FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Disputes Over Arbitrator Qualifications: The Northern District of California Offers Some Guidance

August 10, 2021 — Justin K. Fortescue - White and Williams
The selection of an arbitration panel can often lead to disputes between the parties regarding things like whether a particular candidate is qualified, whether a challenge to an arbitrator’s qualifications can be addressed pre-award and whether a party that names an unqualified arbitrator should lose the opportunity to name a replacement. In Public Risk Innovations v. Amtrust Financial Services, No. 21-cv-03573, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129464 (N.D. Ca. July 12, 2021), the court provided answers on all three of these issues. In Amtrust, the parties filed cross-motions to compel arbitration. Although both parties agreed the dispute was arbitrable, they disagreed about whether Public Risk Innovations, Solutions and Management’s (PRISM) arbitrator was qualified under the terms of the applicable contract. In seeking to have PRISM’s arbitrator disqualified, Amtrust argued that he: (1) was not a “current or former official of an insurance or reinsurance company”; and (2) was not “disinterested.” Amtrust also argued that because PRISM named an unqualified arbitrator (and presumably the time to appoint had passed), PRISM should be deemed to have failed to select an arbitrator as required by the contract and that Amtrust had the right to select a second arbitrator of its choice. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Justin K. Fortescue, White and Williams
Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Noteworthy Construction Defect Cases for 1st Qtr 2014

April 30, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
John A. Husmann and Jocelyn F. Cornbleet of BatesCareyLLP analyzed several noteworthy construction defect cases that have already occurred in 2014, as published in Law360. The cases involved “the ‘occurrence’ requirement, contractual liability exclusion and ‘other insurance’ clauses.” Husmann and Cornbleet summarized Owners Insurance Co. v Jim Carr Homebuilder LLC (Alabama), Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Snider (also Alabama), Woodward LLC v. Acceptance Indemnification Insurance Co. (Mississippi), and others. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend

November 21, 2017 — Theresa A. Guertin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Blog
Originally published by CDJ on January 13, 2017 The Supreme Court of Oregon issued a decision at the end of last year which perfectly illustrates the lengths to which a court may go to grant a contractor’s claim for defense from its insurer in a construction defect suit. In West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc.,1 the Court held that a subcontractor’s insurer had a duty to defend a general contractor as an additional insured because the allegations of a homeowner’s association’s complaint could be interpreted to fall within the ambit of coverage provided under the policy—despite the fact that the policy only provided ongoing operations coverage, and despite the fact that the subcontractor was never mentioned in the complaint. The decision is favorable to policyholders but also provides an important lesson: that contractors may avoid additional insured disputes if those contractors have solid contractual insurance requirements for both ongoing and completed operations risks. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com

---

Is A Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound by A Default or Default Judgment Against Its Principal?

February 08, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Maguire-O’Hara Construction, Inc. v. Cool Roofing Systems, Inc., 2020 WL 6532852 (W.D. Oklahoma 2020) is an interesting case dealing with suretyship law and the subject of whether a Miller Act payment bond surety is bound by a default or default judgment against its prime contractor (bond principal). In this case, a subcontractor sued a prime contractor for breach of contract and the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond surety for a breach of the payment bond. The prime contractor did not respond to the lawsuit and the subcontractor obtained a default against the contractor. The Miller Act payment bond surety did engage counsel to defend itself in the dispute. Prior to trial, the subcontractor moved in limine to preclude the surety from raising defenses at trial under the subcontract because a default was entered against the prime contractor. The subcontractor argued that the surety should be bound by the default and, therefore, precluded from raising liability defenses under the subcontract. Such a ruling would leave the surety no defenses disputing liability at trial.

[A] suretys’ liability under the Miller Act coincides with that of the general contractor, its principal. Accordingly, a surety [can] plead any defenses available to its principal but [can]not make a defense that could not be made by its principal. Maguire-O’Hara Construction, supra, at *2 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

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

---

Increasing Use of Construction Job Cameras

January 27, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Job site cameras are increasingly used on construction sites, for various reasons, reports Tom Sawyer of Engineering News-Record. Mark Penny, senior vice president of the Dallas Region Manhattan Construction Inc., told Sawyer that he uses the camera primarily for marketing purposes: “We have a lot of high-profile jobs that people want to see. They are a great opportunity for us and the client to showcase the construction, which makes the job of selling what we do a lot easier.” Warren Andres, senior vice president at Andres Construction uses cameras for safety monitoring. Andres told Sawyer that “he has three monitors on his desk. One shows live feeds from all his cameras. If he sees unsafe work, he sends a photo to the superintendent and demands action. Similarly, he says he can spot slow work crews and do enough quality control to send the message that management is watching.” Vendors commented to Sawyer that “the growing use [of cameras] include the rise of building information modeling and its increased need for accountability; as well as companies chasing work beyond usual areas of operations and needing to extend supervision while holding down travel of staffs trimmed by the recession.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The 2024 Colorado Legislative Session Promises to be a Busy One for the Construction Industry and its Insurers

January 16, 2024 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
January 10th marked the first day of the 2024 Colorado legislative session. After the pomp and circumstance of opening day, a total of eighty-six bills were introduced. Among them, two impact the construction and insurance industries. First, House Bill 24-1008 would make general contractors and their subcontractors, which are direct employers of an employee, jointly and severally liable for all debts owed based on wage claims or investigations. Essentially, if HB 24-1008 were to become law, general contractors would become the guarantors of wage payments to their subcontractors’ employees. The second bill, House Bill 24-1083, would require the Colorado Division of Insurance to conduct a study of construction liability insurance for construction professionals in Colorado and would require that, 14 days prior to closing the sale of a new residence, the seller provide the purchaser and the county clerk and recorder’s office certain information regarding the insurance coverage for the home. In a year when the legislature should be focusing on construction defect reform and affordable housing for Coloradoans, these first two bills will likely drive up the cost of new construction. House Bill 20-1008, sponsored by Representatives Duran and Froelich, Brown, deGruy Kennedy, Epps, Garcia, Hamrick, Hernandez, Joseph, Lieder, Lindstedt, Mabrey, Mauro, Ricks, Rutinel, Story, Velasco, and Vigil and Senators Danielson and Jaquez Lewis, Exum, Gonzales, Kolker, Marchman, and Sullivan, has been assigned to the House Committee on Business Affairs & Labor but has not yet been scheduled for a hearing. The bill summary states: For wage claims brought by individuals working in the construction industry, the bill:

• Requires that a subcontractor that receives a written demand for payment forward a copy of the written demand for payment to the general contractor within 3 business days after receipt;

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

---

Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Super Lawyers in 2016

February 16, 2016 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Haight is pleased to announce that the following lawyers have been named 2016 California Super Lawyers ®: William G. Baumgaertner Bruce Cleeland Peter A. Dubrawski Angela S. Haskins Michael J. Leahy Michael C. Parme Jennifer K. Saunders Additionally, Gregory M. Smith has been named a 2016 Super Lawyers ® Rising Star. Super Lawyers ® is a rating service of outstanding lawyers who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

---

Professional Liability and Attorney-Client Privilege Bulletin: Intra-Law Firm Communications

January 07, 2015 — David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Attorney-Client Privilege Protects Confidential Communications Between Law Firm Attorney Representing Current Client and Firm’s General Counsel Regarding Disputes with Client Who Later Files Malpractice Suit In a case of first impression in California, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP v. Superior Court (No. B255182 - filed November 25, 2014), Division Three of the Second District Court of Appeal addressed the question of whether the attorney-client privilege applies to intrafirm communications between law firm attorneys concerning disputes with a current client, when that client later sues the firm for malpractice and seeks to compel production of such communications. The court concluded that when an attorney representing a current client seeks legal advice from the law firm’s designated in-house “general counsel” concerning disputes with the client, the attorney-client privilege applies to their confidential communications. The court held that adoption of the so-called “fiduciary” or “current client” exceptions to the attorney-client privilege is contrary to California law because California courts are precluded from creating implied exceptions to the statutorily created attorney-client privilege. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com; Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---