Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Another Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix

January 18, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Here at Construction Law Musings, we’ve discussed the fact that, in Virginia, the “economic loss rule” generally renders claims of fraud and construction contracts like oil and water. This is true in most states, including Florida. What this means is that as a general rule where any party is supposed to perform under a contract, and fails to do so, the Virginia courts will dismiss a fraud claim out of a desire to avoid turning any breach of contract (read “broken promise”) case into a claim for fraud. As you have likely gathered by the title of this post, there are exceptions. One is a properly plead Virginia Consumer Protection Act (“VCPA”) claim. Another, found in a recent Loudoun County, VA Circuit Court opinion in Madison v. Milton Home Systems Inc., is so called fraud in the inducement (in other words, inducing a person to enter the contract under false pretenses). In Madison the Court analyzed several counts based upon a modular home contract and so called “performance agreement” guarantying that the home would be installed by the manufacturer in the event that it’s installer failed to perform. 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

Insurer Doomed in Delaware by the Sutton Rule

September 12, 2023 — Katherine Dempsey - The Subrogation Strategist
In Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Thangavel, No. 379, 2022, 2023 Del. LEXIS 227, the Supreme Court of Delaware (Supreme Court) considered whether the Sutton Rule prevented the plaintiff from pursuing subrogation against the defendants. As applied in Delaware, the Sutton Rule explains that landlords and tenants are co-insureds under the landlord’s fire insurance policy unless a tenant’s lease clearly expresses an intent to the contrary. If the Sutton Rule applies, the landlord’s insurer cannot pursue the tenant for the landlord’s damages by way of subrogation. Here, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision that the Sutton Rule applied because the lease did not clearly express an intent to hold the tenants liable for the landlord’s damages. In Thangavel, the plaintiff, Donegal Mutual Insurance Company (Insurer), provided property insurance to Seaford Apartment Ventures, LLC (Landlord) for a residential property in Delaware. Sathiyaselvam Thangavel and Sasikala Muthusamy (Tenants) leased an apartment (the Premises) from Landlord and signed a lease. Insurer alleged that Tenants hit a sprinkler head while flying a drone inside the Premises which caused water to spray from the damaged sprinkler head, resulting in property damage to the Premises. Landlord filed an insurance claim with Insurer, who paid Landlord $77,704.06 to repair the damage. Insurer then sought to recover the repair costs from Tenants via subrogation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Katherine Dempsey, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Dempsey may be contacted at dempseyk@whiteandwilliams.com

Orange County Team Obtains Unanimous Defense Verdict in Case Involving Failed Real Estate Transaction

March 25, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Orange County, Calif. (March 4, 2024) - Orange County Partners Esther P. Holm and Alexandra Anast obtained a unanimous defense verdict in a real estate matter involving a failed real estate transaction. The property at issue, which was located in the West Hollywood Hills and had beautiful views, was undergoing extensive remodeling. There were several bids for its purchase. Ultimately, the plaintiff, a real estate investor, was awarded the purchase. The plaintiff and the seller entered into a real estate purchase agreement, but the plaintiff failed to release the physical contingencies within the 17-day period prescribed by the contract. Instead, the plaintiff demanded a reduction in price, which the seller rejected. The plaintiff then filed a lis pendens on the property, clouding the title and making it impossible for the sellers to sell the property to anyone else. The buyer and seller subsequently engaged counsel. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit against the seller as well as the real estate company and its agents. Prior to trial, the plaintiff and the seller reached a settlement. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George Successfully Oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal

September 11, 2023 — Colleen E. Hastie & Jeffrey George - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George successfully opposed Plaintiff’s motion to vacate a prior dismissal of plaintiff’s medical malpractice action brought before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County. The lawsuit, commenced by Plaintiff in 2015, alleged medical malpractice stemming from treatment Plaintiff received at a New York medical facility after falling out of a window at a rental property owned by Traub Lieberman’s client (“Property Owner”). Property Owner moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint or preclude Plaintiff from offering evidence in support of its claims, or in the alternative, compel plaintiff to produce all outstanding discovery. The Medical Facility cross-moved for the same relief. Defendants agreed to adjourn the motion until after plaintiff’s deposition, but plaintiff made no effort to secure an adjournment with the court and plaintiff filed no opposition to the motion, allowing the motion to be granted on default. Plaintiff waited nearly a year to file a motion to vacate the default judgment, despite receiving notification of the default from defense counsel. Property Owner, in opposing plaintiff’s motion, pointed to plaintiff’s long history of dilatory conduct and failure to comply with discovery orders in support of its position that plaintiff failed to show any good cause for its default on the motion to dismiss. Reprinted courtesy of Colleen E. Hastie, Traub Lieberman and Jeffrey George, Traub Lieberman Ms. Hastie may be contacted at chastie@tlsslaw.com Mr. George may be contacted at jgeorge@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

OSHA Launches Program to Combat Trenching Accidents

October 16, 2018 — Tom Ichniowski – Engineering News-Record
In the wake of a recent rise in fatal trenching cave-ins, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has begun a targeted education and enforcement program to try to reverse the trend. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

Appraiser Declarations Inadmissible When Offered to Challenge the Merits of an Appraisal Award

March 14, 2018 — Valerie Moore and Christopher Kendrick - Publications & Insights
In Khorsand v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. (No. B280273, filed 2/27/18), a California appeals court affirmed an appraisal award favorable to a homeowners insurer, ruling that it was improper to admit as evidence in opposition to a petition to confirm the award a declaration from the policyholders’ appraiser, except for the limited purpose of showing improprieties in the appraisal, bias, partiality or other improper conduct. The homeowners had a pipe leak and submitted a claim. The insurer responded to an estimate from the owners’ adjuster by retaining an expert and paying an undisputed amount that was significantly less. Eleven months later the owners had upper deck damage and submitted another claim. Relying on the same expert, the insurer paid another undisputed amount significantly less than the owner’s estimate. The owners requested appraisal but the insurer denied the request, contending that the dispute was over coverage and outside the scope of appraisal. The owners’ petition for appraisal was granted, with the court ordering separate listing of items the insurer disputed regarding coverage or causation. The appraisal panel issued an award stating that total damage was $132,293, of which $96,530 was contested by the insurer. The insurer filed a petition to confirm the award, which was granted despite the fact that the owners’ appraiser had refused to sign it. 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

Duty to Defend For Accident Exists, But Not Duty to Indeminfy

March 05, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Seventh Circuit found there was a duty to defend the additional insured under the policy, but not a duty to indemnify. Kmart Corp. v. Footstar, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1775 (7th Cir. Feb. 4, 2015). By agreement, Footstar operated the footwear department in hundreds of Kmart stores around the country. Footstar's footwear departments were in designated areas of the Kmart stores. Section 18.1 of the Master Agreement required Footstar to defend and indemnify Kmart from "all damage . . . arising out of Footstar's performance or failure to perform under this Agreement." The same section also required Footstar to obtain additional insurance coverage for Kmart. 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

Colorado Abandons the “Completed and Accepted Rule” in Favor of the “Foreseeability Rule” in Determining a Contractor’s Duty to a Third Party After Work Has Been Completed

January 17, 2013 — Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

In a recent case, the Colorado Court of Appeals found that a contractor had a duty to a third party to warn it of a dangerous condition, even after the contractor had completed its work and the owner had accepted the contractor’s work. Collard v. Vista Paving Corp., -- P.3d --, 2012 WL 5871446 (Colo. App. 2012). While not an earth shattering or entirely new concept, the decision rendered in Collard directly accepted the foreseeability rule at the expense of the completed and accepted rule. Id.

In Collard, the City of Grand Junction (“the City”) hired Vista Paving Corp. (“Vista”) to construct two road medians according to the City’s plans and designs. On July 9, 2007, Vista began work on the medians. According to its contract with the City, Vista was responsible for traffic control during construction of the medians. On July 19, 2007, Vista completed its construction of both medians. On that date, the City’s project inspector conducted his final inspection of Vista’s work. The City’s inspector then told Vista that its work had been completed and that Vista was authorized to leave the site. Vista requested permission to remove the traffic control devices to which the City’s inspector agreed. Vista removed all of its traffic control devices.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brady Iandiorio
Mr. Iandiorio can be contacted at iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES