FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Insurance Law Alert: California Appeals Court Allows Joinder of Employee Adjuster to Bad Faith Lawsuit Against Homeowners Insurer

April 08, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Bock v. Hansen (No. A136567, filed 4/2/14), a California appeals court held that an adjuster employed by an insurer can be sued personally for falsely representing that a first party claimant's policy does not cover a loss. In Bock, a 41-foot long, 7,300 pound tree limb crashed onto the insureds' home, damaging the roof, chimney, living room walls, windows and floors. The assigned adjuster was alleged to have engaged in "appalling" conduct, including instructing the insureds to clean up the damage themselves (leading to personal injury); denying that the tree cracked the chimney; insulting and disparaging the insureds; altering the scene before taking photographs; misrepresenting the terms of the policy; preparing false claim reports; conspiring with a contractor to prepare an intentionally false report; and knowingly relying on the false report in order to deny a legitimate claim. The homeowners sued the insurer and named the adjuster personally on causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. But the adjuster demurred arguing that he could not be sued personally because, as an employee of the insurer, he owed no duty to the insureds. The adjuster relied on Sanchez v. Lindsey Morden Claims Services, Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 249 and Lippert v. Bailey (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 376, to argue that employees and agents of insurers cannot be held personally liable since, under the law of agency, the proper cause of action is against the principal and not the agent. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Hawaii Supreme Court Finds Excess Can Sue Primary for Equitable Subrogation

October 21, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
In responding to a certified question from the U.S. Distric Court, the Hawaii Supreme Court determined that an excess carrier can sue the primary carrier for failure to settle a claim in bad faith within primary limits. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 Haw. LEXIS 142 (Haw. June 29, 2015). St. Paul, the excess carrier, and Liberty Mutual, the primary carrier, issued polices to Pleasant Travel Service, Inc. The primary policy covered up to $1 million. Pleasant Travel was sued for damages resulting from an accidental death. St. Paul alleged that Liberty Mutual rejected multiple pretrial settlement offers within the $1 million primary policy limit. A trial resulted in a verdict of $4.1 million against Pleasant Travel. The action settled for a confidential amount in excess of the Liberty Mutual policy limit. St. Paul paid the amount in excess. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Mediation in the Zero Sum World of Construction

October 02, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Construction is a zero sum game. What do I mean by that? I mean that even where you, a construction professional with a great construction lawyer, have reviewed and edited a subcontract presented to you or provided a well drafted contract to the other party that contains an attorney fees provision, every dollar that you spend on litigation is a dollar less of profit. Couple the fact that no construction company can or should bid or negotiate work with an eye toward litigation (aside from having a well written contract that will be enforced to the letter here in Virginia). Particularly on “low bid” type projects, contractors and subcontractors cannot “pad” their bids to take into account the possibility of attorney fees, arbitration, or litigation. Furthermore, the loss of productivity when your “back office” personnel are tied up dealing with discovery, phone calls, and other incidents of litigation that do nothing but rehash a bad project and increase the expense saps money from the bottom line. While the possibility of a judgment including attorney fees may soften this blow, you are still out the cash. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Why Being Climate ‘Positive’ Is the Buzzy New Goal of Green Building

December 10, 2024 — Olivia Rudgard - Bloomberg
The three buildings, dotted around Norway, couldn’t look more different: a soaring timber-and-concrete obelisk in Porsgrunn; a squat, two-story Montessori school on the edge of a forest in Drøbak; and a concrete and glass wedge-shaped office in Trondheim, just a few hundred miles from the edge of the Arctic Circle. But they share a distinctive feature. Each has a roof perfectly tilted to squeeze out every possible drop of solar energy. They are called Powerhouses, and the initiative behind them claims they are all “energy positive”: The upfront energy “cost” of each building, and that of later demolition and disposal, is expected to be made back over the building’s lifetime. Powerhouses sometimes draw from the grid, especially in winter, but in the long Nordic summer days they give back many times over, overspilling excess solar energy into surrounding homes and businesses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Olivia Rudgard, Bloomberg

---

Construction Bright Spot in Indianapolis

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The downtown Indianapolis area is the site of about 85 major building projects that are from groundbreaking to just complete. The Indianapolis Star reports that the cumulative worth of the projects is about $3 billion, a level of construction that Indianapolis has seen only once before.



About thirty of the projects are residential. The main commercial project is a $754 million hospital building. The boom in downtown Indianapolis is not matched elsewhere, with the Indianapolis Star reporting that in the rest of Central Indiana, construction has slowed.

Read the full story…

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

---

Supreme Court of Kentucky Holds Plaintiff Can Recover for Stigma Damages in Addition to Repair Costs Resulting From Property Damage

August 15, 2018 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Muncie v. Wiesemann, 2018 K.Y. LEXIS 257, the Supreme Court of Kentucky considered whether stigma damages[1] in a property casualty case are recoverable in addition to the costs incurred to remediate the actual damage. The court held that stigma damages are recoverable in addition to repair costs, but the total of the stigma damages and repair costs cannot exceed the diminution in the fair market value of the property. The court’s decision establishes that if the repair costs are insufficient to make the plaintiff whole, a recovery for stigma damages up to the amount of the diminution in the market value of the home is appropriate. Appellants Cindy and Jim Muncie incurred significant property damage to their home as a result of an oil leak originating from a neighboring property owned by the Estate of Martha Magel. In 2011, Auto Owners Insurance Company (Auto Owners), the liability carrier for the Estate’s testatrix, Patricia Weisman, filed an impleader complaint in federal court to discharge its obligation to settle the third-party liability claims on behalf of Ms. Weisman. Auto Owners reached a settlement with the Muncies for $60,000 which represented the remediation costs for the actual damage to the property. The settlement release reserved the Muncies’ right to pursue a claim for stigma damages associated with the oil leak. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Nevada Bill Aims to Reduce Legal Fees For Construction Defect Practitioners

March 21, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Assemblyman Ira Hansen and twelve additional members of Nevada’s Assembly are sponsoring Assembly Bill 285. AB 285 Revises provisions governing an award of attorney’s fees in causes of action for constructional defects. Existing law generally provides that a claimant may recover reasonable attorney’s fees as part of the claimant’s damages in a cause of action for constructional defects. (NRS 40.655)



This bill removes this provision and instead authorizes a court to award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing party involved in such a cause of action if an independent basis for the award exists pursuant to existing law which authorizes a court to award attorney’s fees in certain circumstances, or Rule 68 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for the payment of reasonable attorney’s fees by an offeree who rejects an offer and subsequently fails to obtain a more favorable judgment.



In an AP report published in Business Week it is suggested that the target objective of legislators centers on what it refers to as Nevada’s "Rampant construction defect lawsuits".



According to Business Week "The suits bring in hundreds of millions of dollars for lawyers and have put construction companies out of business. Hansen says fewer construction firms mean higher prices for Nevada consumers."



Click Here To Read Full Text and Revisions of Assembly Bill 285

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

---

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Builder’s Risk Indeed”

October 24, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A contractor for a hotel in Seattle was tasked with constructing the hotel utilizing premanufactured modular hotel rooms. The modular unit portion of the project was the subject of a $15.8 million subcontract between the general contractor and the manufacturer. The manufacturer was also responsible to the GC for shipping and installing the modular units. Shipping was to be “DDP,” or “Delivery Duty Paid” – which, according to a New York federal court, “is an international shipping term meaning that the seller assumes all responsibilities and costs for delivering property to the named place of destination, including export and import clearance, fees, duties, and taxes.” Additionally, per the subcontract, the manufacturer was responsible for “ensur[ing] all modular units [were] covered, secured[,] and protected from damage during the shipping process….” The modular units were shipped from Poland to Seattle. In the shipping process, the units spent some time in the Port of Everett in Washington state, where the units sustained water damage while sitting in port. A related damage claim made by the subcontractor against the general contractor’s builder’s risk policy. On the face of the policy, the policy covered subcontractors as “additional insured” parties, covered all manner of materials and the like to be used on the project, and would provide that coverage in the process of transporting the materials insofar as “inland or coastal waters” were concerned. Yet, the builder’s risk insurer refused to cover the claim for the damages to the modular units which occurred while sitting in port in Everett. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

---