FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Duty To Defend PFAS MDL Lawsuits: Texas Federal Court Weighs In

August 10, 2021 — Gregory S. Capps & Lynndon K. Groff - White and Williams LLP
Few courts have yet decided insurance coverage issues in litigation involving per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). But yesterday, in Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company v. Chemicals, Inc., No. H-20-3493, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146702 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2021), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas found Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (Crum & Forster) had a duty to defend Chemicals, Inc. against firefighters’ allegations that they were injured by PFAS contained in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). The AFFF claims are consolidated in the multi-district litigation (MDL) in South Carolina, and you can read more about that here. Turning to the decision from August 5, 2021, Crum & Forster issued commercial general liability insurance policies to Chemicals, Inc. for liability arising from bodily injury, to the extent that injury “first occur[ed] during the ‘policy period[.]’” Further, a “Continuous or Progressive Damage or Injury” condition in the policies stated, “If the date cannot be determined upon which such ‘bodily injury’ … first occurred[,] then, … such ‘bodily injury’ … will be deemed to have occurred or existed, … before the ‘policy period’.” The Crum & Forster policies were issued between 2011 and 2019. The complaints in the MDL do not specify when the firefighters were allegedly exposed to PFAS-containing AFFF or when the firefighters first allegedly manifested symptoms of such exposure. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Dangerous Condition, Dangerous Precedent: California Supreme Court Expands Scope of Dangerous Condition Liability Involving Third Party Negligent/Criminal Conduct

August 19, 2015 — R. Bryan Martin, Laura C. Williams, & Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Cordova v. City of Los Angeles (filed 8/13/15, Case No. S208130), the California Supreme Court held a government entity is not categorically immune from liability where the plaintiff alleges a dangerous condition of public property caused the plaintiff’s injury, but did not cause the third party conduct which precipitated the accident. The case arises out of a traffic collision by which the negligent driving of a third party motorist caused another car to careen into a tree planted in the center median owned and maintained by the City of Los Angeles (“City”). Of the four occupants in the car that collided with the tree, three died and the fourth was badly injured. The parents of two of the occupants sued the City for a dangerous condition of public property under Government Code Section 835. The plaintiffs alleged the roadway was in a dangerous condition because the trees in the median were too close to the traveling portion of the road, posing an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists who might lose control of their vehicles. The City successfully moved for summary judgment, which plaintiffs appealed. On review, the Court of Appeal affirmed holding the tree was not a dangerous condition as a matter of law because there was no evidence that the tree had contributed to the criminally negligent driving of the third party motorist. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin, Laura C. Williams and Lawrence S. Zucker II Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com And Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Strangers in a Strange Land: Revisiting Arbitration Provisions to Account for Increasing International Influences

July 16, 2023 — William Underwood - ConsensusDocs
Arbitration is nothing new. Neither is globalization. But the two are coming together in ways that have incrementally influenced the manner in which many arbitrations are now conducted. And this merits a re-examination of old arbitration clauses to account for some of these new influences. With that in mind, this article will examine some basic considerations when examining arbitration agreements within a construction industry that continues to see the increasing participation of foreign companies in domestic projects. Although this is not a comprehensive review of best drafting practices, nor is it a full survey of the differences between domestic and international arbitration, this article will nonetheless highlight a few basic concepts to keep in mind when reviewing arbitration clauses. As a basic starting point, the continuing globalization of the construction industry has led to distinct impacts on the ways in which parties conduct arbitrations in the United States. The increased participation of international companies in domestic construction projects has naturally led to the application of international legal concepts to domestic alternative dispute resolution. And the increasing prevalence of these international concepts has led to a number of important trends that can impact the way arbitrations are handled. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William Underwood, Jones & Walker (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Underwood may be contacted at wunderwood@joneswalker.com

---

Default Should Never Be An Option

June 19, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Every time I think that the construction industry has learned that failure to respond to a lawsuit is never the correct response, another case of default judgment comes out. I’ve discussed on multiple occasions that failure to respond can only lead to disaster. Aside from being barred from making any substantive response to the allegations against you, there are other consequences including the inability to seek a reasonable settlement because the other side has no reason to negotiate. One of the more disastrous results recently came about in the Norfolk Division of the Eastern District of Virginia District Court. The case of L & W Supply Corp v. Driven Construction et. al. involved a supplier that sought to enforce its credit agreement against both the corporate entity of the contractor, Driven, and the guarantor, a principal of the company. Needless to say, there was no response to the lawsuit and the Plaintiff filed for default judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Texas Supreme Court Holds Stipulated Extrinsic Evidence May Be Considered in Determining Duty to Defend

May 10, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Responding to certified questions from the Fifth Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court held that in limited circumstances, extrinsic evidence may be considered in determining the duty to defend. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp., 2022 Tex. LEXIS 148 (Tex. Feb. 11, 2022). The two insurers each provided CGL coverage to the insured, 5D Drilling & Pump Service, Inc., at different times. BIitco provided two consecutive one-year CGL policies covering October 2013 to October 2015. Monroe's CGL policy covered 5D from October 2015 to October 2016. 5D was sued by David Jones for breach of contract and negligence, seeking damage allegedly resulting from 5D's drilling operations on Jones's property. Jones contracted with 5D in the summer of 2014 to drill a 3600-foot irrigation well on his farmland. The complaint did not detail when 5D's purportedly negligent acts occurred or even when 5D began or stopped the work. 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

---

Illinois Non-Profit Sues over Defective Roof

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Coordinated Youth and Human Services (CYHS), a family services organization hired Honey-Do Home Repair to design and install a new roof for its building in Granite City, Illinois. Honey-Do removed portions of the roof for testing. A few day later during a rainstorm, a tarp failed, leading to water intrusion and damage to the building. The CYHS is suing the contractor for $400,000. It is claiming that repairing the damage cost the organization $200,000, and it seeks additional damage and court costs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Georgia Amends Anti-Indemnity Statute

June 02, 2016 — David R. Cook Jr. – AHHC Construction Law Blog
In its most recent session, the Georgia General Assembly passed HB 943, which amends Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute. The amendment expands the Anti-Indemnity Statute beyond construction contracts to include contracts for engineering, architectural, and land surveying services (“A/E Contracts”). In a prior post, we discussed Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute, which generally prohibits indemnity clauses in construction contracts that require one party (the “Indemnitor”) to indemnify another party (the “Indemnitee”) if property damage or bodily injury results from the Indemnitee’s sole negligence. The prior post, discussed the Supreme Court of Georgia’s broad interpretation of the Anti-Indemnity Statute. HB 943 adds subpart (c), which states:

A covenant, promise, agreement, or understanding in or in connection with or collateral to a contract or agreement for engineering, architectural, or land surveying services purporting to require that one party to such contract or agreement shall indemnify, hold harmless, insure, or defend the other party to the contract or other named indemnitee, including its, his, or her officers, agents, or employees, against liability or claims for damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, is against public policy and void and unenforceable, except for indemnification for damages, losses, or expenses to the extent caused by or resulting from the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the indemnitor or other persons employed or utilized by the indemnitor in the performance of the contract. This subsection shall not affect any obligation under workers’ compensation or coverage or insurance specifically relating to workers’ compensation, nor shall this subsection apply to any requirement that one party to the contract purchase a project specific insurance policy or project specific policy endorsement.

(Emphasis added.) Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

---

Showdown Over Landmark Housing Law Looms at U.S. Supreme Court

October 01, 2014 — Greg Stohr – Bloomberg
Over the past four decades, U.S. courts have ruled that plaintiffs making discrimination claims under the Fair Housing Act don’t have to prove intentional bias. Civil rights advocates simply have to show that lenders, insurers, developers or government agencies acted in ways that had a “disparate,” or unequal, impact on minority groups. Now, the Supreme Court is weighing whether to hear an appeal from Texas officials who argue that intent to discriminate must be proven and that the “disparate impact” standard is too loose an interpretation of the landmark 1968 law that prohibited discrimination in housing. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Greg Stohr, Bloomberg
Mr. Stohr may be contacted at gstohr@bloomberg.net

---