FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Leonard Fadeeff v. State Farm General Insurance Company

September 21, 2020 — Michael Velladao - Lewis Brisbois
In Fadeeff v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 50 Cal.App.5th 94 (May 22, 2020), the California Court of Appeal reversed the entry of summary judgment in favor of State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm”) in connection with a smoke and soot damage claim made by Leonard and Patricia Fadeeff (the “Fadeeffs”) for damage sustained by their home due to the 2015 Valley Fire. The parties’ dispute arose out of the Valley Fire, which took place in Lake County, California. The Fadeeffs’ home was located in Hidden Valley Lake. The Fadeeffs submitted a claim to State Farm under their homeowners policy. Initially, after an adjuster inspected the home and noted that it was “well maintained” with no apparent maintenance issues, State Farm made a series of payments and arranged for ServPro to clean the smoke and soot damage. Subsequently, the Fadeeffs retained an independent adjuster and submitted a supplemental claim in the amount of $75,000. State Farm retained a different unlicensed adjuster to investigate the claim and retained expert, Forensic Analytical Consulting Services (FACS) to inspect the Fadeeffs’ home, and another company referred to as HVACi, to inspect the Fadeeffs’ HVAC system. The independent adjuster used to investigate the Fadeeffs’ supplemental claim failed to follow company guidelines in connection with using experts, which required specific questions to be addressed by the expert. In addition, FACS only took surface samples of the walls in the Fadeeffs’ home. Ultimately, the reports prepared by FACS and HVACi concluded that no additional work was required to remediate the damage sustained by the Fadeeffs’ home. Thereafter, State Farm denied the Fadeeffs’ supplemental claim. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Velladao, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Velladao may be contacted at Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Milhouse Engineering and Construction, Inc. Named 2022 A/E/C Building a Better World Award Winner

September 12, 2022 — Milhouse Engineering and Construction, Inc.
CHICAGO, IL, Sept. 07, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- PSMJ has awarded Milhouse Engineering and Construction, Inc. (Milhouse) their 2022 Building a Better World award. This recognition is given to a firm in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction industries that significantly and positively impacts the communities they serve. This highly regarded award is chosen by a panel of industry visionaries and leaders based on the impact and nature of the activities completed by the organization. "Firms nominated for an A/E/C Building a Better World Award come in all sizes, from less than 10 architects to over 10,000 civil engineers. What they share is a realization that giving time and resources to those less fortunate is the right thing to do. And more and more, the most sought-after candidates for open positions are judging firms on their level of corporate social responsibility," says Frank A. Stasiowski, FAIA, Founder and CEO of PSMJ Resources, Inc. In 2012, Milhouse established Milhouse Charities, the 501c3 non-profit arm of the Milhouse family of companies. Milhouse Charities supports the Milhouse vision "to be a positive impact" by supporting the education, exposure and advancement of underrepresented youth and minorities in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). Since its founding in 2012, Milhouse Charities has invested over $1 Million and 7,000 hours of community service into STEM, resource, and mentorship programs. The organization has made a global impact having done service in Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, New York, Atlanta, and throughout Africa. About Milhouse Engineering and Construction, Inc. Milhouse Engineering and Construction, Inc. is a full-service engineering firm offering expertise in civil, mechanical, electrical, structural and environmental engineering, as well as construction and program management. We deliver creative solutions to complex problems around the globe. Driven by our diverse perspectives, we challenge the status quo to pursue a brighter future for the communities we serve. Milhouse has been named a 'Best & Brightest Companies to Work For' for 17 years in a row and is ranked as an 'ENR Top 500 Design Firm'. Follow us on LinkedIn and Facebook. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Arizona Is Smart About Water. It Should Stay That Way.

February 19, 2024 — Mark Gongloff - Bloomberg
You really have to hand it to Arizona: Even as its population has doubled and it has suffered through a decades long megadrought, the state uses less water today than it did 40 years ago. This success story is the result of what may be the smartest, most conservative approach to water in the country. But homebuilders want to scrap some key elements of this careful system. It’s a bad idea, especially as the climate changes, making the state’s water supply less reliable. And it’s a cautionary tale for the rest of us as we try to adapt to a warming world. In 1980, alarmed at watching its precious groundwater disappear amid rapid development, Arizona passed the Groundwater Management Act. The law established the Arizona Department of Water Resources, set up water-management zones around cities and required new housing developments to prove they had access to 100 years’ worth of clean water, among other things. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mark Gongloff, Bloomberg

---

Blindly Relying on Public Adjuster or Loss Consultant’s False Estimate Can Play Out Badly

May 03, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Insurance policies, particularly property insurance policies, have a concealment or fraud provision that, in essence, gives the insurer an out if the insured submits a fraudulent claim, a false claim, or conceals material facts. Unlike a traditional fraud claim where a party needs to prove intent, the provision is broad enough that it does not require any intent behind making a false statement. See Mezadieu v. Safepoint Ins. Co., 46 Fla.L.Weekly D691c (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). For this reason, and as exemplified below, do NOT blindly rely on a public adjuster or loss consultant’s estimate that contains false statements because those false statements, particularly if you know they are false, can play out badly for you! Review the estimate and ask questions about it to make sure you understand what is being included in the loss or damages estimate. In Mezadieu, a homeowner submitted a claim to her property insurance carrier due to a second-floor water leak emanating from her bathroom. She submitted an estimate from her public adjuster that included damages for her kitchen cabinets directly below the second-floor bathroom, as well as other items on her first-floor. Her carrier denied coverage based on the exclusion that the policy excludes damage caused by “[c]onstant or repeated seepage of water or steam…which occurs over a period of time.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Court of Appeal Holds Only “Named Insureds” May Sue for Bad Faith Under California FAIR Plan Policy

May 10, 2021 — Valerie A. Moore & Kathleen E.M. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Wexler v. California Fair Plan Association (No. 303100, filed 4/14/21), Brooke Wexler’s parents insured their residence, which was located in a mountainous high-fire risk area, with a California FAIR Plan Association owner-occupied dwelling policy. The policy only listed Wexler’s parents and did not name Wexler, their adult child, under the policy’s “Insured Name” section. The FAIR Plan expressly disclaimed coverage for “unnamed people,” referred to by the court as the “no-coverage-for-unnamed-persons clause.” FAIR Plan was created by the Legislature in 1968 and is a joint reinsurance association created to give homeowners in high risk areas access to basic property insurance and is a self-described “insurer of last resort.” 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

---

North Carolina Federal Court Holds “Hazardous Materials” Exclusion Does Not Bar Duty to Defend Under CGL Policy for Bodily Injury Claims Arising Out of Direct Exposure to PFAs

December 07, 2020 — Paul A. Briganti - White and Williams LLP
On October 19, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina held that a “hazardous materials” exclusion contained in a CGL policy did not preclude a duty to defend the insured against claims alleging bodily injury resulting from direct exposure to perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which are man-made chemicals within the group of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs).[1] In Colony Insurance Company v. Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, the insured was named a defendant in hundreds of underlying suits relating to its manufacture of fire equipment containing aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), a fire suppressant.[2] The underlying plaintiffs alleged that: (a) the AFFF contained PFOS and PFOA; (b) PFOA and PFOS are highly carcinogenic; and (c) exposure to AFFF contained in the defendants’ products caused bodily injury or property damage. Around a third of the underlying complaints alleged harm from both direct exposure to the foam and exposure through the environment. Representative language from those complaints was: “[d]uring [underlying plaintiff’s] employment as a firefighter and firefighter instructor, he was significantly exposed to elevated levels of PFOS and PFOA in their concentrated form as a result of regular contact with [d]efendant’s AFFF products and through PFOS and PFOA having contaminated the FireCollege well system.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Toronto Contractor Bondfield Wins Court Protection as Project Woes Mount

May 27, 2019 — Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-Record
A Toronto area contractor at the center of a series of delays to major projects in Ontario, including a $139-million hospital expansion, has won court protection from its creditors. The Ontario Superior Court earlier this month granted Bondfield Construction Co.’s application for protection, court records show. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Van Voorhis, ENR

---

Does Your 998 Offer to Compromise Include Attorneys’ Fees and Costs?

June 15, 2017 — Anthony J. Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer to compromise is explained in section 998(c)(1):

If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added). The Basic Requirements for a Valid 998 Offer Pursuant to section 998(b), a 998 offer must satisfy three principal conditions: (1) it must be contained in a writing; (2) it must state the terms and conditions of the proposed judgment or award; and (3) it must contain a provision allowing the offeree to accept the offer by signing a statement to that effect. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(b). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony J. Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

---