FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Collapse of Underground Storage Cave Not Covered

June 29, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eighth Circuit faced unusual facts in determining that the collapse of a cave serving as a storage facility was not covered under the policy. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Interstate Underground Warehouse & Storage, Inc., 2020 U. S. App. LEXIS 83 8th Cir. Jan. 3, 2020). Interstate operated an underground storage facility in a cave that formerly housed a limestone mine. In 2014, Interstate experienced a series of "dome-outs," in which layers of rock destabilized, detached, and collapsed from above into the cave. Interstate's policy with Westchester included coverage for collapse of a "building" caused by "building decay." Westchester sought a declaratory judgment that Interstate's loss was not covered. The district court granted summary judgment for Westchester because the cause of the loss was not "building decay" within the meaning of the primary policy. 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

---

Avoid the Headache – Submit the Sworn Proof of Loss to Property Insurer

October 12, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Property insurance policies (first party insurance policies) contain post-loss obligations that an insured must (and should) comply with otherwise they risk forfeiting insurance coverage. One post-loss obligation is the insurer’s right to request the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss. Not complying with a post-loss obligation such as submitting a sworn proof of loss can lead to unnecessary headaches for the insured. Most of the times the headache can be avoided. Even with a sworn proof of loss, there is a way to disclaim the finality of damages and amounts included by couching information as estimates or by affirming that the final and complete loss is still unknown while you work with an adjuster to quantify the loss. The point is, ignoring the obligation altogether will result in a headache that you will have to deal with down the road because the property insurer will use it against you and is a headache that is easily avoidable. And, it will result in an added burden to you, as the insured, to demonstrate the failure to comply did not actually cause any prejudice to the insurer. By way of example, in Prem v. Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2044a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), the insured notified their property insurer of a plumbing leak in the bathroom. The insurer requested for the insured to submit a sworn proof of loss per the terms of the insured’s property insurance policy. The insurer follow-up with its request for a sworn proof of loss on a few occasions. None was provided and the insured filed a lawsuit without ever furnishing a sworn proof of loss. The insurer moved for summary judgment due the insured’s failure to comply with the post-loss obligations, specifically by not submitting a sworn proof of loss, and the trial court granted the insurer’s motion. Even at the time of the summary judgment hearing, the insured still did not submit a sworn proof of loss. 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

---

Granting of Lodestar Multiplier in Coverage Case Affirmed

November 14, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The trial court's use of a multiplier in awarding fees to the insured was affirmed by the Florida Court of Appeal. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Laguerre, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 11794 (Fla. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2018). Following Hurricane Wilma, the insured made a claim for wind damage to her insurer, Citizens. Citizens investigated the claim and paid $8,400.77. The insured then demanded an appraisal and submitted an appraisal estimate in the amount of $60,256.79. There was no response to the appraisal demand. 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

---

Patent or Latent: An Important Question in Construction Defects

October 25, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Pieter M. O’Leary, writing for the site AVVO offers the advice that whether a construction defect is patent or latent could influence whether or not it’s covered in a construction defect claim. He notes that a “patent defect” is “a construction defect that is ‘readily observable or evident,’” while a “latent defect” is “a construction defect that is present but not readily detectable even with reasonable care.” While this may sound like a simple distinction, he notes that “distinguishing between the two can often be difficult and sometimes highly contested by the various parties in a lawsuit.” The first question is “whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect.” The question arises because “if a defect is hidden and not detectable (latent defect), a longer time period exists for the claimant to file a claim.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Committee Hosts a Hearing on Deadly Berkeley Balcony Collapse

April 28, 2016 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Mercury News, state Senators Jerry Hill and Loni Hancock scheduled the hearing in Sacramento with state and local agencies to discuss their response to the Berkeley, California balcony collapse incident that killed three people and severely injured seven others. The agencies also testified regarding “best practices and disclosure requirements for licenses.” Hill and Hancock are the sponsors of Senate Bill 465 that “would require companies to report certain settlements to the Contractors State License Board, and in some cases to the public.” Investigators of the Berkeley balcony incident alleged “that crews applied waterproofing to wet wood during construction. Water was trapped inside, which led to severe dry rot and the catastrophic collapse,” reported Mercury News. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Another Worker Dies in Boston's Latest Construction Accident

June 20, 2022 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
Boston Police and the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration are investigating a June 9 early morning construction accident that killed a worker in Boston’s Seaport district— the latest in a spate of fatalities at worksites across the city's metro area during the past 18 months. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Is There a Conflict of Interest When a CD Defense Attorney Becomes Coverage Counsel Post-Litigation?

September 01, 2011 — Chad Johnson of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

In Weitz Co., LLC v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado was asked to rule on a motion to disqualify counsel in an insurance coverage action. 11-CV-00694-REB-BNB, 2011 WL 2535040 (D. Colo. June 27, 2011). Motions to disqualify counsel are viewed with suspicion, as courts “must guard against the possibility that disqualification is sought to ‘secure a tactical advantage in the proceedings.’” Id. at *2 (citing Religious Technology Center v. F.A.C.T. Net, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 1470, 1473 (D. Colo. 1996).

Weitz Company, LLC (“Weitz”) is a general contractor and defendant in an underlying construction defect suit which had concluded before the action bringing rise to this order. In the underlying action, Weitz made third-party claims against subcontractors, including NPW Contracting (“NPW”). Weitz was listed as an additional insured under NPW’s policies with both Ohio Casualty Insurance Company and Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company (collectively “the Carriers”). The Carriers accepted Weitz’s tender of defense under a reservation of rights. However, neither insurance carrier actually contributed to Weitz’s defense costs in the underlying action. At the conclusion of the construction defect action, the parties unsuccessfully attempted to apportion the attorney’s fees and costs. Eventually, Weitz brought suit against the recalcitrant carriers. The Lottner firm, which had previously represented Weitz in the underlying construction defect action, continued to represent Weitz in this coverage action. 

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Johnson can be contacted at johnson@hhmrlaw.com

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

---

Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation

May 16, 2018 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In All Green Electric v. Security National Ins. Co. (No. B279456, filed 3/19/18, ord. pub. 4/17/18), a California appeals court ruled that the impaired property exclusion barred coverage for a claim based on the insured’s failure to tighten a loose bolt that resulted in stray magnetic fields interfering with operation of an MRI machine and allegedly threatening the health of personnel. All Green was an electrical contractor hired to perform wiring for an MRI unit installation. Stray magnetic fields interfered with the unit’s operation. Efforts to remediate the problem included installing shielding and ultimately relocating the unit to another room. An expert finally determined that a bolt left loose by All Green was causing the magnetic field, which disappeared when the bolt was properly tightened. The facility sought damages for negligence, including costs for unnecessary modifications and repairs, payments to outside sources for substitute mammography testing, operational costs and expenses, damage to reputation, lost profits, and the loss of an HMO contract. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---