Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

EPA Issues Interpretive Statement on Application of NPDES Permit System to Releases of Pollutants to Groundwater

May 27, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019, in a development of interest to practically anyone who operates a plant or business, EPA published its Interpretive Statement in the Federal Register. (See 84 FR 16810 (April 23, 2019).) After considering the thousands of comments it received in response to a February 20, 2018, Federal Register notice, EPA has concluded that “the Clean Water Act (CWA) is best read as excluding all releases of pollutants from a point source to groundwater from a point source from NPDES program coverage, regardless of a hydrological connection between the groundwater and jurisdictional surface water.” Acknowledging that its past public statements have not been especially consistent or unambiguous on this important matter, EPA states that this interpretation “is the best, if not the only reading of the CWA, is more consistent with Congress’ intent than other interpretations of the Act, and best addresses the question of NPDES permit program applicability for pollutant releases to groundwater within the authority of the CWA.” Indeed, the absence of “a dedicated statement on the best reading of the CWA has generated confusion in the courts, and uncertainly for EPA regional offices and states implementing the NPDES program, regulated entities, and the public.” The recent and contrary interpretations of this issue by the Ninth Circuit (Hawaii Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui, 886 F.3d 737) and the Fourth Circuit (Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP, 887 F.3d 637) will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which will now have the benefit of the agency’s official position. In addition, EPA discloses that it will be soliciting additional public “input” on how it can best provide the regulated community with “further clarity and regulatory certainly”; these comments will be due within 45 days (June 7, 2019). 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

DC Circuit Rejects Challenge to EPA’s CERCLA Decision Regarding Hardrock Mining Industry

September 23, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
In a decision that will likely be welcomed by the electrical power, chemical manufacturing, and petroleum and coal products manufacturing industries, on July 19, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in the case of Idaho Conservation League et al., v. Wheeler, that EPA acted reasonably in deciding not to issue CERCLA financial responsibility regulations for the hardrock mining industry. CERCLA (a.k.a., Superfund) was enacted in 1980 and amended in 1986, and Section 108(b) of CERCLA provides that EPA shall promulgate requirements that classes of facilities establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility “consistent with the degree and duration of risk” associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous substances. However, no action was taken to implement Section 108(b) until 2009, and then only as the result of litigation challenging EPA’s failure to act. EPA and the petitioners agreed to a schedule by which the agency would propose financial responsibility rules for the hardrock mining industry—which was the initial class of industry facilities selected for the possible application of these rules—and the DC Circuit approved this schedule in 2016, which contained the court’s caveat that EPA retained the discretion not to issue any rule at the conclusion of the rulemaking. 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

Mexico's Richest Man Carlos Slim to Rebuild Collapsed Subway Line

November 01, 2021 — The Associated Press - Bloomberg
Mexico City (AP) -- Mexico’s richest man reached an agreement with Mexico City authorities Wednesday to rebuild or reinforce an elevated subway line that collapsed in May, killing 26 people. Telecom and construction magnate Carlos Slim said his Grupo Carso’s construction subsidiary would pay the cost of rebuilding the span that collapsed, and reinforcing other parts of the elevated line to meet higher standards in a city plagued with severe earthquakes. Grupo Carso said in a statement to the country’s stock market that the outlay did not constitute any admission of responsibility for the collapse, and would not “materially affect” the company’s business. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

Colorado Federal Court Confirms Consequetial Property Damage, But Finds No Coverage for Subcontractor

November 01, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
A recommended decision from the Magistrate Judge of the Federal District Court for the District of Colorado found there was no coverage for the subcontractor's faulty workmanship, but recognized that Colorado finds consequential damages to be property damage. Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Houston Cas. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117857 (D. Colo. July 5, 2022). The insured, Tripp Construction, was a subcontrator for contructing balconies at an apartment complex. The owner complained that Tripp failed to properly install balconies. The defective installation of certain balcony components damaged other, non-defective components. The general contractor had an OCIP policy issued by Houston Casualty Company (HCC). The general contractor also had a Subcontractor Default policy issued by Indian Harbor. 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

Consequential Damages From Subcontractor's Faulty Work Constitutes "Property Damage" and An "Occurrence"

September 03, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The New Jersey appellate court found that the unintended and unexpected consequential damages caused by the subcontractor's defective work constituted "property damage" and an "occurrence." Cypress Point Condo. Ass'n v. Adria Towers, L.L.C., 2015 WL 4111890 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 9, 2015). The insured developer hired subcontractors to perform all of the construction work at a condominium project. The subcontractors failed to properly install the roof, flashing, gutters and leaders, brick and EIFS facade, windows, doors and sealants. The AOAO sued the developer, who served as the general contractor, its insurers, and various subcontractors.The AOAO conceded that replacement costs did not constitute "property damage" and an "occurrence" under the policy. The faulty workmanship, however, also caused consequential damages to the common areas and unit owners' property, including damage to steel supports, exterior sheathing and interior sheathing and sheetrock, insulation and other interior areas of the building. Nevertheless, the trial judge determined there was no property damage or "occurrence", and granted summary judgment to the insurers. 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

Construction Defect Coverage Barred Under Business Risk Exclusion in Colorado

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A federal court in Colorado recently applied the business risk exclusion to a construction defect case. Aaron Mandel and Stevi Raab of Sedgwick Law discuss this in Construction Defect Coverage Quarterly. The court found that the business risk exclusion barred coverage for an underlying construction defect. In the construction defect case, the Creek Side at Parker homeowners association sued the developer and builder. One such alleged defect was that “the plumbing contractor’s faulty installation of sewer and water lines damaged the lines themselves, caused surrounding asphalt and concrete to crack and deteriorate, and resulted in water intrusion.” The court concluded that this damage to non-defective work was an occurrence, but the exclusion in the contract covered only property damage that occurred “while the work is ongoing.” The court concluded that the business risk exclusion barred coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Improperly Installed Flanges Are Impaired Property

February 16, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Answering certified questions from the Fifth Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court found there was no coverage for flanges that leaked after installation. U. S. Metals, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., 2015 Texas LEXIS 1081 (Dec. 4, 2015). U. S. Metals sold Exxon 350 custom-made, stainless steel, weld-neck flanges for use in refineries. Testing after installation showed the flanges leaked and did not meet industry standards. Exxon decided to replace the flanges to avoid risk of fire and explosion. For each flange, this involved stripping the temperature coating and insulation, cutting the flange out of the pipe, removing the gaskets, grinding the pipe surfaces smooth for re-welding, replacing the flange and gaskets, welding the new flange to the pipes, and replacing the temperature coating and insulation. The replacement process delayed operation of the diesel units for several weeks. Exxon sued U.S. Metal for over $6 million as the cost of replacing the flanges and $16 million as damages for lost use of the diesel units during the process. U.S. Metals settled with Exxon for $2.2 million and then sought indemnification from its liability insurer, Liberty Mutual. 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

Do Not Pass Go! Duty to Defend in a Professional Services Agreement (law note)

April 03, 2019 — Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North Carolina
Recently a client asked me to review a contract for his Firm. The Owner, who had prepared the draft, had inserted a rather stringent “duty to defend” clause. As I told my client, a duty to defend clause is not a good idea for a couple of reasons. First, if you agree to provide a defense, what that means is that you are footing the bill for the Owner if the Owner is sued by another party. Think about that for a minute. You are paying legal fees for someone else’s legal defense. You may or may not be able to direct the litigation or have a say in who is hired. Can you say open check book? Secondly, and more importantly, the duty to defend is almost never insurable. What that means is that your professional liability carrier will not be footing the bill—your Firm will be doing it. This is not a case of adding the Owner as an additional insured, so do not confuse the two. Agreeing to a duty to defend is an extremely burdensome, and potentially costly, mistake. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLC
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES