Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Two Worthy Insurance Topics: (1) Bad Faith, And (2) Settling Without Insurer’s Consent

February 20, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The recent Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision, American Builders Insurance Company v. Southern-Owners Insurance Company, 56 F.4th 938 (11th Cir. 2023), is an insurer versus insurer case that touches on two important insurance topics: (1) common law bad faith against an insurance company, and (2) an insurer’s affirmative defense that an insured settled a claim without its consent. The Eleventh Circuit provides invaluable legal discussion on these topics that any insured (and an insured’s counsel) need to know and appreciate. While this article won’t go into the granular facts as referenced in the opinion, it will go into the law because it is the law the facts of a case MUST cater to and address. In this case, a person performing subcontracting work fell from a roof without fall protection and became paralyzed from the waist down. The general contractor had a primary liability policy and an excess policy. The general contractor’s primary liability insurer investigated the accident and assessed the claim. The subcontractor’s liability insurer, which was the primary insurance policy (the general contractor was an additional insured for work the subcontractor performed for the general contractor), did little to investigate and assess the claim and then refused to pay any amount to settle the underlying claim or honor its defense and indemnity obligation to the general contractor. 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

20 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2020 Top Lawyers!

August 10, 2021 — Wilke Fleury LLP
Congratulations to Wilke Fleury’s featured attorneys who made the Sacramento Magazine’s Top Lawyer List for 2020! Each attorney has been awarded an accolade in the following practice areas: Kathryne Baldwin – Insurance Dan Baxter – Business Litigation & Government Contracts Adriana Cervantes – Medical Malpractice Heather Claus – Health Care Aaron Claxton – Health Care Dan Egan – Bankruptcy and Creditor/Debtor Samson Elsbernd – Employment & Labor Danny Foster – Litigation Insurance David Frenznick – Construction & Construction Litigation George Guthrie – Real Estate & Construction Litigation Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury LLP

California Trial Court Clarifies Application of SB800 Roofing Standards and Expert’s Opinions

February 18, 2020 — Scott Calkins & Anthony Gaeta - Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli; Mark Chapman - Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli partners Scott Calkins and Anthony Gaeta obtained a trial victory when the jury returned a 12-0 defense verdict against one plaintiff homeowner, and awarded the other homeowner less than $2,000, an amount well below the defendant’s pre-trial CCP 998 Offers to Compromise. One of the main issues in the case was the application of SB800 roofing standards. Plaintiffs’ roofing expert testified in deposition no water entered the structure or passed through a moisture barrier [Civ. Code §896(a)(4)], and no materials had fallen off the roof [§896(g)(11)]. In an attempt to circumvent the applicable performance standards, Plaintiffs argued Civ. Code §869(g)(3)(A), also known as the ‘useful life’ exception, applied because the various components of the roof (nailing pattern, tiles, vents, etc.) were installed in such a manner so as to reduce the useful life of the roof. Following pre-trial motions and objections made during Plaintiffs’ direct examination, the Court ruled Section 896(g)(3)(A) did not apply to a conventional roof, as it is not a “manufactured product” as defined in §896(g)(3)(C). Plaintiffs’ roofing claims were summarily dismissed and Plaintiffs’ expert was prevented from testifying. In contrast, the defense expert, Mark Chapman, was allowed to testify regarding his expert opinions as to the appropriate SB800 standard relative to each alleged defect and whether the standards were violated. The SB800 performance standards were included on the jury verdict form, and the jury found Mr. Chapman’s testimony compelling, which was a substantial factor in awarding only minor damages to one Plaintiff. For more information, contact Scott Calkins (scalkins@cslawoffices.com), Anthony Gaeta (ageta@cslawoffices.com) or Mark Chapman (mchapman@berthowe.com). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Part II: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

July 21, 2018 — David R. Cook - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
In Part I of this article, published in late April, we discussed the performance risk and time risk involved with construction and design contracts, and in Part II, we will cover cost risk and political risk. Cost Risk School budgets are limited for many reasons, and the construction budget is no exception. As a result, contracts should guard against unwarranted cost increases and claims. In the absence of a written change order signed by the appropriate officer, the contract should absolutely prohibit additional compensation for changes in the work. It should forbid claims for all events except those within the school authority’s sole control. Even for permitted claims, the contractor must provide written notice so that the authority might alleviate the problem and control its costs. To encourage the contractor to limit costs and claims, the contract could include a shared-savings clause, which grants an incentive payment for completion within the budget. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Insurer's Motion in Limine to Dismiss Case for Lack of Expert Denied

June 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer's motion in limine seeking to dismiss the insureds' complaint due to the absence of expert testimony. Fabozzi v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74069 (E.D. N.Y. May 30, 2014). During the policy period, the insureds noticed their house had serious structural problems, including cracks in the walls and floors that were pitched toward the rear of the house. The insureds had to move from their house. When they submitted a claim, it was denied by Lexington because the losses were caused by "wear and tear, deterioration, earth movement, settlement, shrinking, bulging or expansion of the property leading to cracking of structural components." The insureds sued. Lexington filed a motion in limine to preclude the testimony of the insureds' expert and to dismiss the complaint for inability to offer prima facie proof of a covered loss absent such expert testimony. 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

Local Government’s Claims on Developer Bonds Dismissed for Failure to Pursue Administrative Remedies

March 22, 2017 — David R. Cook - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
The Georgia Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a county’s claim on developer bonds based on its failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Douglas County v. Hamilton State Bank, — Ga. App. –, A16A1708 (Mar. 16, 2017). Specifically, because the bank was under FDIC receivership, the County was required to pursue administrative remedies under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (the “Act”). 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

New Mandatory Bond Notice Forms in Florida

December 16, 2019 — Brian A. Wolf & Miles D. Jolley - Smith Currie
Subcontractors and suppliers must now use new, statutory notice of nonpayment forms to preserve payment bond claims, and sign each notice of nonpayment under oath. The State of Florida instituted changes to the statutes governing public-project payment bonds (section 255.05, Florida Statutes) and private-project payment bonds (section 713.23, Florida Statutes). The changes went into effect on October 1, 2019. Previously, notices of nonpayment were not required to be signed under oath. Now, the law requires the use of specific statutory notice forms that claimants must sign under oath. Previously, there were no statutory penalties for claimants who exaggerated the amount claimed against a payment bond. Now there are specific statutory penalties against a claimant who willfully or negligently signs a notice of nonpayment that includes a claim for work not performed or materials not furnished, or who is guilty of signing a notice prepared with willful or gross negligence. Public construction payment bonds are governed by section 255.05, Florida Statues, also known as Florida’s Little Miller Act. This statute requires all payment bond claimants who don’t have a direct contract with the general contractor to serve both the bonding company and the general contractor with a notice of nonpayment no later than 90 days after their last date of work or last delivery of materials. The amended statute now requires that the claimant use the statutory notice form and sign the form under oath. If the claimant includes exaggerated claims, or intentionally makes a claim for work or materials not provided, or otherwise prepares a notice with gross negligence, then the bonding company and the general contractor will be able to use such as a complete defense to an otherwise valid bond claim. Reprinted courtesy of Brian A. Wolf, Smith Currie and Miles D. Jolley, Smith Currie Mr. Wolf may be contacted at bawolf@smithcurrie.com Mr. Jolley may be contacted at mdjolley@smithcurrie.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Judge Who Oversees Mass. Asbestos Docket Takes New Role As Chief Justice of Superior Court

January 02, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Boston, Mass. (December 13, 2023) - Judge Michael Ricciuti, who presides over the Massachusetts state asbestos litigation docket, has been appointed to a new role as Chief Justice of Massachusetts Superior Court, effective December 22, 2023. The appointment is expected to result in the end of his tenure overseeing the state asbestos litigation. Judge Ricciuti was appointed by Governor Charlie Baker to the Superior Court in 2017. He has served in five counties and serves six-month rotations in the Business Litigation Session, in addition to his role overseeing the Massachusetts Asbestos Litigation docket. His current committee participation includes serving on the Superior Court Judicial Education Committee and the Supreme Judicial Court Advisory Committee on Massachusetts Evidence Law. He also serves as a judicial mentor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES