Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Burden of Proof Under All-Risk Property Insurance Policy

January 31, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates

A recent Florida case, Jones v. Federated National Ins. Co., 43 Fla. L. Weekly D164a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) discusses the burden of proof of an insured in establishing coverage under an all-risk property insurance policy. Getting right to this critical point, the court explained the burden of proof as follows:

1. The insured has the initial burden of proof to establish that the damage at issue occurred during a period in which the damaged property had insurance coverage. If the insured fails to meet this burden, judgment shall be entered in favor of the insurer.

–

2. If the insured’s initial burden is met, the burden of proof shifts to the insurer to establish that (a) there was a sole cause of the loss, or (b) in cases where there was more than one cause, there was an “efficient proximate cause” of the loss.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Study May Come Too Late for Construction Defect Bill

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Colorado State Senator Mark Scheffel removed his bill, Senate Bill 13-052, from the calendar of the Senate Judiciary Committee in anticipation of a study which he feels would be pertinent to the discussion. The bill would stop communities from suing developers over noise and vibration issues associated with transit facilities, and would also provide for developers fixing construction defects before being sued. Senator Scheffel said that the intent of his bill was to spur development near transit facilities. The study, commissioned by the Denver Regional Council of Governments, would focus on the effects of the state’s construction defects law on housing. It might not come soon enough for the senator’s bill. The Denver Business Journal reports that the study, which will take four months to complete, doesn’t yet have a contract. The Legislature must adjourn by May 8, so it is not possible for the study to be concluded before the end of this legislative session. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Social Engineering Scams Are On the Rise – Do I Have Insurance Coverage for That?

June 01, 2020 — Jeffrey Dennis & Heather Whitehead - Newmeyer Dillion
Cyber attackers all know that the majority of organizations are currently working from home due to the ongoing COVID-19 (commonly referred to as the Coronavirus) pandemic. And, as would be expected, social engineering scams are on the rise. Nonetheless, there may be limitations in your cyber liability insurance policy for these types of claims. It is advisable to take the initiative to review such insurance policies in detail for coverage considerations prior to the occurrence of any cyber incident. And, of course, protect your business from attacks by engaging in precautious cyber safety efforts. What Is Social Engineering? Social engineering refers to various means to manipulate individuals in the online environment so that they divulge sensitive, personal information, such as banking information, which may include account numbers and passwords. This can also take the form of receiving a request to transfer funds to what the victim believes is another employee, trusted financial information or other party with whom the person has a business relationship with. Unfortunately, however, those funds ultimately are received by the engineer of the cyber attack. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey M. Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion and Heather Whitehead, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Dennis may be contacted at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com Ms. Whitehead may be contacted at heather.whitehead@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CA Supreme Court Permits Insurers to Bring Direct Actions Seeking Reimbursement of Excessive Fees Against Cumis Counsel Under Limited Circumstances

August 19, 2015 — David W. Evans & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
The California Supreme Court held in Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. J.R. Marketing, L.L.C. (Squire Sanders) (8/10/2015 - #S211645) that if Cumis counsel, operating under a court order which such counsel drafted and which expressly provided that the insurer would be able to recover excessive fees, sought and received fee payments from the insurer that were fraudulent or otherwise manifestly and objectively useless and wasteful when incurred, Cumis counsel have been unjustly enriched at the insurer’s expense and the insurer will be permitted under such limited circumstances to seek reimbursement directly from Cumis counsel. Certain Hartford insureds who had been issued commercial general liability policies were sued in multiple proceedings for a variety of claims, including unfair competition, defamation and intentional misrepresentation. Hartford disclaimed a duty to defend or to indemnify the defendants on the grounds that the acts complained of occurred prior to Hartford’s policy, and that some of the defendants were not Hartford insureds. A coverage action was filed by some of the insureds against Hartford; they were represented by the Squire Sanders law firm. Although Hartford subsequently agreed to defend several of the defendants subject to a reservation of rights, it declined to pay defense expenses incurred prior to the date of such agreement. Some months later, the trial court entered a summary adjudication order, finding that Hartford had a duty to have defended the liability action on the date it was originally tendered; the order required Hartford to fund the insured’s defense with independent counsel (i.e., so-called “Cumis” counsel; see San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358). The insureds retained Squire Sanders as their Cumis counsel. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Reporting Requirements for Architects under California Business and Professions Code Section 5588

December 22, 2019 — Jordan Golden - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
Below is an overview of the changes to California Business and Professions Code Section 5588 and its effect on the reporting requirements, for architects, in the construction industry. Section 5588 Prior to 2005 Legislative Changes Section 5588 of the California Business and Professions Code sets forth the reporting requirements for many business professionals including architects. Since 1979, Section 5588 has required architects and their insurers to report to the California Architect Board (the Board) “any settlement or arbitration award in excess of five thousand dollars ($ 5,000) of a claim or action for damages caused by the license holder’s fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice.”1 The language of the code section left open for interpretation the question of what types of settlement claims must be reported to the Board. Thus, in 2004, the Attorney General of the State of California published an opinion stating that a reportable settlement includes “any agreement resolving all or part of a demand for money which is based upon an insured architect’s alleged wrongful conduct.”2 He then went on to conclude that the only qualifications placed on the term “claim” for purposes of Section 5588 is that “(1) the demand be premised on the license holder’s alleged ‘fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or recklessness in practice,’ and (2) the value of the claim, as measured by the settlement amount or arbitration award, exceeds $5,000.”3 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jordan Golden, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani

Palo Alto Considers Fines for Stalled Construction Projects

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The city of Palo Alto, California is considering adopting a law that would fine residents with expired building permits. The City Council took up the issue in response to complaints from residents about stalled construction projects in their neighborhoods. In the public testimony, one resident noted that a site near her home was fenced off in 2007, with the home demolished in 2008, after which nothing has happened. The City Council is proposing fines of $200 per day, after a 30-day grace period, increasing to $400 per day two months after that, going to $800 per day on the 121st day. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Firm Offers Tips on Construction Defects in Colorado

February 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Although the Tenth Circuit Court determined that construction defects are occurrences under a general liability policy and the passage of CRS Section 13-20-808, in which the Colorado Legislature addressed the definition of occurrences as they relate to construction defects, the insurance industry “will continue to challenge the very concept of coverage for construction defects,” according to five attorneys at the law firm Sherman & Howard. They suggest that there are lessons to be learned from two recent cases that were recently decided by the Colorado Court of Appeals, TCD, Inc. v. American Family and Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company. They suggest that construction professionals to be certain that their insurers are “firmly rooted in insuring the construction industry.” Their broker should also have “specific expertise in insuring the construction industry.” And don’t buy on price alone. Finally, they suggest that construction professionals should “engage an experienced coverage attorney to assess pursuing coverage when an insurance company denies coverage for a construction defect claim.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Second Circuit Clarifies What Must Be Alleged to Establish “Joint Employer” Liability in the Context of Federal Employment Discrimination Claims

March 14, 2022 — Kevin J. O’Connor, Aaron C. Schlesinger & Lauren Rayner Davis - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
The “joint employer” doctrine has been used with increasing frequency by the plaintiffs’ bar to broaden the scope of target defendants in discrimination cases beyond those who would be traditionally regarded as the employer. This is true even in the construction industry, which has seen a rise in cases where general contractors or construction managers are being targeted when discrimination is alleged on a construction project, even when the GC or CM is far removed from the underlying events and had no control over the employees in question. Until now, the Courts in the federal circuit which includes New York City (the Second Circuit) have been left to decipher a patchwork of case law to ascertain the scope and extent of joint employer liability in discrimination cases. This week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Felder v. United States Tennis Association, et al., 19-1094, issued a comprehensive decision which provides a helpful summary of what must be pled and proven to broaden liability under the joint employer theory in discrimination cases. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin J. O’Connor, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Lauren Rayner Davis, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at koconnor@pecklaw.com Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com Ms. Davis may be contacted at ldavis@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES