers amended the regulation to conform the definition of “waters of the United States” to conform to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. See the prior blog post about the Supreme Court’s ruling: Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency – Construction and Utility Law | Atlanta | AHC Law Federal Register :: Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”; Conforming Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Updated 3/13/20: Coronavirus is Here: What Does That Mean for Your Project and Your Business?

March 16, 2020 — Alexander Gorelik, Joshua E. Holt, Brian N. Krulick, Shoshana E. Rothman, A. Michelle West, & Brian S. Wood - Smith Currie
The outbreak of COVID-19 (“coronavirus”) has wreaked a considerable human toll of death, physical suffering, fear, and anxiety internationally. Much of the fear and anxiety results from a lack of information or a full understanding about the spread of the disease, protection against infection, and treatment. At Smith, Currie & Hancock, we urge our clients, friends, and colleagues to take seriously, but calmly and prudently, the threat of this disease to protect yourselves, your loved ones, and your businesses. The first step in that process is to inform yourselves with reliable information. Toward that end, we direct your attention to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Coronavirus Disease 2019 website: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html In addition to the human toll, coronavirus has caused substantial disruptions to economies worldwide. In that regard, the adage “a picture is worth a thousand words,” is particularly foreboding. Satellite images taken by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) of China at the outset of the coronavirus outbreak and approximately a month later show a dramatic decline in air pollution, signifying and illustrating a sharp decline in industrial activity and transportation caused by the disease. Reprinted courtesy of Smith Currie attorneys Alexander Gorelik, Joshua E. Holt, Brian N. Krulick, Shoshana E. Rothman, A. Michelle West, and Brian S. Wood Mr. Gorelik may be contacted at agorelik@smithcurrie.com Mr. Holt may be contacted at jeholt@smithcurrie.com Mr. Brian may be contacted at bnkrulick@smithcurrie.com Ms. Shoshana may be contacted at serothman@smithcurrie.com Ms. West may be contacted at amwest@smithcurrie.com Mr. Wood may be contacted at bswood@smithcurrie.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Home Prices Up in Metro Regions

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Housing prices in the largest metro regions beat expectations, rising 12.8% in August as compared to a year before. Analysts were expecting weaker increases; instead these have been the fastest increases in seven years. The metropolitan area with the largest increase was Las Vegas, where houses increased in price by 29.2%. Three California regions — San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego — also saw increases of greater than 20%. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---