Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

New York Court Narrowly Interprets “Expected or Intended Injury” Exclusion in Win for Policyholder

May 16, 2022 — Michael S. Levine, Kevin V. Small & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
NL Industries recently prevailed against its commercial general liability insurers in the New York Appellate Division in a noteworthy case regarding the meaning of “expected or intended” injury and the meaning of “damages” in a liability insurance policy. In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. NL Industries, Inc., No. 2021-00241, 2022 WL 867910 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 24, 2022) (“NL Indus. II”), the Appellate Division held that exclusions for expected or intended injury required a finding that NL actually expected or intended the resulting harm; not merely have knowledge of an increased risk of harm. In addition, the court held that the funding of an abatement fund designed to prevent future harm amounted to “damages” in the context of a liability policy because the fund has a compensatory effect. NL Industries II is a reminder to insurers and policyholders alike that coverage is construed liberally and exclusions are construed narrowly towards maximizing coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Can a Receiver Prime and Strip Liens Against Real Property?

September 20, 2021 — Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Courts overseeing receivers generally enjoy broad discretion in directing and approving a receiver’s proposed actions. But does that authority extend to a receiver not only granting a super-priority lien ahead of existing liens, but also selling the real property free and clear of all liens? In County of Sonoma v. Quail, 56 Cal.App.5th 657 (Ct. App. 2020), the California Court of Appeals answered that question in the affirmative. Quail involved a 47,480 square-foot lot with two houses, a few garages, several outbuildings, and numerous trailers surrounded by a veritable junk yard. Despite many of these structures being uninhabitable, unsanitary, and dangerous, multiple families resided on the lot. Although Sonoma County (the “County”) ordered the owner to remediate the property several times, he failed and refused to do so. After several years of these violations going unabated, the County ultimately sought and obtained the appointment of a receiver over the real property. To obtain funds necessary to repair the property, the receiver asked the court for permission to borrow money through the issuance of a receivership certificate to be secured by a super-priority lien—i.e., a lien ahead of all other liens—against the real property. Although the trial court initially declined to prime existing liens, when the receiver could find no one to lend money (since the land lacked equity), the trial court relented and approved a super-priority lien despite the senior secured lender’s objection (the “lender”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

Board of Directors Guidance When Addressing Emergency Circumstances Occasioned by the COVID-19 Pandemic

May 11, 2020 — Marc Casarino, Lori Smith & Gwenn Barney - White and Williams LLP
The COVID-19 pandemic has sent massive shockwaves throughout the global economy. This crises requires business leaders to confront a host of deleterious effects on an emergency basis – the likes of which many companies have never experienced. Boards of directors must remain cognizant of their oversight responsibilities in these trying times. This post offers guidance to directors of Delaware companies for addressing emergency circumstances occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic. Board Oversight – Lessons from Marchand V. Barnhill Directors should consider the lessons learned from the recent Delaware Supreme Court case Marchand v. Barnhill, a ruling we addressed in a previous blog post, when considering board oversight during the COVID-19 pandemic. Marchand centered on a lawsuit brought by shareholders in an ice cream manufacturing company against the company’s board of directors. The shareholders claimed that the directors violated their duty of loyalty[1] to the company when they failed to provide sufficient oversight and compliance-monitoring during a listeria outbreak that led the company to recall all products, temporarily cease product production at all plants and lay off more than one-third of the company’s workforce. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Marc Casarino, Lori Smith and Gwenn Barney Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Barney may be contacted at Barneyg@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

As Single-Family Homes Get Larger, Lots Get Smaller

September 03, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) Eye on Housing demonstrated that though the “single-family homes have been generally getting larger,” the average lot size has decreased over the years. For instance, from 1992-1995, “[t]he median lot size of a new single-family detached home sold was an even 10,000 square feet.” However, by 2004, lot size had decreased to 8,833 square feet. It bounced up to 9,000 and then came down again. In 2013, median lot size was 8,720 square feet. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Default Should Never Be An Option

June 19, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Every time I think that the construction industry has learned that failure to respond to a lawsuit is never the correct response, another case of default judgment comes out. I’ve discussed on multiple occasions that failure to respond can only lead to disaster. Aside from being barred from making any substantive response to the allegations against you, there are other consequences including the inability to seek a reasonable settlement because the other side has no reason to negotiate. One of the more disastrous results recently came about in the Norfolk Division of the Eastern District of Virginia District Court. The case of L & W Supply Corp v. Driven Construction et. al. involved a supplier that sought to enforce its credit agreement against both the corporate entity of the contractor, Driven, and the guarantor, a principal of the company. Needless to say, there was no response to the lawsuit and the Plaintiff filed for default judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Construction Calamity: Risk Transfer Tips for Contractors After a Catastrophic Loss

August 17, 2020 — William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
From structural collapses to fires, the construction industry has experienced a number of high-profile catastrophes over the past decade. These disasters test the mettle of even the most experienced risk professionals and the strongest insurance programs. Issues can arise in all facets of the company’s contracts and insurance policies, and dealing with the aftermath is an extensive and demanding process that can involve many players. As overwhelming as the task may seem, however, it is possible for general contractors to get through the disaster with minimal uncovered exposure if proper steps are taken. By understanding some of the exposures a general contractor faces after a catastrophic loss and implementing key risk transfer strategies from the outset of a project, risk professionals can minimize the impact of a loss on the company in the short and long term. Understanding Possible Risk Exposures When a catastrophic loss occurs, contractors face a wide array of potential exposures. Unfortunately, many large catastrophic losses involve serious bodily injuries and even loss of life. If such a tragedy occurs, the general contractor can reasonably expect to be named in a flurry of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits. Depending on the scope of the project and the area associated with the loss, the catastrophe may also prompt a wide range of bystander claims, from dust inhalation to emotional distress. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

Additional Insured Prevails on Summary Judgment For Duty to Defend, Indemnify

October 02, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
On summary judgment, the insured general contractor prevailed not only on the duty to defend, but also the duty to indemnify. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Old Republic Gen. Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103954 (S.D. N. Y. Aug. 7, 2015). 170 Broadway entered into a construction management agreement with McGowan Builders Inc. to serve as its construction manager for a hotel being built in Manhattan. Under the agreement, McGowan obtained a general liability policy from Old Republic naming 170 Broadway as an additional insured. 170 Broadway also secured its own policy from Wausau. Adam Burawski, an employee of a security company, came to the 170 Broadway site to meet with McGowan about provided security services for the project. Before the meeting, Burawski tripped and fell, sustaining a serious injury. 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

Insurer Obligated to Cover Preventative Remediation of Construction Defects

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A recent Texas construction defect case gets covered on a blog post on the web site of Manatt, Phelphs & Phillps, LLC. In the case, the home builder built homes using EIFS which later had problems with mold, mildew, and structural damage. The home builder remediated all of the homes in the project, not just those that had experienced problems with the EIFS.The home builder’s insurers refused to cooperate. Various insurers settled with the home builder, leaving only Markel America Insurance Company. Markel refused coverage on the grounds that proactively replacing the EIFS to preclude damage meant that there was no damage for their policy to cover. The policy also read that “no insured, except at their own cost, [may] voluntary make any payment, assume any obligation, or incur any expense,” unless Markel agreed to it. But the Texas Supreme Court ruled that “Markel failed to prove that it was prejudiced in any way by the home builder’s settlements,” which was a necessary condition for the cited clause. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that Markel was obligated to indemnify the home builder. The court also concluded that the damage occurred during the coverage period and that “all 465 houses at issue suffered property damage during the policy period.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES