Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 2: Coverage for Smoke-Related Damages

July 03, 2022 — Scott P. DeVries & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
For many policyholders, smoke emanating from wildfire causes as much if not more damage than the fire itself. In this post in the Blog’s Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, we discuss damages caused by smoke emanating from wildfires. Some insurers argue that policies are limited to fire damage to the insured property and do not include smoke damage associated with nearby fires. A treatise frequently cited by insurers states otherwise: “The concept that fire insurance covers non-fire damage which is the proximate result of fire finds application also when the fire occurs on other property and causes harm to the insured property. In such case, the harm to the insured property, even though it is a non-fire harm, has long been recognized to be the result of fire, and, therefore, within the policy coverage.”[1] Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

General Contractor’s Professional Malpractice/Negligence Claim Against Design Professional

November 30, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent case supports a professional malpractice (negligence) claim by a general contractor against a design professional by reversing a trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the design professional and finding a question of fact remained as to an architect’s role in the renovation of a public construction project. By the appellate court finding that a question of fact remained, the appellate court was finding that it was a triable issue, which is exactly what the general contractor wanted in this case. Getting this issue and the facts to the jury is the leverage the general contractor presumably wanted. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team for Prevailing on a Highly Contested Motion to Quash!

January 08, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to Newport Partners Tyler Offenhauser and Jonathan Cothran, and Associate Anisha Kohli, who recently prevailed on behalf of BWB&O’s client before the Orange County Superior Court on a highly contested Motion to Quash Service based on Plaintiff’s failure to timely file and serve a DOE Amendment, naming our client. BWB&O’s client was the owner of a building where Plaintiff, a licensed electrician, was electrocuted while performing an upgrade to the building’s electrical infrastructure. Plaintiff’s original lawsuit named only the building’s tenant, who was also represented by BWB&O. BWB&O was successful earlier this year on a Motion for Summary Judgment under the Privette Doctrine and won judgment on behalf of the client/tenant. While that MSJ was pending, Plaintiff surreptitiously added the building’s owner to the suit with a DOE Amendment, after several months earlier learning the owner and then tenant were entities operated by the same individual. However, Plaintiff never informed counsel or any other party of the filing. Moreover, after the MSJ was granted, Plaintiff then waited several more months to serve the building’s owner. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Mobile Home Owners Not a Class in Drainage Lawsuit

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

Comparing it to a “complex construction defect action,” the California Court of Appeals for Orange County has rejected the claims of a group of mobile home owners that they should be certified as a class in their lawsuit against Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park. The Appeals court sustained the judgment of the lower court. The court issued a decision in the case of Criswell v. MMR Family LLC on January 17, 2012.

The claims made by the group were that the owners and operators of the mobile home park had known of an “on-going and potentially worsening shallow groundwater condition on the property” and had “exacerbated the problem by changing ‘the configuration and drainage related to the hillside that abuts’ the park.” The homeowners claimed that the class should consist of “any past or current homeowner during the same time frame” who had experienced “the accumulation of mold, fungus, and/or other toxins,” “property damage to his/her mobilehome and/or other property resulting from drainage problems, water seepage, water accumulation, moisture build-up, mold, fungus, and/or other toxins,” emotional distress related to drainage problems or mold, and finally health problems “resulting from exposure to drainage problems, water seepage, water accumulation, moisture build-up, mold, fungus, and/or other toxins, in or around one’s home, lot, or common areas of the park.”

The lower court concluded that while the limits of the class were identifiable, they failed to constitute a class in other ways. First, the people affected were small enough in number that they could be brought together. They “are not so numerous that it would be impracticable to bring them all before the Court.”

The court noted that while many of the homeowners would have issues in common, they did not find “a well-defined community of interest among the class members.” The Appeals Court wrote that “the individual issues affecting each mobile home and homeowner will predominate over the common issue of the presence of standing or pooling water in and around the park.” The court noted that each home would be affected differently by water and “the ‘accumulation of mold, fungus, and/or other toxins.’”

While the court conceded that there would be common issues, such as the “defendants’ alleged concealment of excess moisture conditions and their allegedly negligent roadwork and landscaping,” they noted that “these common issues would be swamped by the swarm of individual determinations of property damage, emotional distress, and personal injury.” The Appeals Court cited an earlier case that ruled against certification “if a class action ‘will splinter into individual trials.’” The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court that they could not proceed as a class.

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer's Bad Faith is Actionable Tort for Purposes of Choice of Law Analysis

January 08, 2024 — Janeen M. Thomas - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
When an insurer handles a claim in violation of its duty to act in good faith, policyholders are often eager to sue the insurer for bad faith, seeking extra contractual damages. Before filing suit, however, it is critical that policyholders consider what state’s law applies to the bad faith claim. In the recent case of Scott Fetzer Co. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc.1, the Ohio Supreme Court held that Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws, § 145 (“Section 145"), governed the choice of law dispute, which meant that the insured would be able to obtain discovery of Travelers’ claims-handling procedures, guidelines, internal documents, and communications relating to the claim.2 The insured, Scott Fetzer, argued that the materials were discoverable because documents evidencing an insurer’s bad faith are not protected by attorney-client privilege in Ohio. In response, Travelers argued that the laws of either Indiana (the place where the parties entered into the insurance contract), or Michigan (the location of the insured risk) governed the discovery dispute because Restatement (Second) § 193 (“Section 193”) governs the choice of law analysis for claims that “arise out of insurance contracts.”3 The laws of either Indiana or Michigan were more favorable for Travelers because Indiana does not allow discovery of materials covered by attorney-client privilege, and Michigan does not even recognize a cause of action for bad faith. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Janeen M. Thomas, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at JThomas@sdvlaw.com

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2022 New York – Metro Super Lawyers®

October 17, 2022 — Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that seven Partners from the Hawthorne, NY Office have been selected to the 2022 New York - Metro Super Lawyers list. 2022 New York – Metro Super Lawyers
Copernicus Gaza – Insurance Coverage

Jonathan Harwood – Professional Liability

Lisa Rolle – Construction Litigation

Christopher Russo – Professional Liability

Lisa Shrewsberry – Professional Liability

Stephen Straus – Insurance Coverage

Richard Traub – Insurance Coverage
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman
Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Earth Movement Exclusion Denied
October 28, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
After carefully dissecting the earth movement exclusion, the court denied the insurer’s motion for summary judgment. High Street Lofts Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109043 (D. Colo. Sept. 26, 2011).
The City of Boulder performed road repair work near High Street’s property, some of which involved the use of a vibrating compactor to compact and set the roadbed. High Street noticed damage to its building, such as cracks in walls, sloping of floors and separations of porches from the building itself. High Street contacted the City of Boulder, who forwarded the complaint to its contractor, Concrete Express, Inc.
High Street also filed a claim with its business insurer, American Family, who denied the claim. American Family relied on an opinion letter by High Street’s engineer. The letter indicated that the damage was the result of "soil consolidation/settlement," in response to the construction activities. Based on this letter American Family concluded the claim was excluded under the policy’s earth movement exclusion.
High Street sued American Family, who moved for summary judgment.
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Business and Professions Code Section 7031, Demurrers, and Just How Much You Can Dance
February 14, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Fights between owners and contractors under Business and Professions Code section 7031 can get nasty and detailed. An owner’s remedy under Section 7031, as courts have stated, can be “harsh[ ],” “draconian” and even “unjust” and damages can be significant. Panterra GP, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2022 WL 289216 (2022), a case decided this past month, is no different. It even involved a disagreement between the very justices deciding the case. The Panterra GP Case Panterra GP, Inc. was a licensed general contractor. Rosedale Bakersfield Retail VI, LLC and Movie Grill Concepts XX, LLC intended to hire Panterra GP to perform renovation work at the Studio Movie Grill in Bakersfield, California, but drafted a construction contract mistakenly listing Panterra Development Ltd., LLP as the contractor on the project. Panterra GP was the general partner of Panterra Development. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES