FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Massachusetts Judge Holds That Insurer Breached Its Duty To Defend Lawsuit After Chemical Spill

October 16, 2018 — Lawrence J. Bracken, II & Alexander D. Russo - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A District Court Judge for the District of Massachusetts recently ruled that Ace Property and Casualty Insurance Co. breached its duty to defend its insured in a lawsuit brought by Plaistow Project, LLC, after a family owned laundromat leaked chemicals onto Plaistow Project’s property. Plaistow Project, LLC v. ACE Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 16-CV-11385-IT, 2018 WL 4357480, (D. Mass. Sept. 13, 2018). Plaistow Project sued State Line Laundry Services in state court, and ACE denied coverage under the pollution exclusion in State Line Laundry’s insurance policy. Plaistow Project then settled with State Line Laundry. Under the settlement terms, Plaistow Project was assigned State Line Laundry’s rights against ACE. In the subsequent coverage litigation, Plaistow Project alleged that ACE had breached its duty to defend State Line Laundry under its insurance policy. ACE argued that (1) the burden was on the policyholder to demonstrate that the policy’s “sudden and accidental” exception applied to the policy’s pollution exclusion; and (2) the policyholder could not show the “sudden and accidental” exception applied based on the complaint. Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence J. Bracken, II, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Alexander D. Russo, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Bracken, may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Mr. Russo may be contacted at arusso@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

How Long is Your Construction Warranty?

February 26, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
The Nebraska Court of Appeals threw a wrench into the calculation of your warranty earlier this year in Adams v. Manchester Park, LLC and Southfork Homes, Inc. In that case, the court found that the statute of limitations for a warranty claim started running after the homebuilder’s warranty expired. So, the four year breach of warranty statute of limitations did not begin until after the one year homebuilder warranty expired. In this case, the homeowner purchased a home from Southfork in September, 2007. The purchase agreement provided for a one-year New Home Limited Warranty which covered material defects in workmanship and materials. The homeowner noticed cracks in the drywall and problems with windows within 6 months of the purchase. The builder told the homeowner to keep track of all the problems and they would be fixed at the yearend walk through. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

---

Halliburton to Pay $1.1 Billion to Settle Spill Lawsuits

September 03, 2014 — David Wethe, Margaret Cronin Fisk and Laurel Calkins – Bloomberg
Halliburton Co. agreed to pay $1.1 billion to settle a majority of lawsuits brought over its role in the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. The agreement is subject to court approval and includes legal fees, the Houston-based company said in a statement today. Halliburton was accused by spill victims and BP Plc of doing defective cementing work on the Macondo well before the April 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Halliburton blamed the incident on decisions by BP, which owned the well. The settlement comes as the judge overseeing oil-spill cases weighs fault for the disaster. An agreement now averts the company’s risk of a more costly judgment for some spill victims and removes much of the uncertainty that has plagued Halliburton for the past four years as investors waited to see the payout tally. With its biggest piece of liability resolved, Halliburton can refocus its attention on developing new oilfield technology that will help it boost profits worldwide. Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg journalists David Wethe, Margaret Cronin Fisk and Laurel Calkins Mr. Wethe may be contacted at dwethe@bloomberg.net; Ms. Fisk may be contacted at mcfisk@bloomberg.net; and Ms. Calkins may be contacted at lcalkins@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Defects Lead to Demolition

May 26, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Ten years after it was built, demolition of Seattle’s McGuire Building has begun, as Jeanne Lang Jones reports in the Puget Sound Business Journal. Construction defects had rendered the 25-story apartment building uninhabitable. The major problem was corroded steel cabling. According to the report, “the building’s owners reached an undisclosed settlement last year with St. Louis-based contractor McCarthy Building Companies.”



Read the full story…

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

---

Thieves Stole Backhoe for Use in Bank Heist

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
You can do a lot with a backhoe, but maybe not use it for bank robbery. The New York Daily News wasn’t clear on how many were involved, but described them as “a brazen crew of bandits.” They stole a backhoe from a construction site and used it to pry an ATM from a bank. When they couldn’t get the ATM open, they jumped into a black SUV and left the scene. The bandits were engaging in a sort of ATM spree. They did manage to open two ATMs, each holding more than $7,000 in cash. They were less successful at their use of heavy machinery. In an earlier heist, they used a tow truck to try to remove an ATM, but the chain snapped and the bank’s alarm rang. The Daily News quotes one former tow truck driver who said that it was “stupid to use a tow truck.” In her experience, “those chains snap at any time.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Appellate Team Obtains Affirmance of Dismissal of Would-Be Labor Law Action Against Municipal Entities

August 12, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
New York, N.Y. (July 11, 2024) - In Charlot v. City of New York, ___ A.D.3d ___, 2024 NY Slip Op 03161 (2d Dep’t 2024), New York Associate Dean Pillarella, a member of the Appellate Practice, recently obtained an affirmance of the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s action against the City of New York (“the City”) for failure to timely serve a notice of claim. New York Partner Meghan Cavalieri, a member of the Construction Practice, and her team authored and argued the initial motion to dismiss. The plaintiff alleged to have sustained injuries as a result of a construction-site accident on December 8, 2020, on City-owned property in the course of the construction of a school by the New York City School Construction Authority. N.Y. General Municipal Law (“GML”) § 50-e(1)(a), requires service of a notice of claim within 90 days after the claim arises as a condition precedent to the commencement of a tort action. The plaintiff served no notice of claim until June 2021 and commenced an action in January 2022, alleging violations of N.Y. Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200. Given the plaintiff’s failure to comply with GML § 50-e(1)(a), Meghan and her team rejected the notices of claim as untimely. The plaintiff then moved for leave to deem the notices of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. In response, Meghan and her team opposed the motion and cross-moved to dismiss the action. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Global Insurer Agrees to Pay COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims

July 06, 2020 — Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
AXA, one of the biggest insurance companies in the world, has agreed to pay COVID-related business interruption claims by a group of restaurants in Paris after a court ruled that the restaurants’ revenue losses resulting from COVID-19 and related government orders were covered under AXA’s policies. AXA initially took the position that its insurance policies did not cover business interruption caused by COVID-19. The restaurant then sued AXA in a French court, seeking coverage for operating losses resulting from a government order issued in March mandating the closure of restaurants and bars in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court concluded that the government orders, which prohibited restaurants from receiving the public and offering traditional sit-down dining services, triggered the policy’s coverage for business interruption coverage. The court rejected AXA’s argument that the pandemic was uninsurable, and made clear that if AXA intended to exclude such a risk it should have done so expressly in its policy. The court also rejected AXA’s argument that there must be a prerequisite of an insured event for the application of the “administrative closure” provision, noting that no prerequisite was required by the policy. AXA’s argument that the government orders did not require the restaurant to be closed because the restaurant was authorized to maintain take-away services was also rejected. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the policyholders, holding that the business interruption loss resulting from the government orders qualified for insurance coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Green Energy Can Complicate Real Estate Foreclosures

November 30, 2016 — Bob L. Olson – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
A quick drive through almost any newer residential community in the Southwest will show that a lot of residents are embracing “Green Energy” or renewable energy by placing solar panels on their properties. While most people would agree that increasing the use of alternative energy is socially responsible, there are a number of real estate investors that may view it as an opportunity to make additional profits by purchasing distressed properties with solar panels and then reselling those properties for more than they would be worth without solar panels. The theory is relatively straight forward as many believe that foreclosure of a deed of trust that was recorded before the solar panels were installed would extinguish any liens in favor of the vendor that sold or financed the sale of the solar panels. After all, it is generally held that “a valid foreclosure of a mortgage terminates all interest in the foreclosed real estate that are junior to the mortgage being foreclosed.” See SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 75, 334 P.3d 408, 412 (2014) (quoting Restatement (Third) of Property, Mortgages §7.1 (1997)). NOT SO FAST! While the general rule is that foreclosure of a senior lien terminates junior liens, most purveyors of solar panels do not encumber the property with mortgages or deeds of trust to secure payment of amounts they are owed. Rather, they typically either lease the solar panels to the property owner or secure repayment of the purchase price of the solar panels with a fixture filing under the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bob L. Olson, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Olson may be contacted at bolson@swlaw.com

---