Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Insured's Complaint Against Flood Insurer Survives Motion to Dismiss

May 07, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's attempt to dismiss the insured's multi-count complaint for failure to provide full coverage for flood damage failed. Ragusa Corp. v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40812 (D. Conn. March 27, 2014). The insureds' house suffered significant damage due to flood associated with Hurricane Irene. The insureds submitted a claim. Standard Fire paid $35,216.75, well below what the insureds thought they were owed. The insureds returned the check and demanded what they believed was full payment. The insureds demanded an appraisal because the parties did not agree on the amount being paid under the policy, including disagreement about the amount owed for items that both sides agreed were covered under the policy. Standard Fire refused to participate in an appraisal. The insureds ended up suing Standard Fire, alleging, among other things, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 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

US Appeals Court Halts OSHA Vaccine Mandate, Unclear How Long

November 15, 2021 — Debra K. Rubin & Jeff Yoders - Engineering News-Record
The U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans on Nov. 6 stayed the Biden administration's requirement that workers at U.S. companies with at least 100 employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 or be tested weekly, citing potential "grave statutory and constitutional" issues raised by opponents of the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration's emergency temporary standard announced on Nov. 4. Reprinted courtesy of Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record and Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Builder Pipeline in U.S. at Eight-Year High: Under the Hood

August 26, 2015 — Sho Chandra – Bloomberg
Here’s the takeaway from the Commerce Department’s report Tuesday in in Washington that showed sales of new homes in the U.S rebounded in July to a 507,000 annualized rate. The median forecast of 75 economists surveyed by Bloomberg projected 510,000. * Number of homes sold but not yet started climbed to a 192,000 annualized rate, the most since June 2007. * That means builders have a large pipeline of demand to fill, which will keep housing starts rising. * The number of homes under construction was the lowest since August 2014 and the number completed were the fewest since November. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sho Chandra, Bloomberg

If a Defect Occurs During Construction, Is It an "Occurrence?"

February 12, 2024 — Brendan J. Witry - The Dispute Resolver
Establishing insurance coverage for construction defects is almost as important as establishing liability in the underlying construction defect litigation itself. The risk to the defendant contractor of defending a construction claim can place significant burdens on a contractor’s operations and an uninsured judgment might even put the contractor out of business. For owners, suing a contractor for construction defects can become academic if there is no prospect of insurance coverage; obtaining a $1 million judgment against a contractor with limited assets would be a pyrrhic victory. Commercial General Liability (CGL) carriers are obligated to defend claims that potentially fall within the coverage granted by the policy.[1] When presented with a claim, CGL insurers typically have three options: (1) assume the defense without reservation; (2) assume the defense asserting defenses to coverage, and depending on the state, reserving the right to recover defense costs if it later determines there is no duty to defend; or (3) deny the claim outright and seek a declaratory judgment holding that the insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify. An insurer may deny the claim outright and not seek a declaratory judgment, but does so at its peril because it can expose the insurer to significant liability if the insured later shows the insurer in fact had a duty to defend. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brendan J. Witry, Laurie & Brennan LLP
Mr. Witry may be contacted at bwitry@lauriebrennan.com

Understanding the Real Estate and Tax Implications of Florida's Buyer Ban Law

July 16, 2023 — Kelly Erb - White and Williams LLP
Last month, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) of Florida signed a new law that would prohibit people who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents and whose "domicile" is in China from purchasing certain real property in the state. Generally, the prohibition applies to agricultural land and other land within ten miles of restricted areas, including military bases and infrastructure like airports and wastewater treatment plants. The law, which takes effect on July 1, 2023, would also impose criminal penalties on any person or real estate company that knowingly sells real estate in the Sunshine State to anyone impacted by the ban. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kelly Erb, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Erb may be contacted at erbk@whiteandwilliams.com

Let’s Give ‘Em Sutton to Talk About: Tennessee Court Enforces Sutton Doctrine

July 24, 2023 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Patton v Pearson, No. M2022-00708-COA-RC-CV, 2023 Tenn. App. LEXIS 231, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee (Court of Appeals) considered whether the lower court erred in dismissing an insurance carrier’s lawsuit against its insured’s tenant for damages sustained in a fire. While the lawsuit was filed in the name of the landlord (i.e., the insured), discovery revealed that the lawsuit was actually a subrogation lawsuit, brought by the landlord’s insurance carrier. The lower court granted the tenant’s motion for summary judgment based on the Sutton Doctrine, holding that the tenant was an implied co-insured under the landlord’s policy. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that although the lease agreement did not reference insurance, the Sutton Doctrine applied, which barred the landlord’s carrier from subrogating against the tenant. In 2016, Anita Pearson (Ms. Pearson) signed a lease agreement to rent a home in Nashville, Tennessee, which was owned by John and Melody Patton (collectively, the Pattons). The lease stated that the Pattons were not responsible for the tenant’s personal property. The lease also stated that the tenant would be responsible for any damage caused by her negligence or misuse of the home. The lease was silent as to which party would maintain property casualty insurance and regarding implied co-insured status on any policy. Ms. Pearson purchased renter’s insurance for her personal property. The Pattons secured a property casualty insurance policy for the home. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Triable Issue of Fact Exists as to Insurer’s Obligation to Provide Coverage Under Occurrence Policy

March 08, 2021 — Valerie A. Moore & Kathleen E.M. Moriarty – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Guastello v. AIG Specialty Ins. Co. (No. G057714. filed 2/19/21 ord. pub. 2/23/21), a California appeals court held that triable issues of material fact exist which precluded summary judgment for an insurer seeking to disclaim coverage on the basis that the “occurrence” pre-dated the policy period where a dispute exists as to the timing of the subject “occurrence.” In Guastello, a subcontractor built retaining walls from 2003 to 2004 for a housing development in Dana Point, California. In 2010, one of these retaining walls collapsed causing damage to a residential lot owned by Thomas Guastello. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kathleen E.M. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Ms. Moriarty may be contacted at kemoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Colorado Supreme Court Weighs in on Timeliness of Claims Against Subcontractors in Construction Defect Actions

March 16, 2017 — Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction Litigation
On February 27, 2017, the Colorado Supreme Court announced its decision in the Goodman v. Heritage Builders, No. 16SA193, 2017 CO 13 (Colo. February 27, 2017) case. In ten short pages, the Colorado Supreme Court completely reshuffled Colorado construction law with respect to application of the statutes of limitation and repose on third-party claims in construction defect cases. Specifically, the Colorado Supreme Court overruled a series of earlier Court of Appeals' decisions that found C.R.S. § 13-80-104(1)(b)(II) (“104(1)(b)(II)”) had no effect on the six-year statute of repose. For context, 104(1)(b)(II) permitted third-party actions for indemnity and contribution to toll until ninety days after the claims in the underlying action were resolved by settlement or judgment. In the construction context, 104(1)(b)(II) was intended to allow a general contractor’s claims against liable subcontractors to toll for the statutorily defined period. This allowed the general contractor to first focus its attention on defending the claims against and thereafter to pursue its claims against the subcontractors. However, beginning in 2008, in the Thermo Dev., Inc. v. Cent. Masonry Corp., 195 P.3d 1166 (Colo. App. 2008) case, the Colorado Court of Appeals began chipping away at the force of 104(1)(b)(II). This trend continued in the Shaw Constr., LLC v. United Builder Servs., Inc., 2012 COA 24, 296 P.3d 145 decision, the Sierra Pac. Indus., v. Bradbury, 2016 COA 132, _ P.3d_ decision, and culminating in the Sopris Lodging, LLC v. Schofield Excavation, Inc., 2016 COA 158, reh'g denied (Nov. 23, 2016) decision. Effectively, in these decisions, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that third-party claims could not be brought beyond Colorado’s six-year statute of repose, regardless if they were brought within the ninety day tolling provision set forth in 104(1)(b)(II). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. Meyer may be contacted at meyer@hhmrlaw.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES