FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Motion for Reconsideration Challenging Appraisal Determining Cause of Loss Denied

November 16, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court rejected the insurer's motion for reconsideration attempting to set aside the appraisal award that determined the cause of loss. Mesco Mfg., LLC v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 2023 WL 5334659 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 18, 2023). Mesco suffered a loss to the roofs of its facilities due to hail damage. Mesco sued Motorists alleging it breached the policy by failing to pay the full amount of the claim. The claim went to appraisal. The policy's appraisal provision reserved Motorists' right to deny the claim despite an appraisal going forward. The appraisal award noted that the loss was caused by hail. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. The court found that Motorists had breached the policy by failing to pay the arbitration award and granted summary judgment to the insured. The "right to deny" clause did not give Motorists the unfetterd right to disregard the umpire's award if it disgreed about the amount of loss caused by hail. The only dispute was whether the damage was caused by hail, and the umpire found that it was. 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

---

New York’s Highest Court Reverses Lower Court Ruling That Imposed Erroneous Timeliness Requirement For Disclaimers of Coverage

June 18, 2014 — Robert F. Walsh and Paul A. Briganti – White and Williams LLP
On June 10, 2014, the New York Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) issued a unanimous decision in KeySpan Gas East Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. (No. 110, June 10, 2014), reversing a lower court decision which had erroneously imposed on insurers a duty to disclaim coverage for property damage claims as soon as possible or risk waiving their coverage defenses. White and Williams represented one of the insurance company defendants in the action. The case involved an action against three excess insurers for insurance coverage for underlying environmental claims arising from Manufactured Gas Plant sites. Upon receiving notice of the underlying claims, the three insurers reserved their rights to deny coverage on various grounds, including late notice of an occurrence, pending an investigation. The insurers ultimately denied coverage on the basis of late notice several years later based on information developed in discovery in the litigation. The policyholder/plaintiff KeySpan argued that the insurers had unreasonably delayed in issuing their disclaimers and that there was a triable issue of fact on whether such a delay amounted to a waiver of the late notice defense. Reprinted courtesy of Robert F. Walsh, White and Williams LLP and Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP Mr. Walsh may be contacted at walshr@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

It’s All a Matter of [Statutory] Construction: Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets the Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Requirements in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co.

May 30, 2018 — Erinn Contreras & Joy O. Siu - Sheppard Mullin Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
On May 14, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., No. S231549, slip. op. (Cal. Sup. Ct. May 14, 2018). In it, the Court narrowly construed the “good faith” exception to the general rule that a direct contractor must make retention payments to its subcontractors within 10 days of receiving any retention payment. The exception provides that “[i]f a good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and a subcontractor, the direct contractor may withhold from the retention to the subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount.” Cal. Civ. Code section 8814(c). Reprinted courtesy of Erinn Contreras, Sheppard Mullin and Joy O. Siu, Sheppard Mullin Ms. Contreras may be contacted at econtreras@sheppardmullin.com Ms. Siu may be contacted at jsiu@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Renee Mortimer Recognized as "Defense Lawyer of the Year" by DTCI

December 13, 2022 — Renee Mortimer - Lewis Brisbois
Highland, Ind. (November 21, 2022) - Northwest Indiana Managing Partner Renee J. Mortimer was recently named "Defense Lawyer of the Year" by the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana (DTCI). She was officially recognized at a Board & Officers dinner the evening before the DTCI's annual conference, which took place in Michigan City, Indianapolis from November 17 to 18.  The DTCI gives out three awards every year as part of its annual conference, including "Defense Lawyer of the Year," "Diplomat," and "Outstanding Young Lawyer." This year, two recipients received the "Diplomat" recognition "I am honored to receive this recognition from my peers and look forward to continuing my work with the DTCI," said Ms. Mortimer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Renee Mortimer, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Mortimer may be contacted at Renee.Mortimer@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Third-Party Defendant

May 06, 2024 — Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle won summary judgment in favor of Third-Party Defendant, a general contracting company (the “Contracting Company”), in a personal injury action brought in Suffolk County. In the underlying matter, the Plaintiff—an employee of the Contracting Company—alleged that they sustained injuries from an incident which occurred when they were struck by a skid-steer loader owned by the Co-Defendant masonry company (the “Masonry Company”) and operated by the president and owner of the Co-Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff construction company (the “Construction Company”). The Plaintiff brought claims against the Defendant companies for common law negligence and violations of Labor Law § § 200, 240, and 241, as well as Industrial code (12 NYCRR) subpart 23-2. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa Rolle, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Subcontractors Have Remedies, Even if “Pay-if-Paid” Provisions are Enforced

February 19, 2019 — John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In a recent case in Kentucky[1], a sub-tier subcontractor sued the general contractor and owner for failure to pay for extra work. At the trial, the court held the subcontractor was entitled to recover under the theories of implied contracts and unjust enrichment, even though the subcontract contained a “pay-if-paid” clause. All parties appealed. In particular, the general contractor asserted that the pay-if-paid provision in the subcontract precluded recovery by the subcontractor. The issue was petitioned to the Supreme Court of Kentucky. The question to be resolved by the Supreme Court of Kentucky was whether a pay-if-paid provision was enforceable as between a general contractor and subcontractor, and if so, whether the subcontractor could nevertheless pursue the owner directly for payment notwithstanding a lack of privity between the owner and subcontractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at john.ahlers@acslawyers.com

---

Shoring of Problem Girders at Salesforce Transit Center Taking Longer than Expected

November 14, 2018 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
The Transbay Joint Powers Authority announced on Oct. 10 that emergency remedial work at the 4.5-block-long Salesforce Transit Center in San Francisco, on the closed Fremont Street between Howard and Mission streets, will continue into early next week. The block, which crosses under the hub, will reopen to traffic and the public on Wednesday, Oct. 17, rather than Oct. 12, as previously announced, says TJPA. The transit center itself, which opened in August, is temporarily closed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, ENR
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

---

New York: The "Loss Transfer" Opportunity to Recover Otherwise Non-Recoverable First-Party Benefits

May 13, 2014 — Robert M. Caplan – White and Williams LLP
New York’s “no-fault” legislation reflects a public policy designed to make the insurer of first-party benefits absorb the economic impact of loss without resort to reimbursement from its insured or, by subrogation, from the tortfeasor. Country Wide Ins. Co. v. Osathanugrah, 94 A.D.2d 513, 515 (N.Y. 1st Dept. 1983). The no-fault concept embodied in New York’s Insurance Law modifies the common law system of reparation for personal injuries under tort law. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Jamaica Water Supply Co., 83 A.D.2d 427, 431 (N.Y. 2nd Dept. 1981). “[F]irst party benefits are a form of compensation unknown at common law, resting on predicates independent of the fault or negligence of the injured party.” Id. at 431. The purpose of New York’s no-fault scheme is “to promote prompt resolution of injury claims, limit cost to consumers and alleviate unnecessary burdens on the courts.” Byrne v. Oester Trucking, Inc., 386 F. Supp. 2d 386, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). New York’s no-fault scheme—contained in Article 51 of its Consolidated Laws (“Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Insurance Reparations”)—requires owners of vehicles to carry insurance with $50,000 minimum limits which covers basic economic loss, i.e., first-party benefits, on account of personal injury arising from the use or operation of a motor vehicle. Basic economic loss includes, among other things: (1) medical expenses; (2) lost earnings up to $2,000 per month for three years; and (3) out-of-pocket expenses up to $25 per day for one year. N.Y. INS. LAW § 5102(a). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert M. Caplan, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com

---