Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Appraisers Limited to Determining Amount of Loss

April 25, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals determined that appraisers cannot decide what amount is owed by the insurer after loss, but are limited to finding the amount of the loss. Krafchon v. Dongbu Ins. Co., Ltd., 2023 Haw. App. LEXIS 43 (Haw. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2023). The insureds owned three structures on the property on Maui: the Villa; the Cottage; and the Garage. The three structures were insured under homeowners and dwelling fire policies issued by Dongbu. When the structures were damaged by wildfire, Dongbu tendered over $300,000 under a reservation of rights, pending preparation of a final settlement. There was disagreement over the total amount of the loss. The insureds invoked the appraisal provision of the policies. When Dongbu failed to appoint an appraiser, the insureds sued. The trial court granted the insureds' motion to compel appraisal. 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

Homeowner Survives Motion to Dismiss Depreciation Claims

September 23, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's motion to dismiss claims for improper claims handling when considering implementation of depreciation was denied. Morrison v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co, et al., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115664 (S. D. W. Va. July 1, 2024). Plaintiff's home suffered flood damage. The house was insured by Indian Harbor a surplus lines carrier that offered specialized and high risk property policies in West Virginia. Surplus lines policies were procured in West Virginia through a "surplus lines licensee." Here, Neptune Flood Inc. was the surplus lines licensee broker for Indian Harbor. Peninsula Insurance Bureau, Inc. was an administrator and loss adjuster involved in the claim. After the flood, Plaintiff notified defendants of the damage and immediately cleaned and repaired the house. Plaintiff asserted that Neptune was given notice of the loss and one of its agents made recommendations regarding the coverage available and conveyed the information to Peninsula and Indian Harbour. Plaintiff claimed that defendants misrepresented his policy coverage and made incorrect adjustments for depreciation based on Neptune's statements and recommendations. 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

Insurer's Refusal to Consider Supplemental Claim Found Improper

June 17, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eleventy Circuit reversed the district court's finding that the insurer had properly rejected the insured's supplemental claim. Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Concourse Plaza A Condomiium Association, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 8958 (11th Cir. April 15, 2024). On September 10, 2017, Hurrican Irma struck Concourse Plaza's building, causing wind and water damage. Great Lakes sent a adjuster to inspect the property. The adjuster found damages to the building were $31,035.21, well below the policy's deductible. Accordingly, Great Lakes advised that the net amount of the claim was zero. Concourse Plaza responded on September 4, 2020, just shy of three years after the cliam accured. Concourse Plaza disputed the damages estimate, but did not include a competing estimate. The letter said an estimate was being prepared and Great Lakes should consider the letter as notice of the intent to pursue additional benefits for the loss pursuant to the policy's notice provisions and Florida law. 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

Florida Construction Defect Decision Part of Lengthy Evolution

August 05, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Lawyers are still working out all the implications of Florida Supreme Court’s ruling in Maronda Homes. Three members of the firm Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed PA, Alexander Dobrev, Michael S. Provenzale, and Tara L. Tedrow on the firm’s web site. They characterize it as a “consumer-protection oriented decision,” quoting the court that the “house is the fondest dream and largest investment, both emotionally and financially, for Florida families.” The court found that Section 553.835 of the Florida laws could not be applied to construction that occurred before the statute become effective in July, 2012. They describe the underlying issue as “the culmination of forty years of evolution to the implied warranty of habitability that is granted by the builder of a new home to the purchaser.” This lead to a 2010 District Court decision that expanded the area covered from “merely the structure itself, along with improvements ‘immediately supporting the residence’” but also those “which provide ‘essential services’ which support the home, make it habitable, or are necessary for living accommodations.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer's Attempt to Limit Additional Insured Status Fails

December 01, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court disagreed with the insurer's attempt to limit additional insured status based upon the contract between the parties. Mays v. In re All C-Dive LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185874 (E.D. La. Nov. 9, 2017). Five employees of C-Dive LLC filed a lawsuit after belng injured in a pipeline explosion aboard a vessel servicing a pipeline owned by Gulf South Pipeline Company. During the work, there was a release of gas that caused an explosion and injured the employees. 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

Flushing Away Liability: What the Aqua Engineering Case Means for Contractors and Subcontractors

October 21, 2024 — Heather Zipperer - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
The recent Town of Mancos v. Aqua Engineering case is an insightful example of how well written contracts and timely legal action can make all the difference in resolving disputes between municipalities, general contractors, and subcontractors. The ruling favored Aqua Engineering; a subcontractor that played a role in a wastewater treatment facility project gone wrong. The court’s decision highlighted key legal principles, including the economic loss rule and the importance of well-structured contracts in construction disputes. Whether you are a subcontractor looking to avoid undue liability or a general contractor seeking to ensure subcontractors shoulder their fair portion of responsibility, this case offers valuable lessons for all parties involved in construction projects. The Background: A Wastewater Project with Issues In 2008, the Town of Mancos, Colorado, hired Souder, Miller & Associates (“SMA”) to design a new wastewater treatment facility. SMA subcontracted Aqua Engineering to help implement a specific wastewater treatment system known as the Multi-Stage Activated Biological Process (“MSABP”). However, after construction, the facility never worked as expected. For years, the Town faced ongoing issues, and despite Aqua’s involvement in attempts to fix the problems, the facility remained dysfunctional. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment over Defective Archway Construction

February 10, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

A judge has ruled that a plaintiff can go forward with her suit that she was injured by a defective archway during a birthday party. A three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeals issued this ruling on January 23, 2012, in the case of Trujillo v. Cosio.

Ms. Trujillo attended a birthday party at the home of Maria Cosio and Joel Verduzco. A piñata was hung between a tree and a brick archway. Ms. Trujillo went to get candy that had fallen from the piñata, during which the archway fell on her hand. Subsequent examination of the archway showed that it had not been “properly anchored to the supporting pillars to protect the arch from falling.”

Ms. Cosio and Mr. Verduzco argued that they could not have been aware of the defective nature of the archway’s construction, as it had been built at the request of the prior property owner. The structure was constructed without building permits. Mark Burns, a civil engineer testifying for the plaintiff, said that “a reasonable property owner would have thoroughly tested the archway to ensure it was capable of withstanding such horizontal forces before allowing children to enter into the area.” Mr. Burns noted that twenty rope pulls would have been sufficient to demonstrate the structure’s instability.

The trial court rejected Mr. Burn’s statements, finding that the respondents did not have any knowledge of the defect and that a visual inspection should have sufficed. The court noted that this a triable issue, whether visual inspection suffices, or whether the property owners should have done as Mr. Burns suggested and yank a rope twenty times. The court noted that “although a jury may ultimately disagree with Burn’s opinion, it was supported by sufficient foundation and was not speculative.”

The opinion was written by Judge Flier, with Judges Rubin and Grimes concurring.

Read the court’s decison…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New York Court Finds No Coverage Owed for Asbestos Losses Because Insured Failed to Prove Material Terms

February 15, 2021 — Gregory S. Capps & Marianne E. Bradley - White and Williams LLP
In the long-tail insurance context, it is not unusual to have issues arise addressing “lost” or “missing” policies. In an opinion issued on January 22, 2021, a New York court ruled that an insurer did not owe coverage to its insured for underlying asbestos claims because the insured had failed to establish the material terms of a “lost” policy under which it sought coverage for the underlying claims. The lawsuit, Cosmopolitan Shipping Company, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Company,[1] arose out of a coverage dispute between Plaintiff Cosmopolitan Shipping Co., Inc. (Cosmopolitan) and its insurance carrier, Continental Insurance Company (CIC), in connection with bodily injury claims arising out of asbestos exposure. The case provides a good analysis of what an insured must do to establish coverage under a “lost” or “missing” policy. During and after World War II, Cosmopolitan chartered and operated a number of shipping vessels on behalf of United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA). In the 1980s, seamen who had worked on board Cosmopolitan’s vessels between 1946 and 1948 filed lawsuits against Cosmopolitan seeking damages for injuries arising out of alleged exposure to asbestos on Cosmopolitan’s vessels. Cosmopolitan sought coverage from CIC for the claims, alleging that CIC had insured Cosmopolitan’s vessels during the relevant time period under a protection and indemnity policy issued to the UNRAA (the P&I Policy). Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Marianne E. Bradley, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Bradley may be contacted at bradleym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES