FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Don’t Believe Everything You Hear: Liability of Asbestos Pipe Manufacturer Upheld Despite Exculpatory Testimony of Plaintiff

May 24, 2021 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In the next case, Morgan v. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. 60 Cal.App.5th 1078 (2021), the 2nd District Court of Appeal upheld a $7 million personal injury verdict against an asbestos-cement pipe manufacturer despite exculpatory testimony from the plaintiff, holding that the testimony was an issue of witness credibility rather than sufficiency of the evidence, and holding that the trial court’s denial of a jury instruction requested by the pipe manufacturer was appropriate because, while the requested jury instruction was a recitation of undisputed facts, the purpose of jury instructions is to recite the law rather than facts, even undisputed ones. The Morgan Case Norris Morgan was exposed to asbestos at construction sites where he worked in the 1970s and 80s. After he was diagnosed with mesothelioma in December 2017, Morgan and his wife sued a number of defendants, including J-M Manufacturing for personal injuries and loss of consortium. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Narrow House Has Wide Opposition

January 17, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A small building project on Staten Island is causing some big complaints. While many residents of the area are still dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, residents in the Port Richmond neighborhood are concerned about a house that is being built on a lot that at its widest is only seventeen feet. On the other end, the lot is only eleven feet wide. Initially, the Staten Island did not give permission to build on the Orange Avenue lot, but the developer went to the city’s Board of Standards and Appeals who gave permission. The daughter of one neighbor described the foundation as looking “like a swimming pool, not a house.” Her mother’s house has a 40-foot frontage. Another neighbor (37-foot frontage) described the plans to build the narrow house as “pretty stupid.” Work currently stopped on the building over complaints that the site’s fence was incomplete. After the developer repairs the fence, the site needs to be inspected before work continues. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Sarah P. Long Expands Insurance Coverage Team at Payne & Fears

March 19, 2024 — Payne & Fears LLP
Sarah P. Long has joined Payne & Fears LLP as a Partner in the firm’s Insurance Coverage and Litigation Group. Sarah has represented clients in all aspects of insurance coverage and litigation and also focus on construction defect claims and litigation. Before joining Payne & Fears, Sarah was a partner at Koeller, Nebeker, Carlson, Haluck, LLP, where she represented many of the nation’s builders in construction defect actions and bad faith insurance coverage disputes for 17 years. Known for her dependability, efficiency, and creative problem-solving, Sarah always strives to secure the best results for her clients in the most efficient manner. “We are excited to welcome Sarah to P&F as we continue to expand and add depth to our Insurance Litigation Group. I have known Sarah in a professional and personal capacity for more than 16 years. She is well respected by clients and peers in the legal profession. She is a bright, efficient, and innovative attorney and a wonderful person,” said Sarah Odia, the group’s co-chair. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears LLP

---

Continuous Injury Trigger Applied to Property Loss

January 07, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals predicted that the Wisconsin appellate courts would apply the continuous injury trigger to find coverage after the policy expired for damage caused by water infiltration. Strauss v. Chubb Indem. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App LEXIS 21794 (7th Cir. Nov. 18, 2014). The insureds built their home in 1994. They purchased coverage for their home from Chubb. Coverage was in place from October 1994 through October 2005. The policy stated that coverage was limited "only to occurrences that take place while this policy is in effect." "Occurrence" was defined as "a loss or accident to which this insurance applies occurring within the policy period. Continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions unless excluded is considered to be one occurrence." In October 2010, the insureds discovered that water infiltration had been causing damage within the building envelope of the home. The infiltration was ongoing, beginning around the time of original construction and continuously occurring with each subsequent rainfall. Chubb denied coverage because the damage was not discovered during any of their policy periods. 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

---

Opoplan Introduces Generative AI Tools for Home-Building

February 06, 2023 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Opoplan introduces its suite of generative AI architectural tools for builders and real estate brokers. The initiative intends to bridge the technological gap in custom home planning and building. The tools introduced by the company also aim to reduce the overdependence on manual efforts and limited design options when it comes to lot analysis, design briefing, design planning, and many other pre-build tasks. Through its AI-powered tools, Opoplan assists builders and home designers in saving time, money, and energy and more successfully close contracts, managing plans, and delivering single-family homes. A series of tools for the home-building industry Opoplan is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, with a new US office in Raleigh, North Carolina, and was established in 2019. They provide pre-build house planning and design tools for custom builders, real estate brokers, and house designers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

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

---

New Jersey’s Independent Contractor Rule

January 07, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome back Bennet Susser. Bennet is a founding member and shareholder of the New Jersey law firm, Jardim, Meisner & Susser, P.C. He has over 25 years’ experience in representing clients in all types of complex (and not so complex) litigation, including those involving construction actions. His Construction Law Practice Group has deep experience in the representation of property owners, developers, homeowners, design professionals, materials manufacturers, contractors and subcontractors in connection with construction of high-rise and other residential developments, condominium conversions of older rental properties, commercial property, mixed-use projects, and governmental buildings. Issues handled include: construction defects and deficiencies related to residential and commercial construction, including roofing defects, water intrusion, and structural life safety; construction delays; liens; hurricane recovery and rebuilding; insurance coverage disputes, including negotiation and resolution of insurance claims related to rebuilding; mold and mildew claims; and construction contracts and related documents, including loan documentation. Construction litigation often seeks to foist the culpable conduct of contractors and subcontractors upon an owner or developer of commercial or residential real property. Sometimes, such conduct is warranted, especially when the owner/developer has a significant role in the manner in which the construction project work is to be conducted. However, there are times when the general contractor is the party calling the shots. Why should an owner/developer be charged with the conduct of other independent contractors over whom no control was exercised? Under certain circumstances, such party may be insulated from liability based on the “independent contractor rule.” Put another way, general contractors’ and subcontractors’ status as independent contractors do not impute liability to an owner/developer for their alleged wrongful conduct under the principles of respondeat superior and vicarious liability. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Illinois Insureds are Contesting One Carrier's Universal Denial to Covid-19 Losses

May 11, 2020 — Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
In response to the large number of COVID-19-related losses that businesses are experiencing, insurers have begun issuing statements informing their insureds of whether their policies will respond to the losses, and if so, what coverage will be afforded. Insurers cannot take a “one-size-fits-all” approach to the COVID-19 losses because, besides factual differences, the losses are occurring within all fifty states which means 50 different state law interpretations will apply. Recently, on March 27, 2020, a number of restaurants and movie theaters located in and around Chicago (the “Insureds”) filed a declaratory judgement action, titled Big Onion Tavern Group, LLC et al. v. Society Insurance, Inc., against their property insurance carrier, Society Insurance, Inc. (“Society”), seeking coverage for business interruption resulting from the shutdown order issued by the governor of Illinois. The suit alleges that Society improperly denied their business interruption claims by using a boiler plate denial. The denial issued by Society is allegedly used for all COVID-19 losses regardless of the applicable jurisdiction’s interpretation of the policy language and the specific coverage purchased by the insured. Further, in its denial, Society takes the position that any loss related to a government-issued closure order is uncovered, even though the Insureds specifically purchased business interruption coverage and their policies did not contain an exclusion for losses caused by viruses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Perry may be contacted at amp@sdvlaw.com

---