Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds Fire Damage Resulted from Single Occurrence

November 21, 2018 — Brian Margolies - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In its recent decision in Secura Ins. v. Lyme St. Croix Forest Co., LLC 2018 WI 103 (Oct. 30, 2018), the Wisconsin Supreme Court had occasion to consider whether a forest fire that caused damage to several homes and properties should be considered a single or multiple occurrences. Secura insured Lyme St. Croix Forest Company under a general liability policy. Of relevance was the policy’s $500,000 sublimit of coverage for property damage due to fire arising from logging or lumbering operations, subject to a $2 million general policy aggregate limit. Lyme St. Croix sought coverage under the policy for a fire that resulted from its logging equipment. The fire lasted for three days, burning nearly 7,500 acres and causing damage to numerous homes and businesses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

New Home Permits Surge in Wisconsin

October 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
September saw a 42% increase in the number of permits issued to build new homes in the metro areas of Wisconsin. MTD Marketing Services of Wisconsin described it as “another good month as starts continue to increase across the state.” In September 2012, 266 permits were issued, while September 2013 saw that increase to 378. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Illinois Attorney General Warns of Home Repair Scams

November 27, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
After storms damaged homes in Illinois, Lisa Madigan, the state’s Attorney General, warned consumers “to be cautious and on alert for scammers trying to take advantage of people in need of assistance.” Ms. Madigan noted that home repair scammers go into areas with storm damage convince homeowners to pay more than they should to repair storm damage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

LA’s $1.2 Billion Graffiti Towers Put on Sale After Bankruptcy

June 04, 2024 — John Gittelsohn - Bloomberg
For sale: Steel skeletons of three towers in downtown Los Angeles, erected by a Chinese developer that spent $1.2 billion before running into financial troubles. The site, called Oceanwide Plaza, became famous this year when graffiti artists covered the 49-floor-tall structures. Now, the property is going on the market, with lenders and other creditors needing about $400 million to recoup their money. The brokerage Colliers and advisory firm Hilco Real Estate have been hired to market and handle a sale of the property, subject to bankruptcy court approval, according to a statement. “We are determined to run a disciplined and orderly process to identify the right developer to finish the project in time for the 2028 Summer Olympics,” said Mark Tarczynski, an executive vice president at Colliers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg

New York Court of Appeals Addresses Choice of Law Challenges

August 20, 2018 — Grace V. Hebbel - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In June, the New York Court of Appeals examined the application of a New York Choice of Law provision in a contract – a determinative issue for the case. In Ontario, Inc. v. Samsung C&T Corp., the issue was whether the plaintiff’s claims were subject to Ontario, Canada’s 2-year statute of limitations or New York’s 6-year statute of limitations for breach of contract where the contract contained a broad New York Choice of Law provision. The court found that pursuant to New York’s borrowing statute, Ontario’s more restrictive statute of limitations applied. The action was dismissed as time-barred, serving as a harsh reminder of the potential effects of choice of law and limitations periods. The suit arose out of the following facts. In 2008, an Ontario renewable energy developer, SkyPower Corp. (“SkyPower”), entered into a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with the defendants which allowed the defendants to review SkyPower’s confidential and proprietary information. The review was conditioned on restricted disclosure and the requirement that the information would be destroyed after review. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Grace V. Hebbel, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at gvh@sdvlaw.com

Court Rejects Efforts to Limit Scope of Judgment Creditor’s Direct Action Under Insurance Code Section 11580

May 01, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Ins. Co. of St. of PA v. Amer. Safety Indemnity Co. (No. B283684, filed 3/1/19) (“ICSOP”), a California appeals court rejected one insurer’s efforts to limit the scope of another insurer’s direct action as a judgment creditor under Insurance Code section 11580(b)(2). In ICSOP, homeowners filed a claim in arbitration against their general contractor alleging damages from subsidence. While the arbitration was pending, the general contractor filed suit against the grading subcontractor seeking indemnity and contribution. The complaint attached the homeowners’ complaint in arbitration pleading damages of $2.3 million, and alleged that the subcontractors had a duty to indemnify for those damages. The arbitrator awarded the homeowners $1.1 million. The general contractor was insured by plaintiff ICSOP, which paid the arbitration award. A default judgment was entered against the grading subcontractor for $1.5 million, that included both the arbitration award plus $356,340 for the general contractor’s attorney’s fees. American Safety insured the grading subcontractor but refused to indemnify ICSOP. ICSOP then sued American Safety on the default judgment, pursuant to Insurance Code section 11580(b). The trial court granted summary judgment for ICSOP and the appeals court affirmed. Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
The Supreme Court of Oregon has concluded in an en banc decision that a motion to reconsider a summary judgment is not a motion for a new trial. In coming to their conclusion the court overturned an earlier Oregon Supreme Court case, Carter v. U.S. National Bank. Although the decision does not bear on construction defects, the underlying case did. Due to the decision, these claims can now be evaluated in a trial. The case, Association of Unit Owners of Timbercrest Condominiums v. Warren, came about after an apartment complex was converted into condominium units. The developers hired Big Al’s Construction for some of the remodeling work. The condominium association later sued the developer and the contractor over claims of construction defects. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted. But that wasn’t the end of things. The plaintiff soon filed a “motion to reconsider,” noting that the summary judgment seemed to be in conflict with both law and other recent rulings, and additionally, the grounds for the decision were not in the order. The judge then notified the parties that the court had “pulled the trigger too quickly” and had seven questions for the parties to answer. The court dismissed all claims against the defendants. The defendants filed their responses, objecting that that “‘there is no such thing’ as a motion for reconsideration.” Further, while “the rules do allow for post-judgment review of pre-judgment rulings through a motion for a new trial,” the plaintiffs had not filed for a new trial. But did they need one? They did file an appeal. The judge in the case admitted that there was no such thing as a motion to reconsider, and felt bad about prematurely signing the judgment. The case was sent to the Court of Appeals to determine if the motion to reconsider was a request for a new trial. The Court of Appeals concurred. In reviewing the decision, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that there were a maximum of three questions to address. Was the motion for reconsideration a motion for a new trial? If so, was the later notice of appeal premature? And if so, was the plaintiff required to file a new appeal? The court determined that the answer to the first question was no. Prior decisions pointed to the conclusion “that a motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment amounts to a motion for a new trial,” but here the court concluded that “our prior cases erred,” and turned to the summary judgment rule for clarification. The court noted that “the rule contemplates that summary judgment and trial are separate and distinct events.” With this conclusion, the Oregon Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Duty to Defend Group Builders Case

May 10, 2013 — Tred Eyerly
On May 19, 2010, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals determined construction defect claims did not constitute an occurrence under a CGL policy.Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 123 Haw. 142, 231 P.3d 67 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010) ("Group Builders I"). The appeal in Group Builders I, however, only addressed the duty to indemnify. The ICA has now issued a second decision (unpublished), holding that there is was duty to defend Group Builders on the construction defect claims under Hawaii law, based upon the policy language and the allegations in the underlying complaint. Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2013 Haw.App. LEXIS 207 (Haw. Ct. App. April 15, 2013). The underlying suit involved allegations by Hilton Hotels Corp. that Group Builders, a subcontractor working on an addition to the hotel, was responsible for mold found after completion of the project. Hilton alleged that the "design, construction, installation, and/or selection of the . . . building exterior wall finish . . . did not provide an adequate air and/or moisture barriers." The counts alleged against Group Builders included breach of contract and negligence. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES