Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

New York Court Finds No Coverage Owed for Asbestos Losses Because Insured Failed to Prove Material Terms

February 15, 2021 — Gregory S. Capps & Marianne E. Bradley - White and Williams LLP
In the long-tail insurance context, it is not unusual to have issues arise addressing “lost” or “missing” policies. In an opinion issued on January 22, 2021, a New York court ruled that an insurer did not owe coverage to its insured for underlying asbestos claims because the insured had failed to establish the material terms of a “lost” policy under which it sought coverage for the underlying claims. The lawsuit, Cosmopolitan Shipping Company, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Company,[1] arose out of a coverage dispute between Plaintiff Cosmopolitan Shipping Co., Inc. (Cosmopolitan) and its insurance carrier, Continental Insurance Company (CIC), in connection with bodily injury claims arising out of asbestos exposure. The case provides a good analysis of what an insured must do to establish coverage under a “lost” or “missing” policy. During and after World War II, Cosmopolitan chartered and operated a number of shipping vessels on behalf of United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA). In the 1980s, seamen who had worked on board Cosmopolitan’s vessels between 1946 and 1948 filed lawsuits against Cosmopolitan seeking damages for injuries arising out of alleged exposure to asbestos on Cosmopolitan’s vessels. Cosmopolitan sought coverage from CIC for the claims, alleging that CIC had insured Cosmopolitan’s vessels during the relevant time period under a protection and indemnity policy issued to the UNRAA (the P&I Policy). Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Marianne E. Bradley, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Bradley may be contacted at bradleym@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pollution Created by Business Does Not Deprive Insured of Coverage

November 26, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court determined that coverage was properly denied under the pollution exclusion of the policies. Headwaters Resources, Inc. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20060 (10th Cir. Oct. 20, 2014). Over 400 residents of Chesapeake, Virginia, filed two lawsuits against the insured, Headwaters, alleged property damage and bodily injury due to pollution generated in connection with the development of a golf course. The complaints alleged that between 2002 and 2007, the defendants used 1.5 million tons of toxic fly ash during construction of a golf course. The insured allegedly transported the fly ash to an open pit adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The chemicals from the fly ash leached into the ground water, damaging the private wells. The fly ash pit also released airborne contaminants that produced a strong smell of ammonia. As a result of the alleged contamination, the property values of plaintiffs' homes depreciated and members of the community faced increased risk of serious bodily injuries caused by exposure to the fly ash. 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

Harmon Tower Construction Defects Update: Who’s To Blame?

August 17, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Reporting on the site VegasInc.com, Liz Benton notes that “nobody wants to take the fall for what happened at Harmon.” Work on the Harmon hotel building in Las Vegas’s CityCenter stopped in 2008 after 26 of the planned 49 stories were completed. Lorence Slutzky, a construction law professor at John Marshall Law School and a partner with the Chicago firm Robbins Schwartz Nicholas Lifton & Taylor told Benton that while inspectors and others are complicit, “the real responsibility rests with Perini, which has an obligation to comply with the plan specifications.” Perini’s claim is that they were given faulty design drawings. MGM disputes this.

Perini has offered to repair the building defects, however MGM has released a statement that they have “zero confidence or trust that Perini can and will properly fix a building it has so badly constructed thus far.” One MGM spokesperson likened these requests from Perini to “the director of ‘Ishar’ demanding a sequel.” “Ishtar,’ cost Columbia Pictures $55 million dollars and earned only $4.2 million in its initial run. Perini claims that MGM halted work because of the economy.

Read the full story…

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

Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us

December 02, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The proper venue for a Miller Act payment bond claim is “in the United States District Court for any district in which the contract was to be performed and executed, regardless of the amount in controversy.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(3)(B). Well, there are a number of federal construction projects that take place outside of the United States. For these projects, where is the correct venue to sue a Miller Act payment bond if there is no US District Court where the project is located? A recent opinion out of the Southern District of Florida answers this question. In U.S. ex. rel. Salt Energy, LLC v. Lexon Ins. Co., 2019 WL 3842290 (S.D.Fla. 2019), a prime contractor was hired by the government to design and construct a solar power system for the US Embassy’s parking garage in Burkina Faso. The prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform a portion of its scope of work. The subcontractor remained unpaid in excess of $500,000 and instituted a Miller Act payment bond claim against the payment bond surety in the Southern District of Florida, Miami division. The surety moved to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Virginia arguing that the Southern District of Florida was an improper venue. The court agreed and transferred venue. Why? 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

Thanks to All for the 2024 Super Lawyers Nod!

May 13, 2024 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It is with humility and a sense of accomplishment that I announce that I have been selected for the seventh straight year to the Virginia Super Lawyers in the Construction Litigation category for 2024. Add this to my recent election to the Virginia Legal Elite in Construction and I’ve had a pretty good year. As always, I am thrilled to be included on these peer-elected lists. So without further ado, thank you to my peers and those on the panel at Virginia Super Lawyers for the great honor. I feel quite proud to be part of the 5% of Virginia attorneys that made this list for 2024. The full list of Virginia Super Lawyers will appear in the May edition of Richmond Magazine. Please check it out. If you want to see the lists before then, a digital version of the Virginia Super Lawyers Magazine is available here (click on the Virginia magazine). Thanks again to all of you who participated in my nomination and election. 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

Supreme Court of Idaho Rules That Substantial Compliance With the Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act Suffices to Bring Suit

July 31, 2018 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
In Davison v. Debest Plumbing, Inc., 416 P.3d 943 (Ida. 2018), the Supreme Court of Idaho addressed the issue of whether plaintiffs who provided actual notice of a defective condition, but not written notice as stated in the Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act (NORA), Idaho Code §§ 6-2501 to 6-2504, et. seq., substantially complied with the act and if the plaintiffs’ notice was sufficient to bring suit. Section 6-2503 of the NORA states that, “[p]rior to commencing an action against a construction professional for a construction defect, the claimant shall serve written notice of claim on the construction professional. The notice of claim shall state that the claimant asserts a construction defect claim against the construction professional and shall describe the claim in reasonable detail sufficient to determine the general nature of the defect.” Any action not complying with this requirement should be dismissed without prejudice. The court held that the defendant’s actual notice of the defect was sufficient to satisfy the objectives of the NORA and, thus, the plaintiffs’ action complied with the NORA. In Davison, Scott and Anne Davison hired general contractor Gould Custom Builders (Gould) to remodel a vacation home in McCall, Idaho. Gould subcontracted out the plumbing work to Debest Plumbing (Debest). This work included installing a bathtub. When the Davisons arrived at their home for the first time on July 25, 2013, they noticed a leak from the subject bathtub. The Davisons contacted Gould and, the next morning, Gil Gould arrived with a Debest employee to inspect the home. In addition to inspecting the home, the Debest employee repaired the leak and helped Gould remove some water-damaged material. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams, LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

Kentucky Supreme Court Creates New “Goldilocks Zone” to Limit Opinions of Biomechanical Experts

July 24, 2023 — Aimee E. Muller - Lewis Brisbois
Lexington, Ky. (June 26, 2023) – In a recent decision, the Kentucky Supreme Court placed stricter limitations on the opinions that biomechanical engineers may offer at trials in Kentucky courts. Specifically, the published opinion issued in Renot v. Securea, Supreme Ins. Co., 2023 Ky. LEXIS 163, recognizes a new space for the testimony of biomechanics experts – “The Goldilocks Zone.” Where is the Goldilocks Zone? The Goldilocks Zone is a perfect place in which the proffered testimony is neither too specific such that it wanders into the realm of medical causation, nor too general such that it fails to help a lay jury. Specifically, a biomechanical engineer’s expert testimony must be limited to the forces generated by the subject collision, the generally anticipated responses of a hypothetical person’s body to those forces, and the range of typical injuries resulting from such forces. Moreover, following Renot, a biomechanical engineer’s proffered opinions no longer may enter into the realm of diagnosing a specific medical condition associated with a traumatic injury. Instead, the question of whether a trauma actually caused or exacerbated a plaintiff’s injuries falls solely within the purview of a medical doctor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aimee E. Muller, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Muller may be contacted at Aimee.Muller@lewisbrisbois.com

North Dakota Court Determines Inadvertent Faulty Workmanship is an "Occurrence"

May 10, 2013 — Tred Eyerly
Joining what it called the majority of jurisdictions, the North Dakota Supreme Court found that damage caused by faulty workmanship can be an "occurrence." K&L Homes, Inc. v. Am. Family Mutual Ins. Co., 2013 N.D. LEXIS 61 (N.D. April 5, 2013). The insured, K&L, was a general contractor who was sued after completing construction of a new home. The suit was based upon breach of contract and breach of implied warranties claims. The homeowners alleged that improper compacting of soil had caused shifting of their home, leading to property damage. K&L had hired a subcontractor to do the soil compaction work. The insurer denied coverage. K&L sued the insurer, but lost at the summary judgment stage. On appeal, K&L argued the policy should be interpreted to give effect to the document as a whole and the "subcontractor exception" to the "your work" exclusion should apply. 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