FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Illinois Federal Court Applies Insurer-Friendly “Mutual Exclusive Theories” Test To Independent Counsel Analysis

November 09, 2020 — Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
Insureds often request independent counsel when insurers agree to provide a defense subject to a reservation of rights, pursuant to which an insurer takes the position that certain damages may not be indemnifiable. Requests for independent counsel are often rooted in fear that a defense attorney who has a relationship with the insurer may be incentivized to defend the insured in a way that maximizes the potential for the insurer to succeed on its coverage defenses. As explained by the Illinois Supreme Court in Maryland Cas. Co. v. Peppers, 355 N.E.2d 24 (Ill. 1976), when a conflict of interest arises between an insurer and its insured, the attorney appointed by the insurer is faced with serious ethical questions and the insured is entitled to its own attorney. Illinois courts generally follow the rule that an insured is entitled to independent counsel upon a showing of an actual conflict. In Builders Concrete Servs., LLC v. Westfield Nat’l Ins. Co., No. 19 C 7792, 2020 WL 5518474 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 14, 2020), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently addressed a dispute between an insurer and its insured about independent counsel. Westfield insured Builders Concrete Services (BCS). Focus Construction hired BCS as a subcontractor to perform concrete work on a new apartment building. BCS’ work included pouring concrete for structural columns, one of which buckled and failed. BCS sued Focus Construction for withholding payment, and Focus Construction counter-sued for breach of contract and negligence relating to BCS’ alleged faulty work that caused the column to fall. Focus Construction’s counterclaim alleged that the column failure damaged other parts of the building on which Builders did not perform work. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

---

Construction Legislation Likely to Take Effect July 1, 2020

April 27, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Coronavirus is dominating the news and planning for the effects of COVID-19 is a big deal for construction companies in the Commonwealth. However, these issues, though immediate, are not the only ones that have popped up here at the beginning of 2020. Several bills that I have been monitoring (here and here) have recently passed both the House of Delegates and the Virginia Senate and are on their way to the Governor for signature (a signature that is most likely going to happen in each case). Among those bills that did not pass are a bill that would have eliminated right to work in Virginia and allowed so called “closed shops” as well as fair share fees legislation that would have required those that were not part of a union to pay certain portions of union expenses. 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

---

What Construction Contractors Should Know About the California Government Claims Act

May 28, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
If you work on state or local public works projects in California you should have at least a basic understanding of the Government Claims Act formerly known as the Tort Claims Act (Govt. Code §§ 900 et seq.). In the event of a dispute with a public entity, the Government Claims Act will usually apply, absent contractual provisions providing otherwise (Govt. Code §§930, 930.2) (e.g., in a construction contract), and requires that a “claim” first be presented to a “public entity” before a claimant files a lawsuit against the public entity. Failure to comply with the Government Claims Act can serve as a bar to maintaining a lawsuit against a public entity. What types of claims does the Government Claims Act apply to? The Government Claims Act broadly applies to most claims against state and local public entities. This is not limited to construction projects and includes all claims for “money or damage” arising from death, personal injury, breach of contract, and damage to real and personal property, wrongful death, or breach of contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Avoiding Lender Liability for Credit-Related Actions in California

October 27, 2016 — Anthony J. Carucci – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Aside from general statutory prohibitions on lender discrimination, there are certain circumstances under California law in which lenders may be held liable for credit-related actions, such as negotiating or denying credit. See generally 11 Cal. Real Est. § 35:3 (explaining that the business of lending money is subject to the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq., the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 12900 et seq., the Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, et seq.). Specifically, lenders have been held liable for credit-related actions where, among other things, the lender (1) breached a loan commitment; (2) committed fraud; or (3) breached a fiduciary duty owed to the borrower. The Lender-Borrower Relationship As a general rule, a lender does not owe a duty of care to a borrower when the lender’s involvement in a transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a lender of money. Oaks Management Corp. v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 453, 466 (“[I]t is established that absent special circumstances . . . a loan transaction is at arms-length and there is no fiduciary relationship between the borrower and lender.”); Nymark v. Heart Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1096 (holding lender owed no duty of care to a borrower in preparing an appraisal of the real property that was security for the loan when the purpose of the appraisal is to protect the lender by satisfying it that the collateral provided adequate security for the loan, and noting that “as a general rule, a financial institution owes no duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money”). 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

---

In Personal Injury Actions, Prejudgment Interest on Costs Not Recoverable

March 12, 2015 — Elizabeth P. Trent and Leah B. Mason – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Bean v. Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation, 2015 DJDAR 2864 (“Bean”), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held in the published portion of its opinion that courts may not award prejudgment interest on costs in personal injury actions. In Bean, an employee of defendant Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation (Pacific Coast) drove his vehicle into plaintiff Daniel William Bean’s truck while Bean was stopped at a red light. Bean suffered serious injuries and sued Pacific Coast. A jury found Pacific Coast negligent and awarded Bean $1,271,594.74 in damages. This amount exceeded Bean’s $999,999.00 statutory offer to compromise issued to Pacific Coast prior to trial, which Pacific Coast rejected. Reprinted courtesy of Elizabeth P. Trent, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Leah B. Mason, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Trent may be contacted at etrent@hbblaw.com Ms. Mason may be contacted at lmason@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

White House Plan Would Break Up Corps Civil-Works Functions

July 18, 2018 — Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-Record
As part of a sweeping federal government reorganization proposal, the White House has recommended shifting the Army Corps of Engineers’ civil-works operation to the Dept. of Transportation and the Dept. of the Interior. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Ichniowski, ENR
Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com

---

Nevada Provides Independant Counsel When Conflict Arises Between Insurer and Insured

December 02, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Nevada Supreme Court, responding to certified questions, determined that an insurer must provide independent counsel for its insured when a conflict of interest arises between the insurer and insured. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hansen, 2015 Nev. LEXIS 86 (Nev. Sept. 24, 2015). The insured struck the vehicle of another driver, Hansen. Hansen sued the insured alleging both negligence and various intentional torts. State Farm agreed to defend under a reservation of rights. The reservation of rights letter reserved the right to deny coverage for liabiltiy resulting from intentional acts and punitive damages. 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

---

Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP Expands into Georgia

November 03, 2016 — Beverley BevenFlorez – CDJ Staff
Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP (WSHB) has opened a new regional office in Atlanta, Georgia. Richard E. Zelonka, Jr., will be the Managing Partner. With over a decade of trial experience, Mr. Zelonka has handled complex litigation in both state and federal courts throughout the Southeastern United States. “I am thrilled to be joining Wood Smith Henning & Berman. WSHB’s sterling reputation, coupled with its national footprint, is especially attractive. That, coupled with the Firm’s passionate dedication to their clients, made this move a very easy choice for me,” said Mr. Zelonka. “I could not be more excited to lead WSHB’s new Georgia office.” The Firm’s Atlanta office is located at 1170 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1200, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. The main phone number is (404) 885-5700. The fax number is (404) 506-9108. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---