Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Massachusetts High Court to Decide if Insurers Can Recoup Defense Costs

February 07, 2018 — Craig O'Neill - Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) is set to hear argument on February 6 in a case that will decide whether insurers can recoup defense costs if it is later determined that they owed no duty to defend an underlying claim. At issue in Holyoke Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vibram USA, Inc., No SJC-12401, is Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig O'Neill, White and Williams, LLP
Mr. O'Neill may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com

“To Indemnify, or Not to Indemnify, that is the Question: California Court of Appeal Addresses Active Negligence in Indemnity Provisions”

April 05, 2017 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & Omar Parra – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In California, it is well-established that the extent of a party’s obligation under an indemnity agreement is an issue of contractual interpretation, and it is therefore the intent of the parties that should control. What is the parties’ intent, then, when a subcontractor (indemnitor) agrees to indemnify the general contractor (indemnitee) “except to the extent the claims arise out of the general contractor’s active negligence or willful misconduct”? Does this mean the general contractor is barred entirely from recovering any indemnity if its active negligence contributed to the injury? Not according to the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal, which recently held that an actively negligent general contractor may still recover indemnity for the portion of liability attributable to the fault of others. Oltmans Construction Co. v. Bayside Interiors, Inc., No. A147313, 2017 WL 1179391, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2017). In Oltmans Construction, an employee of O’Donnell Plastering, Inc. (“O’Donnell”), a sub-subcontractor of Bayside Interiors, Inc. (“Bayside”), which was a subcontractor to Oltmans Construction Company (“Oltmans”), sustained injuries when he fell through a skylight opening in the roof of a building under construction. The employee filed suit against Bayside, Oltmans, and the building’s owner, arguing Oltmans negligently cut and left unsecured the skylight opening. Oltmans subsequently filed a Cross-Complaint against Bayside and O’Donnell, contending it was entitled to indemnification under the governing agreements. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Fine Art Losses – “Canvas” the Subrogation Landscape

February 26, 2024 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
If a fire or flood destroys a high-net-worth client’s fine art collection, an insurer who pays out a claim related to the loss has an incentive to pursue subrogation. This article explores some of the issues an insurer should “canvas” before pursuing subrogation for these types of claims. Damage to fine art can occur in a number of ways. For instance, fine art may be damaged in a natural disaster – such as a flood or a wildfire. Artwork may also be accidentally damaged because of a transportation-related incident physically damaging the art. In addition, artwork may suffer fire or smoke damage from a fire within a building. Another possibility is that the artwork suffers damage because of renovations either to the insured’s home or a neighboring property. For example, a renovation contractor may damage artwork due to vibrations or leaking water. A construction worker, moreover, may turn with a tool in his hand, or trip and fall, damaging the artwork. 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

Colorado Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Statute of Limitations for Statutory Bad Faith Claims and the Implied Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege

July 11, 2018 — Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law Blog
The Colorado Supreme Court has been busy the past two weeks, issuing a couple rulings that should be of interest to the insurance industry:

Statute of Limitations for Bad Faith Statute: In Rooftop Restoration, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2018 CO 44 (May 29, 2018), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the one-year statute of limitations that applies to penalties, does not apply to claims brought under C.R.S. 10-3-1116, Colorado’s statutory cause of action for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits. Section 10-3-1116 provides that a first-party claimant whose claim for payment of benefits has been unreasonably delayed or denied may seek to recover attorney fees, costs, and two times the covered benefit, in addition to the covered benefit. A separate Colorado statute, CRS 13-80-103(1)(d) provides a one-year statute of limitations for “any penalty or forfeiture of any penal statutes.” To arrive at the conclusion that the double damages available under section 10-3-1116 is not a penalty, the Court looked at yet another statutory provision, governing accrual of causes of action for penalties, which provides that a penalty cause of action accrues when “the determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . is no longer subject to appeal.” The Court stated that because a cause of action under 10-3-1116 “never leads to a determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . the claim would never accrue, and the statute of limitations would be rendered meaningless.” Para. 15. Presumably, the default two-year statute of limitations, provided by CRS 13-80-102(1)(i), will now be found to apply to causes of action seeking damages for undue delay or denial of insurance benefits.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani
Ms. Arnett-Roehrich may be contacted at jarnett-roehrich@grsm.com

Can Your Employee File a Personal Injury Claim if They’re Injured at Work?

March 14, 2022 — Louis Patino - Construction Executive
Construction accidents can happen to anyone. It’s common for employees to work at height, with machinery or alongside any number of potential hazards, so it’s no surprise that injury rates in construction are 71% higher compared to other industries. Anything from a ladder manufacturing defect to an unguarded ledge or wet surface can increase the likelihood of a fall, but those aren’t the only dangers. If scaffolding collapses due to an excessive load or improper construction, it can prove fatal. Then, there are struck-by hazards—one of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) “Fatal Four”—including falling, swinging and rolling objects; crane misuse; electrical faults; and issues with personal protective equipment. These are all hazards construction workers have to contend with daily. Reprinted courtesy of Louis Patino, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Close Enough Only Counts in Horseshoes and Hand Grenades

March 08, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In State Farm General Insurance Company v. Oetiker, Inc., Case No. B302348 (December 18, 2020), a manufacturer sued in subrogation action under the Right to Repair Act almost got away. Almost. The Oetiker Case James and Jennifer Philson’s home was substantially completed, and a notice of completion was recorded, in 2004. In 2016, the Philsons tendered a claim to their homeowner’s insurance carrier, State Farm General Insurance Company, after their home experienced significant water damage due to a defective stainless steel ear clamp. In 2018, after paying the Philson’s claim, State Farm filed a subrogation action against the manufacturer of the ear clamp, Oetiker, Inc. State Farm’s complaint, which included causes of action for negligence, strict products liability and breach of implied warranty, alleged that the home was “damaged by a water leak from the failure of a defective stainless steel ear claim on a water PEX fitting” and that the ear clamp was “defective when it left the control of [Oetiker].” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Candis Jones Named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2023 “Atlanta 500” List

February 01, 2023 — Candis Jones - Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Atlanta, Ga. (January 30, 2023) - Atlanta Partner Candis R. Jones has been named to Atlanta Magazine’s 2023 “Atlanta 500” list of the most powerful law professionals in Atlanta. This is the third year in a row she has received this recognition. To compile this list, the publication reviewed nominations from the public and consulted experts across various sectors. The magazine’s editors and writers considered not only the status of the nominees within their respective organizations, but also whether the nominees were visionaries who led programs for their communities and created opportunities for employees. According to Atlanta Magazine, this year's nominees displayed an "intensified commitment to inclusiveness." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Candis Jones, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Jones may be contacted at Candis.Jones@lewisbrisbois.com

Florida Self-Insured Retention Satisfaction and Made Whole Doctrine

March 11, 2014 — Scott Patterson – CD Coverage
Intervest Construction of Jax, Inc. v. General Fidelity Insurance Co., * So.2d * (Fla. 2014), the issue was whether the insured general contractor could satisfy the SIR in its CGL policy with funds it received from the insurer of a subcontractor in settlement of the general contractor’s contractual indemnity claim against that subcontractor. ICI was the general contractor for a residence sold to Ferrin. Several years after completion, Ferrin suffered injuries in a fall while using attic stairs installed by ICI’s subcontractor Custom Cutting. Ferrin sued ICI but not Custom Cutting. ICI was insured by General Fidelity with a $1M SIR. ICI sought contractual indemnity from Custom Cutting. The Ferrin suit was ultimately settled for $1.6M. Custom Cutting’s CGL insurer paid $1M to ICI to resolve ICI’s contractual indemnity claim. Using the $1M paid on behalf of Custom Cutting and $300K of its own funds, ICI paid $1.3M to Ferrin. General Fidelity paid the remaining $300K with an agreement with ICI that each was entitled to seek reimbursement of $300K from the other. ICI filed suit in Florida state court. General Fidelity removed to federal court. The Eleventh Circuit certified the relevant questions to the Supreme Court of Florida. The Florida Supreme Court first held that the General Fidelity SIR allowed ICI to satisfy the SIR through indemnification payments received from a third party. While the SIR provision stated that it must be satisfied by the insured, it did not include any language proscribing the source of the funds used by the insured to satisfy the SIR. The court distinguished other decisions where the SIR endorsement expressly stated that payments by others, including other insurers, could not satisfy the SIR. The court also relied on the fact that ICI “hedged its retained risk” by paying for its entitlement to contractual indemnification from its subcontractor years prior to purchasing the General Fidelity policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Patterson, CD Coverage

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES