FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

South Carolina Supreme Court Requires Transparency by Rejecting an Insurer’s “Cut-and-Paste” Reservation of Rights

February 16, 2017 — Theresa A. Guertin & H. Scott Williams - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In a decision rendered on January 11, 2017, the Supreme Court of South Carolina reminded policyholders that they are entitled to an explanation of any and all grounds upon which their insurer may be contesting coverage in a reservation of rights letter. Specifically, in Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc. et al., 1 the court found that an insurer’s reservation of rights, which included a verbatim recitation of numerous policy provisions that the court identified as the “cut-and-paste” method, was insufficient to reserve its rights to contest coverage. In 2003, Heritage Communities, Inc. (“Heritage”), a parent company of several corporate entities engaged in developing and constructing condominium complexes from 1997 to 2000, was sued by multiple property owners’ associations. The lawsuits sought actual and punitive damages against Heritage as a result of alleged construction defects, including building code violations, structural deficiencies, and significant water intrusion. During the period of construction, Heritage was insured by Harleysville Group Insurance (“Harleysville”) under several primary and excess general liability insurance policies. Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and H. Scott Williams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com Mr. Williams may be contacted at hsw@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New Jersey Judge Declared Arbitrator had no Duty to Disclose Past Contact with Lawyer

October 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the New Jersey Law Journal, in a recent ruling, a federal judge in Newark “ruled that an arbitration award should not be vacated based on the arbitrator’s failure to disclose his professional contacts with defense counsel during his prior career as a federal judge.” The plaintiff had sought to vacate an award “because he failed to disclose interactions he had with Dennis Drasco, the lawyer for the defendant, while serving on the bench. But Brown was not required to disclose his contacts with Drasco because they would not cause a reasonable person to question Brown’s impartiality, U.S. District Judge William Walls ruled Oct. 21,” reported the New Jersey Law Journal. The plaintiff’s assertions “suggest nothing more than that Judge Brown and Mr. Drasco were familiar with one another in their professional capacities,” Walls stated, as quoted by the New Jersey Law Journal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

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

---

Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team for Prevailing on a Highly Contested Motion to Quash!

January 08, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to Newport Partners Tyler Offenhauser and Jonathan Cothran, and Associate Anisha Kohli, who recently prevailed on behalf of BWB&O’s client before the Orange County Superior Court on a highly contested Motion to Quash Service based on Plaintiff’s failure to timely file and serve a DOE Amendment, naming our client. BWB&O’s client was the owner of a building where Plaintiff, a licensed electrician, was electrocuted while performing an upgrade to the building’s electrical infrastructure. Plaintiff’s original lawsuit named only the building’s tenant, who was also represented by BWB&O. BWB&O was successful earlier this year on a Motion for Summary Judgment under the Privette Doctrine and won judgment on behalf of the client/tenant. While that MSJ was pending, Plaintiff surreptitiously added the building’s owner to the suit with a DOE Amendment, after several months earlier learning the owner and then tenant were entities operated by the same individual. However, Plaintiff never informed counsel or any other party of the filing. Moreover, after the MSJ was granted, Plaintiff then waited several more months to serve the building’s owner. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

A Court-Side Seat: Waters, Walls and Pipelines

August 03, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Several interesting decisions have recently been made by federal and state courts. FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals – ARCO Shifts from State to Federal and No Vigor for VIM On June 18, 2020, the court decided the case of Baker, et al. v. ARCO, holding that the revised federal removal statutes authorize the removal to federal court of a state-filed complaint against several defendants by the former residents of an Indiana housing complex who contended that the defendants were responsible for the industrial pollution attributed to the operations of a now-closed industrial plant. The housing complex was constructed at the site of the former U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery. During the Second World War, the plant produced products for the use of the government war effort, thus triggering the applicability of the federal removal statutes. On June 25, 2020, the court decided the case of Greene, et al. v. Westfield Insurance Company. As the court notes, this is a matter that “began as a case about environmental pollution and evolved into a joint garnishment action.” An Indiana wood recycling facility, VIM Recycling, was the subject of many complaints by nearby residents that its operations and waste disposal activities exposed then to dust and odors in violation of federal law and triggered state tort law claims. VIM was sued in state court, but neglected to notify its insurer, as required by its insurance policy with Westfield Insurance. One thing led to another, and a default judgment in the amount of $ 50 million was entered against VIM. Since VIM at that point had no assets, the plaintiffs and later VIM sought recovery from Westfield. When this dispute landed in federal court, the court, after reviewing the policy, concluded that there was a provision excluding coverage when the insured knew it had these liabilities when it purchased the insurance. As a result, the lower court dismissed the lawsuit, and this decision has been affirmed by the Seventh Circuit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

The EEOC Targets Construction Industry For Heightened Enforcement

May 15, 2023 — Meghan Douris & Andrew Scroggins - The Construction Seyt
Seyfarth Synopsis: On January 10, 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released for public comment its draft 2023-2027 Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”)—a document that will guide the Commission’s enforcement priorities for the next five years. The EEOC’s prior Strategic Plan described how it would pursue its enforcement goals. (See our earlier blog on the Strategic Plan here). The Strategic Enforcement Plan, on the other hand, describes what the EEOC’s enforcement priorities will be. Earlier actions by the EEOC suggested that it might be turning its attention to the construction industry. In the SEP, the EEOC makes its intentions explicit, putting the construction industry—and especially those receiving federal funding—squarely in its sights. History of the SEP The EEOC’s first SEP covered Fiscal Years 2013-2016 (the EEOC’s fiscal years begin on October 1) and identified six broad subject-matter priorities. The EEOC’s second SEP set the course for enforcement priorities for FY2017-2022. The latest proposed SEP, published in the Federal Register for comment for the first time, provides notable additional details that put the employer community on notice of the Commission’s intentions for FY2023-2027.[1] Reprinted courtesy of Meghan Douris, Seyfarth and Andrew Scroggins, Seyfarth Ms. Douris may be contacted at mdouris@seyfarth.com Mr. Scroggins may be contacted ascroggins@seyfarth.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Law Alert: Unlicensed Contractors On Federal Projects Entitled To Payment Under The Miller Act

May 07, 2014 — Steven M. Cvitanovic and Jessica M. Lassere Ryland - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
As a matter of first impression, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Technica LLC ex rel. U.S. v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., 12-56539, 2014 WL 1674108 (9th Cir. Apr. 29, 2014), allowed an unlicensed subcontractor to recover from a prime contractor for unpaid services relating to a federal construction project under a federal Miller Act claim. California law otherwise prevents unlicensed contractors from recovering for unpaid work on non-federal projects as a penal measure intended to encourage contractors to maintain a valid license at all times. Technica LLC (“Technica”) worked as a sub-subcontractor on a large federal fence replacement project (the “Project”). Over the course of a year, Technica supplied nearly a million dollars worth of labor, materials, and services for the Project. However, Technica received only $287,861.81 in partial payments for its work. Technica proceeded to file suit in district court against the prime contractor Candelaria Corporation (“Candelaria”) and its payment surety Carolina Casualty Insurance Company (“CCIC”) under the Miller Act to recover amounts owed to it on the subcontract against the payment bond. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP and Jessica M. Lassere Ryland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Lassere Ryland may be contacted at jlassere@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insured's Commercial Property Policy Deemed Excess Over Unobtained Flood Policy

June 10, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, deciding that there was no breach of the policy for failure to pay for flood damage when the insured failed to obtain a policy under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). 570 Smith St. Realty Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co. Inc., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1773 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. April 4, 2019). The insured's property in Brooklyn was insured by Seneca. Included in the policy was flood coverage in the amount of $1 million with a $25,000 deductible. While the policy was in effect, Hurricane Sandy hit, damaging the property. Plaintiffs timely filed a claim seeking reimbursement of up to policy limits. Seneca paid only $35,883 and later made an additional payment of $33,015. The insured sued for, among other things, breach of the policy for failure to properly indemnify for the losses. Seneca moved for partial summary judgment dismissing the breach of policy claims. Seneca pointed out that the "Other Insurance" provision in the Flood Coverage Endorsement of the policy stated that if the loss was eligible to be covered under a NFIP policy, but there was no such policy in effect, the insurer would only pay for the amount of loss in excess of the maximum limit payable for flood damage under the policy. The maximum NFIP coverage was $500,000. The insured's loss caused by flood was less than $500,000. 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

---