Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Second Circuit Court Differentiates the Standard for Determining Evident Partiality for a Neutral Arbitrator and a Party-Appointed Arbitrator

August 07, 2018 — Celia B. Waters - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
On June 7, 2018, the Second Circuit Court in Certain Underwriting Members of Lloyds of London v. Fla., Dep’t of Fin. Servs.,1 held that a party-appointed arbitrator should not be held to the same standard as a neutral arbitrator. The Court vacated a district court’s order vacating an arbitral award in a reinsurance dispute between Insurance Company of Americas (“ICA”) and Certain Underwriting Members of Lloyds of London (“Underwriters”). The case was one of first impression for the Second Circuit on how to determine the standard of evident partiality challenged to a party-appointed arbitrator. Underwriters reinsured ICA under a series of treaties. The treaties each contained an arbitration clause requiring that disputes be adjudicated by an arbitration panel consisting of three members: one party-appointed arbitrator for each party, and a neutral. The clause required only that the arbitrators “be active or retired disinterested executive officers of insurance or reinsurance companies or Lloyd’s London Underwriters.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Celia B. Waters, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Waters may be contacted at cbw@sdvlaw.com

Harvey's Aftermath Will Rattle Construction Supply Chain, Economists Say

September 07, 2017 — Tim Grogan - Engineering News-Record
Hurricane Harvey’s immediate impact on the construction sector will be a disruption in the supply chain for key materials, along with scheduling problems for projects that were under construction. As the cleanup and eventual rebuilding proceed, increased demand for materials and labor will push costs upward and contractors will be scrambling to secure supplies and workers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tim Grogan, ENR
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Alabama Appeals Court Rules Unexpected and Unintended Property Damage is an Occurrence

June 17, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v St. Catherine of Siena Parish, a U.S. appeals court affirmed "that unexpected and unintended property damage is an ‘occurrence,’” reported Construction Equipment Guide. The underlying case involved roof leaks after the replacement of two Parish roofs, which ultimately led to a trial where Parish was awarded $350,000 in compensatory damages for breach of contract. However, Penn National disputed any obligation to pay, stating that “a breach of contract claim was not an ‘occurrence’ under the policy and even if such claims were an occurrence, the contractual liability and/or ‘your work’ exclusions would bar recovery.” However, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama ruled “that there was coverage for the property damage caused by the leaks because an ‘accident’ meant an unintended and unforeseen injury and the allegedly faulty workmanship led to damage to other areas of the structure and thus damage beyond simply the cost to replace the defective roof.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Fifth Circuit Decision on Number of Occurrences Underscores Need to Carefully Tailor Your Insurance Program

December 19, 2018 — Michael S. Levine & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The Fifth Circuit in Evanston Insurance Co. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co. recently held that multiple collisions caused by the same insured driver over a span of 10 minutes constitute a single occurrence subject to a $1 million limit in the insured’s primary policy with Mid-Continent. The holding reversed a lower court’s ruling that Mid-Continent is liable for an additional sum the excess insurer, Evanston, paid to resolve all of the claims arising from the collisions. At issue, a fundamental question about causation and coverage under commercial liability insurance. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Congratulations 2019 DE, MA, NJ, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

December 09, 2019 — White and Williams LLP
Fifteen White and Williams lawyers have been named by Super Lawyers as a Delaware, New Jersey or Pennsylvania "Super Lawyer" while eight received "Rising Star" designations. Each lawyer who received the distinction competed in a rigorous selection process which took into consideration peer recognition and professional achievement. The lawyers named to this year's Super Lawyer list represent a multitude of practices throughout the firm. Super Lawyers 2019 John Balaguer, PI Defense: Med Mal David Chaffin, Business Litigation Kevin Cottone, PI Defense: Med Mal Steven Coury, Real Estate: Business John Eagan, Tax: Business Randy Friedberg, Intellectual Property Bridget La Rosa, Estate Planning & Probate Christopher Leise, Civil Litigation: Defense Randy Maniloff, Insurance Coverage David Marion, Business Litigation John McCarrick, Insurance Coverage Peter Mooney, Business Litigation Michael Olsan, Insurance Coverage John Orlando, General Litigation Wesley Payne, Insurance Coverage Daryn Rush, Insurance Coverage Anthony Salvino, Workers’ Comp Patricia Santelle, Insurance Coverage Jay Shapiro, Business Litigation Heidi Sorvino, Bankruptcy: Business Craig Stewart, Business Litigation Andrew Susko, Civil Litigation: Defense Robert Wright, Insurance Coverage Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

Massachusetts District Court Holds Contractors Are Not Additional Insureds on Developer’s Builder’s Risk Policy

August 31, 2020 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Factory Mut. Ins. Co. v. Skanska United States Bldg., No. 18-cv-11700-DLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95403 (Skanska), the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts considered whether contractors on a construction job were additional insureds on the developer’s builder’s risk insurance policy. After a water loss occurred during construction, the builder’s risk insurance carrier paid its named insured for the resultant damage, and subsequently filed a subrogation action against two contractors. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the anti-subrogation rule barred the carrier from subrogating against them because they were additional insureds on the policy. The court found that based on the particular language of the additional insured provision in the policy, the defendants were not additional insureds for purposes of the subrogation action. Skanska arose from property damage that occurred during a construction project where Novartis Corporation (Novartis) endeavored to construct a biomedical research building in Cambridge, Massachusetts and retained Skanska USA Building, Inc. (Skanska) as the general contractor. In turn, Skanksa hired J.C. Cannistraro, LLC (JCC) as a subcontractor. Novartis secured a builder’s risk insurance policy from Factory Mutual Insurance Company (Factory Mutual). The policy defined “Insured” as Novartis and its subsidiaries, partnerships and joint ventures that it controlled or owned. The policy included another provision, titled “Property Damage,” which stated that the policy “insures the interest of contractors and subcontractors in insured property… to the extent of the Insured’s legal liability for insured physical loss or damage to such property.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Agent May Be Liable for Failing to Submit Claim

November 01, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
After the agent informed the insured there was no coverage and submitting a claim would be a useless effort, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal of the insured's suit against the agent. Pflueger, Inc. v. AIG Holdings, Inc., 2022 Haw. App. LEXIS 279 (Haw. Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2022). In May 2008, Pflueger notified its agent, Noguchi & Associates, Inc., that it had received federal grand jury subpoenas. Noguchi informed Pflueger that the subpoenas did not qualify as a "claim" under two policies issued by National Union. Consequently, Noguchi did not forward a claim or the subpoenas to National Union and did not seek clarification as to whether the grand jury subpoenas were covered under the policies. Pflueger relied upon Noguchi's representations and took no further action until its attorney submitted a demand letter tendering Pflueger's defense to Nation Union nine months later, in February 2009. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Connecticut Court Clarifies Construction Coverage

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Connecticut Supreme Court has recently ruled on a case in which breach of contract and bad-faith claims were made against an insurer in an construction defect case. Joseph K. Scully of Day Pitney LLP discussed the case in a piece on Mondaq. Mr. Scully noted that the background of the case was that Capstone Building was the general contractor and project developer of a student housing complex for the University of Connecticut. Unfortunately, the building had a variety of problems, some of which were violations of the building code. Mr. Scully noted that the building had “elevated carbon monoxide levels resulting from inadequate venting, improperly sized flues.” Capstone entered into mediation with the University of Connecticut. Capstone’s insurer, the American Motorists Insurance Company (AMICO), declined involvement in the participation. Afterward, Capstone sued AMICO. The issues the court covered involved the insurance on this project. The court addressed three questions. The first was “whether damage to a construction project caused by construction defects and faulty workmanship may constitute ‘property damage’ resulting from an ‘occurrence.’” The court concluded that it could “only if it involved physical injury or loss of use of ‘nondefective property.’” The second question dealt with whether insurers were obligated to investigate insurance claims. The court, “agreeing with the majority of jurisdictions,” did not find “a cause of action based solely on an insurer’s failure to investigate a claim.” Under the terms of the contract, it was up to AMICO to decide if it was going to investigate the claim. Thirdly, the court examined whether “an insured is entitled to recover the full amount of a pre-suit settlement involving both covered and noncovered claims after an insurer wrongfully disclaims coverage.” The court concluded that the limits are that the settlement be reasonable, the policy limit, and the covered claims. Mr. Scully concludes that the decision will limit “the scope of coverage for construction defect claims” and “also imposes reasonable requirements on an insured to allocate a settlement between covered and noncovered claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES