FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Examination of the Product Does Not Stop a Pennsylvania Court From Applying the Malfunction Theory

June 28, 2021 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
Pennsylvania recognizes the malfunction theory in product liability cases. This theory allows a plaintiff to circumstantially prove that a product is defective by showing evidence of a malfunction and eliminating abnormal use or reasonable, secondary causes for the malfunction. The malfunction theory is available to plaintiffs as an alternative to proving a traditional strict product liability case in those circumstances where direct evidence of a product defect is not found. In Pa. Nat’l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Sam’s East, Inc., 727 MDA 2020, 2021 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 752, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether the plaintiffs could avail themselves to the malfunction theory if the plaintiffs’ expert was able to examine the product. The Sam’s East, Inc. case arose from a February 2015 fire at the residence of Gerald and Michelle Thompson (the Thompsons). The fire caused injuries to the Thompsons, as well as significant damage to their residence. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company (Insurer) provided homeowners insurance coverage for the property and made payments to the Thompsons as a result of the fire. Insurer retained a fire investigator to investigate the origin and cause of the fire. The fire investigator determined that the fire originated at an electric space heater that was purchased from defendant Sam’s East, Inc. (Sam’s East) in December 2011. Insurer and the Thompsons filed a lawsuit against Sam’s East in early 2017 for their respective damages. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Windstorm Exclusion Found Ambiguous

September 10, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Second Circuit reversed the District Court's issuance of summary judgment to the insurer because a windstorm exclusion was deemed ambiguous. 7001 East 71st Street, LLC v. Continental Cas. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 17334 (2nd Cir. June 26, 2018). A windstorm during Hurricane Sandy caused the roof of 7001 East 71st Street LLC (7001) to tear, allowing rainwater to seep in and damage 7001's "Covered Equipment" as defined by the policy. Continental denied coverage based upon the windstorm exclusion and the district court granted summary judgment to Continental. 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

---

Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

April 25, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

After the insurer denied coverage in a homeowner’s policy for construction defects under various exclusions, the court found the ensuing loss provision was ambiguous.Kesling v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38857 (D. Colo. March 22, 2012).



After purchasing a home from the sellers, the insureds noticed problems with the deck of the home. Massive cracking appeared, causing lifting and leaking on the deck and water running through the exterior foundation wall into the home. There was also damage to the roof and crawlspace.



The insureds had a homeowner’s policy with American Family, which covered accidental direct physical loss to property described in the policy unless the loss was excluded. They requested coverage for "conditions, defects and damages." American Family denied coverage because wear and tear, as well as damage to foundations, floors and roofs were excluded. The policy did provide coverage, however, for "any resulting loss to property described . . . above, not excluded or excepted in this policy.



When coverage was denied, the insureds sued American Family.



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

---

Construction and Contract Issues Blamed for Problems at Anchorage Port

August 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A third-party audit of the construction at the Port of Anchorage has found fault with the design provided by the engineers. In response, PND, the engineering firm involved, has claimed that it was not their design, but faulty construction of it that lead to an interruption in the construction project. Separately, the Office of the Inspector General has called into question how MARAD, the agency which oversaw the port construction, handled the planning and contracts for the project. Control of the project has been taken over by the Municipality of Anchorage, and they have called into question PND’s open cell sheet pile design and PND’s design of the dock infrastructure. Simpson, Gumpertz and Heger reviewed the design, comparing it to a design provided by CH2M Hill, and found that the PND design was inadequate. A contract was subsequently awarded to CH2M Hill. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Trigger and Allocation

January 24, 2022 — Lorelie S. Masters, Patrick M. McDermott & Rachel E. Hudgins - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In one of the top insurance-coverage decisions of 2021, the Montana Supreme Court at the end of the year handed down a landmark decision adopting the continuous trigger of coverage and “all sums” allocation, finding a duty to defend and ruling that the qualified, or “sudden and accidental” pollution exclusion did not apply. Nat’l Indem. Co. v. State, 499 P.3d 516 (Mont. 2021). The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reserved in part the rulings entered by the trial court, largely upholding a $98,000,000 judgment for the State against its CGL insurer for the policy years 1973 to 1975. The ruling thus helps ensure coverage for the hundreds of claims alleging that the State had failed to warn claimants of the dangers of asbestos exposures to workers in vermiculite mining and milling operations in Libby, Montana, operated by W. R. Grace (the “Libby Mine”). Representing amicus curiae United Policyholders (“UP”), Hunton Andrews Kurth supported the position of the policyholder, the State of Montana, on the key rulings on trigger of coverage, allocation, and the pollution exclusion, with the court specifically citing to the Hunton brief in adopting all-sums allocation. This first post in our series covering the Montana Supreme Court’s decisions will address the court’s rulings on trigger of coverage and allocation. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

10 Answers to Those Nagging Mechanics Lien Questions Keeping You Up at Night. Kind of

November 05, 2014 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Construction lawyers may not ponder the great questions in life. We leave that to the estate planning attorneys. But ponder we do. And the next case, as I’ll explain below, “kind of” answers 10 important mechanics lien questions we construction attorneys toss and turn over at night. Background In Palomar Grading & Paving, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case Nos. G049907 and G049910 (October 14, 2014), developer Inland-LGC Beaumont, LLC (“Inland”) hired general contractor 361 Group Construction Services, Inc. (“361″) to construct a Kohl’s department store in Beaumont, California. The Kohl’s department store was to be constructed on one parcel of a three-parcel tract. Inland later sold the parcel on which the Kohl’s department store was to be located to Kohl’s and the two other parcels were later acquired by Wells Fargo who foreclosed on the construction loan for the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

---

How You Plead Allegations to Trigger Liability Insurer’s Duties Is Critical

November 01, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
How you plead allegations in your lawsuit to trigger duties of a liability insurance carrier is a critical consideration. If the complaint is not pled appropriately, it can result in the carrier NOT owing a duty to defend its insured, which is the party(ies) you are suing. If there is no duty to defend, there will be no duty to indemnify the insured to cover your damages. For this reason, in a number of circumstances, this is NOT what you want because you want to trigger insurance coverage and potential proceeds to be paid by a carrier to cover your damages. There are times when you are confronted with a case that just is not a good insurance coverage case. This may result in you coming up with creative arguments to maximize insurance coverage. Even in these times, you want to plead the complaint to best maximize coverage under the creative arguments you have developed. An example of not pleading allegations in a complaint to trigger an insurer’s duties can be found in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in Tricon Development of Brevard, Inc. v. Nautilus Insurance Co., 2021 WL 4129373 (11th Cir. 2021). This case involved a general contractor constructing condominiums. The general contractor hired a subcontractor to fabricate and install metal railings. The subcontractor had a commercial general liability (CGL) policy that named the general contractor as an additional insured with respect to liability for property damage “caused in whole or in part” by the subcontractor’s direct or vicarious acts or omissions. (This is a good additional insured endorsement.) 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

---

Texas Supreme Court to Rehear Menchaca Bad Faith Case

January 10, 2018 — Sean P. Mahoney – Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter
On December 15th, the Texas Supreme Court agreed to revisit its April 7, 2017 decision in USAA Texas Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca, No. 14-0721, a “bad faith” case arising out of Hurricane Ike damage, in which the court held that a policyholder could potentially recover policy benefits for statutory bad faith under Texas law, even though a jury concluded that the insurer did not breach the terms of the policy, if the policyholder could show that she was nevertheless entitled to the benefit. The decision to rehear this matter comes at the urging of insurers and interested groups, including the Insurance Council of Texas and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who argued that the April 7, 2017 ruling substantially unsettled Texas insurance law. Menchaca is a first-party property insurance coverage case. After Hurricane Ike struck in 2008, plaintiff Menchaca submitted a claim under her homeowners policy to USAA. A USAA adjuster later concluded that Menchaca’s property suffered only “minimal damage” that fell below the deductible. Menchaca sued claiming breach of contract and unfair claims settlement practices in violation of the Texas Insurance Code. As damages, she sought only the policy benefit, court costs, and attorneys’ fees. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sean P. Mahoney, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at mahoneys@whiteandwilliams.com

---