Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies

November 12, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
On August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public policy” of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in Pitzer had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law – which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York – that provision can be overridden by California’s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in Pitzer also held that the notice-prejudice rule “generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,” but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context. The Pitzer case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer “denied coverage based on Pitzer’s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer’s] consent before commencing the remediation process.” The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until “three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment “claiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy’s notice and consent provisions.” Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Trump Soho May Abandon Condos to Operate Mainly as Hotel

January 28, 2015 — Nadja Brandt – Bloomberg
Lower Manhattan’s Trump Soho, the five-year-old tower that was seized in a foreclosure amid slow sales of its condominiums, may drop its focus on part-time residences and operate most of the property solely as a hotel. The building’s new owner, Los Angeles-based CIM Group, is “stepping away” from marketing the roughly two-thirds of condos that remain unsold, said Gary Schweikert, the building’s managing director. The company is considering converting the unsold units at the tower permanently into hotel rooms, he said. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nadja Brandt, Bloomberg
Ms. Brandt may be contacted at nbrandt@bloomberg.net

Statute of Limitations Bars Lender’s Subsequent Action to Quiet Title Against Junior Lienholder Mistakenly Omitted from Initial Judicial Foreclosure Action

October 19, 2020 — Lyndsey Torp - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
A recently issued opinion by the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District tells a cautionary tale regarding a lender’s failure to name a junior lienholder in its initial judicial foreclosure action. In Cathleen Robin v. Al Crowell, — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2020 WL 5951506, plaintiffs sued defendant, a junior lienholder, for quiet title, having failed to name him in the initial judicial foreclosure action. Defendant raised the statute of limitations defense, but the trial court found in favor of plaintiffs. The court of appeal reversed, holding that the 60-year statute of limitations which the trial court applied only applied to a nonjudicial trustee’s sale, and the trial court could not exercise the trustee’s power of sale after the expiration of the statute of limitations on a judicial action to foreclose. In 2006, plaintiffs loaned Steve and Marta Weinstein (the “Weinsteins”) $450,000, secured by a deed of trust on one parcel of the Weinstein’s property. In 2007, the Weinsteins and defendant Al Crowell (“Crowell”) recorded a second deed of trust on the property, securing a promissory note executed by the Weinsteins in 2004. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lyndsey Torp, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Torp may be contacted at ltorp@swlaw.com

Primer Debuts on Life-Cycle Assessments of Embodied Carbon in Buildings

August 20, 2018 — Engineering News-Record
A recently released primer for the use of a life-cycle assessment approach to analyze the environmental impacts of buildings is considered a small but necessary step toward the ambitious goal of getting to net-zero embodied carbon and operational greenhouse gas emissions in the construction, operation and decommissioning of buildings. The LCA guide comes after the release of the first-of-its-kind benchmarking database of embodied carbon in existing buildings. And another first—a tool to calculate embodied carbon in construction—is on the horizon. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

Am I Still Covered Under the Title Insurance Policy?

May 01, 2019 — Ian Douglas - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
When transferring property for corporate restructuring or estate planning purposes, an important issue to consider is whether the successor owner will be covered by the grantee’s title insurance policy. Because title insurance policies insure only the title of the “Insured” identified in the policy, the successor in interest of the named insured may not be covered following the transfer. In older ALTA title insurance policies, the definition of “Insured” included the person or entity specifically identified in the policy as the insured, as well as any subsequent owners who took title to the subject property by operation of law. Because those policies did not clarify what the term “by operation of law” meant, it was unclear whether certain subsequent owners, such as a parent or subsidiary of the original insured, fell within the definition of “Insured”. In order to avoid any risk that a subsequent owner following a transfer between related parties was not covered by the grantor’s title policy, parties often obtained an “additional insured” endorsement which provided the subsequent owner coverage under the original policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ian Douglas, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Douglas may be contacted at idouglas@swlaw.com

Seabold Construction Ties Demise to Dispute with Real Estate Developer

April 29, 2024 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
When Harry W. Seabold, co-founder and CEO of Seabold Construction, died unexpectedly in January 2023 at age 69, the Beaverton, Ore.-based general contractor, which had been in business since 1984, kept chugging along for a year on two adjacent North Portland apartment projects. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Louisiana Court Applies Manifestation Trigger to Affirm Denial of Coverage

June 10, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Applying the manifestation trigger, the Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed denial of coverage where the property damage manifested after the policy period expired. Landry v. Williamson, 2015 La. App. Unpub. LEXIS 213 (La. Ct. App. May 1, 2015). On August 28, 2002, the Burkarts purchased a home from the Williamsons. One month later, water started leaking into the home during periods of rainfall. Suit was filed against the contractor, who was insured by Scottsdale. Scottsdale, who was added as a defendant, filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that it did not insure the developer at the time the alleged property damage occurred. Scottsdale's policy expired on August 1, 2002. The trial court granted Scottsdale's motion, finding coverage under its policy was not triggered because no property damage occurred during the policy period. 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

AB5 Construction Exemption – A Checklist to Avoid Application of AB5’s Three-Part Test

February 18, 2020 — Blake Dillion - Payne & Fears LLP
Construction companies have a unique opportunity to avoid the application of the restrictive new independent contractors law that took effect this year. This article provides a checklist that will help construction companies determine whether their relationships with subcontractors qualify for this exemption. California’s Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), which went into effect Jan. 1, 2020, enacts into a statute last year’s California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and the Court’s three-part standard (the “ABC test”) for determining whether a worker may be classified as an employee or an independent contractor. Certain professions and industries are potentially exempt from this standard, including the construction industry. The ABC test does not apply to the relationship between a contractor and an individual performing work pursuant to a subcontractor in the construction industry, if certain criteria are met. In order for the “construction exemption” to apply, the contractor must demonstrate that all of the following criteria are satisfied.

The subcontract is in writing;
The subcontractor is licensed by the Contractors State License Board and the work is within the scope of that license;
If the subcontractor is domiciled in a jurisdiction that requires the subcontractor to have a business license or business tax registration, the subcontractor has the required business license or business tax registration;
The subcontractor maintains a business location that is separate from the business or work location of the contractor;
The subcontractor has the authority to hire and to fire other persons to provide or assist in providing the services;
The subcontractor assumes financial responsibility for errors or omissions in labor or services as evidenced by insurance, legally authorized indemnity obligations, performance bonds, or warranties relating to the labor or services being provided; and
The subcontractor is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

The contractor must be able to establish each of the above criteria for the construction exemption to apply. If the contractor is successful, the long standing multi-factor test for determining independent contractor vs. employee status as described in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep’t of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989) will apply. You should review your processes and procedures for engaging subcontractors to ensure that you can satisfy the above criteria. If you have questions about the application of AB5, the construction exemption, or the Borello factors, you should speak with an attorney. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears
Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES