Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Sixth Circuit Rejects Claim for Reverse Bad Faith

June 17, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Sixth Circuit rejected the insurer's claim for reverse bad faith against its insured who made a fraudulent claim after her home was destroyed by fire. State Auto Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hargis, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7475 (6th Cir. April 23, 2015). The insured's home burned to the ground early one morning. She filed what she would later admit was a fraudulent insurance claim with State Auto for approximately $866,000. State Auto paid in excess of $425,000 before filing an action to declare the policy void. State Farm's investigation eventually led to the insured's admission that she had a friend burn down her house to collect insurance proceeds. An indictment was issued and the insured pled guilty. She was sentenced to a 60-month term and was ordered to pay restitution to State Auto totaling $672,497. 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

Not If, But When: Newly Enacted Virginia Legislation Bans “Pay-If-Paid” Clauses In Construction Contracts

August 22, 2022 — Joseph A. Figueroa & Thomas E. Minnis - ConsensusDocs
Recently passed legislation in Virginia is likely to dramatically change contractual relationships between prime contractors and subcontractors in the Commonwealth. Abrogating well-established common-law principles set forth by the Supreme Court of Virginia, on April 27, 2022, the Virginia General Assembly, after receiving input from Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, passed Senate Bill 550 banning “pay-if-paid” clauses in public and private construction contracts. Contractors performing work in Virginia should take note of the new law, which goes into effect next year and will apply to any contracts executed after January 1, 2023. The History Of Pay-if-Paid Clauses In Virginia Broadly speaking, “pay-if-paid” clauses are a commonly used tool by prime contractors on construction projects to shift the risk to subcontractors in the event that the owner does not pay the prime contractor for work. Such clauses usually include language creating an express condition precedent to the subcontractor’s right to be paid for work under a subcontract, stating that the prime contractor shall be under no obligation to pay the subcontractor for work unless and until the prime contractor first receives payment for that work by the project owner. The “pay-if-paid” clause also has a less extreme cousin, the “pay-when-paid” clause, which merely delays the time in which the prime contractor is obligated to pay the subcontractor to the time in which the prime contractor is paid by the owner. It does not, however, extinguish the prime contractor’s ultimate obligation to pay the subcontractor. Reprinted courtesy of Joseph A. Figueroa, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs) and Thomas E. Minnis, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs) Mr. Figueroa may be contacted at jfigueroa@watttieder.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

City and Contractor Disclaim Responsibility for Construction Error that Lead to Blast

November 13, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The city of Grand Junction, Colorado and their contractor, Aperion Utility Construction, LLC, have both denied any wrongdoing in the construction accident that lead to the destruction of two homes. Aperion was drilling in order to repair traffic signals. Their drill damaged a gas line. In the subsequent explosion, three people were injured and two homes destroyed. Homes for 10 blocks were subsequently evacuated. The three men who were injured have filed a lawsuit claiming negligence on the part of the contractor and the city. The city has released a report from their insurers that concluded that the city was not responsible. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Nevada Provides Independant Counsel When Conflict Arises Between Insurer and Insured

December 02, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Nevada Supreme Court, responding to certified questions, determined that an insurer must provide independent counsel for its insured when a conflict of interest arises between the insurer and insured. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hansen, 2015 Nev. LEXIS 86 (Nev. Sept. 24, 2015). The insured struck the vehicle of another driver, Hansen. Hansen sued the insured alleging both negligence and various intentional torts. State Farm agreed to defend under a reservation of rights. The reservation of rights letter reserved the right to deny coverage for liabiltiy resulting from intentional acts and punitive damages. 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

Toll Brothers Faces Construction Defect Lawsuit in New Jersey

October 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Toll Brothers is facing a construction defect lawsuit from homeowners in West Windsor, New Jersey. The homebuilding company had a lengthy battle with the town over its intention to build the community they named the Estates at Princeton Junction, now its residents are alleging defects in the construction of their homes and the common infrastructure. The community is close to Princeton University, parts of which are also in West Windsor. Toll Brothers states that they are “working very closely with the HOA Board to investigate the claims that have been alleged in the lawsuit.” Andrea Marushack, the spokesperson for Toll Brothers would not elaborate due to the lawsuit. Among the allegations are claims that the townhomes in the development are prone to water intrusion. The complaint also claims that there were defects in the construction of sidewalks, roads, and other common features. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

DC Circuit Issues Two Important Clean Air Act and Administrative Law Decisions

December 16, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The U.S. Court of Appeals or the District of Columbia has recently issued two important rulings on the Clean Air Act in particular and administrative law in general: California Communities Against Toxics, et al., v. EPA and Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA. The Battle of the Memos: Seitz Makes Way for Wehrum In the California Communities case, decided on August 20, 2019, the court held, in a 2 to 1 decision, that a petition to review a change in EPA policy announced in an agency memorandum which reversed an agency policy announced nearly 25 years ago in another agency memo must be rejected because the memo at issue was not a “final agency action” subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In 1995, the “Seitz Memo,” which interpreted Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and addresses the regulation and control of hazardous air pollutants from stationary sources, stated that once a source of toxic emissions is classified as “major,” the facility remains subject to regulation as a major source even if the facility makes changes to the facility to limit its potential to emit such toxics below the major source threshold. Then, in 2018 under a new administration, the “Wehrum Memorandum” was issued which reversed this policy and its interpretation of the law. (Both memos were issued without any kind of advance notice or opportunity to comment.) If a source takes steps to limit its potential to emit, then it may be regulated as an area source, and subject to less rigid regulation. The court majority held that the Wehrum Memo was not a final agency action and was not subject to judicial review when it was measured against both prongs of the “finality test” devised by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bennet v. Spear, 520 US 154 (1997) and US Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes, 136 S. Ct. 1807 (2016). While the memo undoubtedly represented the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process, the memo had no direct and appreciable legal consequences, and not therefore being a final action, the case must be dismissed. Judge Rogers filed a strong dissenting opinion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Know Whether Your Course of Business Operations Are Covered Or Excluded By Your Insurance

December 27, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
It is a good idea to know what your insurance covers and does not cover. This way, if your course of business has you performing a certain (risky) operation, you know whether that operation is covered or excluded under your policy. If you are not sure, discuss with your insurance broker — this is important. There is little value performing an operation that is NOT covered by your insurance policy, as you are now performing a risk that is not covered by insurance. If you know it is not covered by insurance you may elect to change your operations or see if there is insurance to cover the risk. Below is a case study of this occurrence dealing with a commercial automobile liability policy where an insured’s operations using a crane mounted to a super duty truck was not covered under their automobile liability policy. In People’s Trust Ins. Co. v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D262a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021), homeowners hired a company to install a shed. The company hired another company to deliver and install the shed using a crane; the company used a crane mounted to a Ford F-750 super duty truck. This company improperly operated the crane resulting in the shed falling and damaging the homeowner’s roof. The homeowners submitted a claim to their property insurer and their property insurer subrogated to their rights and sued. The company operating the crane’s commercial automobile liability insurer denied coverage, and thus, denied the duty to defend. As a result, a Coblentz-type agreement was entered into where the company operating the crane consented to a judgment in favor of the property insurer (subrogee) and assigned its rights under its commercial automobile liability policy to the property insurer. The property insurer then sued the automobile liability carrier for coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the automobile liability insurer finding there was no coverage and this was affirmed on appeal. Why? 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

Caterpillar Forecast Tops Estimates as Construction Recovers

January 28, 2014 — Shruti Date Singh – Bloomberg
Caterpillar Inc. (CAT), the largest maker of mining and construction equipment, forecast earnings and revenue for 2014 that topped analysts’ estimates as the recovery in the U.S. building industry spurs sales of bulldozers and excavators. Sales will be about $56 billion plus or minus 5 percent, the company said in a statement today. The average of 13 estimates compiled by Bloomberg was $55.5 billion. Profit will be $5.85 a share excluding $400 million to $500 million in restructuring costs. That’s more than the $5.77 average estimate. Peoria, Illinois-based Caterpillar also said it approved a $10 billion share buyback plan through 2018 and will repurchase about $1.7 billion in stock in the first quarter that will complete its previous authorization. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shruti Date Singh, Bloomberg
Ms. Singh may be contacted at ssingh28@bloomberg.net

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES