Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

5 Questions about New York's Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act

February 14, 2022 — Richard W. Brown & Michael V. Pepe - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
On December 31, 2021, New York enacted the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act (“CIDA”), requiring defendants to provide plaintiffs with “complete” information for any insurance policy through which a judgment could be satisfied, within sixty (60) days after serving an answer. The stated goal is to reduce delay tactics by compelling disclosures of all policies implicated by a claim as well as other claims, contracts, or agreements that may deplete available coverage or residual limits of policies that have already been eroded by other payments. The impact of CIDA’s disclosure requirements may be scaled back by proposed amendments currently pending before the New York state legislature. 1. What does CIDA Require? CIDA requires the automatic disclosure of insurance information to plaintiffs. New York’s Civil Practice Law & Rules (“CPLR”) 3101(f) permits civil discovery of the contents of existing insurance agreements by which an insurer may be liable for all or part of a judgment. However, CIDA amends the CPLR to mandate that defendants must automatically disclose the following information in all pending cases starting March 1, 2022, or within sixty (60) days of filing an answer to a complaint going forward:

Complete copy of all insurance policies that are available to satisfy all or part of a potential judgment.

This includes Primary, Excess, and Umbrella policies.

The relevant applications for insurance.

Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Michael V. Pepe, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com Mr. Pepe may be contacted at MPepe@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Colorado Introduces Construction Defect Bill for Commuter Communities

January 23, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A Colorado State Senator has introduced a bill suggesting a change to the way that construction defect claims are handled in "transit-oriented developments." And what are these? According to the bill these are "any multi-family residential or mixed-use project within one-half mile of any commuter rail stop, commuter light rail stop, or commuter bus stop." So the bill would treat homes with good public transportation differently from those not so convenient to public transportation. The bill, SB 52, would institute a right to repair for construction defects in these developments. Construction defect claims would be referred to binding arbitration. Further, construction professionals could not be sued for environmental conditions related to transit, commercial, public, or retail use. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Defining Constructive Acceleration

March 22, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to the definition of “constructive acceleration,” the case of Fraser Const. Co. v. U.S., 384 F.3d 1354 (Fed.Cir. 2004) is a cited case and contains an instructive definition, quoted below, for proving a constructive acceleration claim. In a nutshell, a constructive acceleration claim is when the contractor incurs added costs for trying to complete the contract on time when it should be provided extensions of time to perform based on excusable delay (i.e., delay not caused by the contractor). These added costs could be bringing in additional supervision to manage the work, adding manpower to perform the work, working overtime, working weekends, adding more shift work, stacking trades, etc. However, just because a contractor claims they have been constructively accelerated does not make it so. The contractor has to actually ask for an extension of time based on an excusable delay and the owner either denied the extension or unreasonably sat on the request for an extension of time; thus, the contractor incurred significant costs to accelerate in order to finish the project on time because it was deprived of a requested time extension for excusable delay. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

California Ballot Initiative Seeks to Repeal Infrastructure Funding Bill

September 25, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
California voters will get to vote on November 6, 2018 on a ballot initiative to repeal an infrastructure funding bill signed by Governor Brown this past year that is estimated to raise more than $5 billion annually during the next ten years for road repairs and mass transit improvements in California. In 2017, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, which increased the excise tax on gasoline in the state by 12 cents per gallon, to 30 cents per gallon, and increasing vehicle registration fees from $25 to $175 dollars depending on the value of the vehicle. The last time the state’s gas tax was increased was in 1994 and the last time the federal gas tax was increased was in 1993. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion to Reject Claim for Construction Defects Upheld

August 15, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Third Circuit upheld the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the insurer on a claim seeking coverage for construction defects. Lenick Constr. v. Selective Way Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15197 (3d Cir. June 6, 2018). Westrum was the general contractor for a 92 unit development, and it subcontracted with Lenick to perform rough and finish carpentry and to install paneling, windows, and doors provided by the developer. After the project was completed, it was discovered that some units experienced water infiltration, leaks and cracked drywall. The condominium development sued Westrum, alleging contract and warranty claims. Westrum impleaded Lenick, asserting claims for breach of contract and indemnification. Lenick sought a defense from its insurer, Selective. Selective defended under a reservation of rights. 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 Households Moving to Apartments

December 20, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
The New York Times reports that multifamily construction—apartment buildings—is leading the recovery in construction. Construction of single-family homes is only a third of the way up from its fall from its earlier heights, while multifamily construction has recovered two-thirds of its peak. Young adults are moving out of their parents’ homes, but instead of buying homes, they’re renting apartments. Houston is adding thousands of new units, leading to a fear of overbuilding. Rents have been rising, but as the supply of apartment units rises, higher rents may be unsustainable. However, during the recession, young adults did not move out of their parents’ homes, leading to about two million doubled-up households. David Crowe, the chief economist of the National Association of Home Builders, noted that “all of the net addition to households since 2004 has been in rentals.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects

January 06, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals has upheld a decision by the Superior Court of Kern County that homeowners must comply with arbitration procedures in their construction defect claim. The California Court of Appeals ruled on December 14 in the case of Baeza v. Superior Court of Kern County, denying the plaintiff’s petition that the trial court vacate its order.

The plaintiffs in the case are homeowners in various developments built by Castle & Cook. The homes were sold with a contract that provided for “nonadversarial prelitigation procedures, including mediation, and judicial reference.” The homeowners made defect claims and argued that Castle & Cooke failed to comply with statutory disclosure requirements and that some of the contracts violate related statutes.

The appeals court found that there was no ground for appeal of the lower court’s order to continue with prelitigation procedures. The court noted that the plaintiffs could not seek a review of the mediation until a judgment was issued, but that then the issue would be moot. The court felt that there were issues presented that needed clarification, and so they reviewed this case. This was cleared for publication.

The court considered the intent of the legislature in passing the Right to Repair Act, noting that “under the statutory scheme, the builder has the option of contracting for an alternative nonadversarial prelitigation procedure,” as established in Chapter 4. The court noted that Chapter 4 “contains no specifics regarding what provisions the alternative nonadversarial contractual provisions may or must include.”

The plaintiffs contended that the builder was in violation of the standards set out in Section 912, however the court responded that these sections set out one set of procedures, but they concluded that “if the Legislature had intended the section 912 disclosure provisions…it could have made the requirements applicable to all builders by locating them in a section outside Chapter 4.”

Read the court’s decision…

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

Professor Stempel's Excpert Testimony for Insurer Excluded

October 07, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied Daubert motions for several experts with the exception of Professor Stempel's expert testimony opining that the insurer did not act in bad faith Adell Plastics, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102942 (D. Md. June 19, 2019). A fire demolished several buildings at Adell's facility. Adell was insured under a commercial property policy issued by Mt. Hawley. Mt. Hawley sued Adell, seeking a declaration that it owed no coverage, and requesting recoupment of a substantial advance payment. Adell filed a counterclaim, alleging that Mt. Hawley had breached the policy and had acted with a lack of good faith. Before the court were several pretrial motions, including motions to exclude testimony of eight expert witnesses. The court denied Adell's motion to exclude several experts to be called by Mt. Hawley. The accountant's testimony was relevant. Adell had to prove damages on its breach of contract claim, and the accountant's testimony would aid the jury in evaluating Adell's documentation and calculating documented damages. Mt. Hawley's fire safety expert investigated the Adell fire. Mt. Hawley had shown that his expert opinion would be sufficiently reliable for admissibility. Further, three fire protection engineers offered by Mt. Hawley and two fire protection engineers to be called by Adell were allowed to testify. Each expert based his investigation and conclusions on the standards of fire investigation as set out in the NEPA Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations. This was a fire insurance case, and fire protection engineers would be allowed to testify and illuminate the circumstances of the fire. 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

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES