FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

June 18, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim. I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act. In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date. 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

---

Federal Judge Vacates CDC Eviction Moratorium Nationwide

May 24, 2021 — Zachary Kessler, Amanda G. Halter & Adam Weaver - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Late last week a federal district court judge for the District of Columbia held that the nationwide eviction moratorium issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) went beyond the agency’s statutory authority and vacated it nationwide. This decision effectively expanded a similar decision by a Texas federal court last month that found the CDC’s moratorium was an improper use of federal power but limited its decision to the litigants to that case and declined to vacate the CDC order. The CDC eviction moratorium (the Order) was designed to halt certain cases of eviction for low-income tenants and was the most significant nationwide tenant protection for nonpayment of rent due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While the federal government has said it will appeal this week’s decision and has sought to stay its effect, it is a significant blow to the federal government’s efforts to halt evictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This decision may now open an avenue for landlords to begin evicting nonpaying tenants that had been halted by the eviction moratorium since mid-2020. Reprinted courtesy of Zachary Kessler, Pillsbury, Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury and Adam Weaver, Pillsbury Mr. Kessler may be contacted at zachary.kessler@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

First-Time Buyers Shut Out of Expanding U.S. Home Supply

August 13, 2014 — Prashant Gopal – Bloomberg
The four-bedroom house that Ilia Nielsen-Dembe purchased in west Denver earlier this year wasn’t her top choice. The first-time buyer had to settle on a home in a neighborhood with a high crime rate after losing out on bids for five properties in more desirable areas. “I definitely sacrificed in terms of location,” said Nielsen-Dembe, 33, who lives with her husband and two daughters in the house she bought in April for $184,500. “I had to cross streets that were not ideal in order to get a house.” While the supply of U.S. homes for sale is at an almost two-year high and price gains are moderating, buyers such as Nielsen-Dembe wouldn’t know it. An inventory crunch for entry-level houses has only worsened during the past year as discounted foreclosures become scarce and cash-paying investors snap up affordable listings to convert to rentals. Properties at the lower end of the market are also the most likely to have underwater mortgages, keeping would-be sellers from moving. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg
Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net

---

Incorrect Information Provided on Insurance Application Defeats Claim for Coverage

July 31, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's finding of no duty to defend or indemnify because of an answer on the insured's application for insurance. Snell v. United Specialty Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. App. 12733 (11th Cir. May 28, 2024). Snell was hired by a family, the Westons, to turn an above ground trampoline into a ground level trampoline. This involved various tasks like tree pruning and removal, installation of shrubs, trees, and sod, and setting up a sprinkler irrigation system. The trampoline aspect of the project involved site work to make a place for the trampoline and assembly and installation of the trampoline. The site work included excavation of a pit, installation of a drain and drainage sand, excavation of a trench to install a drainage pipe, installation of the drainage pipe and of a drain pump, construction of concrete block retainer walls and installation of a wood cap on the retainer walls. Then, Snell unboxed the trampoline, assembled it, and lowered it into the pit. A few years later, a visitor to the Weston home sued the Westons for injuries to his daughter suffered on the trampoline. The complaint alleged the daughter was injured when she "fell off of the trampoline and struck her face on the wooden board" surrounding the tramline. The complaint was later amended to add Snell as a defendant. 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

---

Blockbuster Breakwater: Alternative Construction Method Put to the Test in Tampa Bay

August 14, 2023 — Scott Judy - Engineering News-Record
On June 7, 2023, Tampa Bay news reporters trekked to the Sunshine Skyway bridge for a Florida Dept. of Transportation press conference that would explain the mystery behind the hundreds of curiously shaped concrete structures lining nearly the entire length of the span’s mile-plus-long south fishing pier access road. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Judy, Engineering News-Record Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Professional Liability Alert: Joint Client Can't Claim Privilege For Communications With Attorney Sued By Another Joint Client

February 05, 2015 — David W. Evans and Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Anten v. Superior Court (No. B258437 – Filed 1/30/2015), the Second Appellate District held that when joint clients do not sue each other, but one of them sues their former attorney, the nonsuing client cannot prevent the parties to the malpractice suit from discovering or introducing otherwise privileged attorney-client communications made in the course of the joint representation. Under California Evidence Code §958, in lawsuits between an attorney and a client based on an alleged breach of a duty arising from their attorney-client relationship, communications relevant to the alleged breach are not protected by the attorney-client privilege. Similarly, Evidence Code §962 provides that if multiple clients retain or consult with an attorney on a matter of common interest and the joint clients later sue each other, then the communications between either client and the attorney made in the course of that relationship are not privileged in the suit between the clients. 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

---

Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolution Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

January 10, 2018 — Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter

On December 28, 2017, the Ohio Court of Appeals (Eighth District) held in GrafTech International, Ltd., et al. v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., et al., No. 105258 that coverage for alleged injurious exposures to coal tar pitch was barred by a liability insurance policy’s absolute pollution exclusion. Applying Ohio law, the court concluded that Pacific Employers had no duty to defend GrafTech or pay defense costs in connection with claims by dozens of workers at Alcoa smelting plants that they were exposed to hazardous substances in GrafTech products supplied to Alcoa as early as 1942.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

---

CA Supreme Court Finds “Consent-to-Assignment” Clauses Unenforceable After Loss Occurs During the Policy Period

August 26, 2015 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Fluor Corporation v. Superior Court (No. S205889; filed 8/20/15), the California Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 934, holding that notwithstanding the presence of a consent-to-assignment clause in a liability policy, Insurance Code section 520 bars an insurer from refusing to honor the insured’s assignment of coverage after a loss has taken place during the policy period. In Henkel, the Supreme Court limited the ability of corporate successors to obtain coverage under predecessors’ policies on a contract theory. The Henkel Court held that where a successor corporation contractually assumed liabilities of the predecessor corporation, the insurance benefits would not automatically follow. The Henkel Court ruled that if the predecessor company’s policy contains a consent-to-assignment clause, any assignment of insurance policy benefits to a successor corporation required the insurer’s consent. The Court said that policy benefits are not transferable choses in action unless at the time of corporate transfer they could be reduced to a monetary sum certain. The Court reasoned that historic product or environmental liabilities might not even be known to the predecessor at that time, much less reduced to a sum certain, so coverage for such risks could not be considered a transferable chose in action. Thus, where the liability was inchoate at the time of the corporate transaction, the Henkel Court said that coverage would not necessarily follow because the insurer’s duties had not yet attached. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---