FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Remote Trials Can Control Prejudgment Risk

September 07, 2020 — Robert G. Devine, Victor J. Zarrilli & Kimberly M. Collins - White and Williams LLP
While courts across the country are largely unavailable to litigants demanding a jury trial, pre-judgment interest rules present an increasing penalty risk to a defendant wanting its day in court and may not always make a plaintiff whole. The COVID-19 pandemic has altered the manner in which people and industries operate across the board. In light of the need to maintain social distancing whenever possible, the use of technology to replace in-person appearances is becoming more commonplace. As more attorneys become comfortable with the remote platform, the willingness to consider a remote trial grows. With in-person jury trials suspended until further notice, it is important for attorneys and parties to consider the attendant consequences of the indefinite delay in waiting for a traditional jury trial. Aside from general inconvenience, continued delays may have a substantial financial impact, particularly with regard to the accumulation of pre-judgment interest. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Robert G. Devine, Victor J. Zarrilli and Kimberly M. Collins Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Zarrilli may be contacted at zarrilliv@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Collins may be contacted at collinsk@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

HHMR Lawyers Recognized by Best Lawyers

December 27, 2021 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
For over twenty years, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell has embodied and exemplified the principles of service and stewardship. In everything we do, we focus on serving our clients selflessly and to the best of our ability. In doing so, we always have in the forefront of our minds our obligation to act as the stewards of our clients’ trust, confidences, and resources. The firm itself, along with Carin Ramirez (in the area of Litigation - Insurance), and Dave McLain (in the area of Construction) were all recognized in this year's edition of the U.S. News Best Lawyers Journal. We could not be more proud of the firm we have created, or the service we are able to provide to Colorado's construction industry and its insurers. Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Hunton Insurance Practice Receives Top (Tier 1) National Ranking by US News & World Report

June 27, 2022 — Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP’s insurance practice has received U.S. News & World Report’s highest national ranking (Tier 1) in its ranking of Best Law Firms for Insurance Law. Law firms are ranked in tiers from 1 (highest) to 3 (lowest) based on quantitative data that speaks to general demographic and background information on the practice group, attorneys, and other data that speaks to the strengths of a law firm’s practice as well as qualitative client feedback about:

• the practice group’s expertise,
• responsiveness,
• understanding of a business and its needs,
• cost-effectiveness,
• civility, and
• whether the client would refer another client to the firm.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

---

Home Improvement in U.S. Slowing or Still Intact -- Which Is It?

May 20, 2015 — Anna-Louise Jackson – Bloomberg
Two indexes that gauge U.S. home-remodeling activity suggest a slower pace ahead. Wall Street seems to disagree. Future market conditions measured by the National Association of Home Builders’ Remodeling Market Index fell to 55.4 in the three months ended March 31 from a record-high of 59.5 in the fourth quarter, data from the group showed Thursday. Similarly, a leading indicator of remodeling work created by Harvard University projects annual growth in home-improvement spending will slow to 2.9 percent by year end from a projected 6.5 percent in the first quarter. While these measures suggest sluggishness, investors don’t seem to mind. Following a “relatively weak year” for renovations in 2014, “people are warming up to housing again,” said Mike Wood, an analyst in New York at Macquarie Group Ltd. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anna-Louise Jackson, Bloomberg

---

The Cheap and Easy Climate Fix That Can Cool the Planet Fast

January 10, 2022 — Hayley Warren & Akshat Rathi - Bloomberg
Let a molecule of carbon dioxide escape into the atmosphere, and it stays for centuries. There’s more than enough up there to smother the planet like a too-warm quilt, trapping heat within and weirding the weather. The damage will be felt for generations. But CO2 is only part of the patchwork of warming. Methane locks in far more heat in the short term and has been leaking just as relentlessly. Methane Surge Atmospheric concentrations of methane are 2.5x higher than in pre-industrial times. The difference is that methane’s power fades faster, within just decades. If we stopped emissions today, almost all the methane in the atmospheric blanket would degrade within a lifetime. Reprinted courtesy of Hayley Warren, Bloomberg and Akshat Rathi, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit

May 09, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

In the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.



First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”



The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”



Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”



The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”



Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Injured Construction Worker Settles for Five Hundred Thousand

October 28, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

An upstate New York man who was injured when an unsecured truss fell off the railings of a scissor lift has settled for $500,000. As the accident happened at the building site for a casino for the Seneca Nation, attorneys for the construction firm had argued that New York labor laws were inapplicable as the injury happened on Seneca Nation land. The state appeals court ruled that as none of the parties involved were Native Americans, it was not internal to the affairs of the Seneca Nation.

Read the full story...

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

---

Know your Obligations: Colorado’s Statutory Expansions of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Are Now in Effect

November 04, 2019 — Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
The Colorado legislature had a busy session this year. Among the several significant bills it enacted, HB1170 strengthens tenant protections under the implied warranty of habitability. It became effective on August 2, 2019, so landlords and tenants alike are now subject to its requirements. The bill makes numerous changes to Colorado’s implied warranty of habitability, and interested parties should review the bill in detail. Landlords in particular may want to consider retaining legal counsel to make sure they have proper procedures in place to promptly deal with any habitability complaints within the new required timelines. This posting is not intended to provide a comprehensive guide to the changed law, but simply to highlight some of the most significant changes. With that caveat, landlords and tenants should be aware that as of August 2, 2019:

• The following conditions are now deemed to make a residential residence uninhabitable for the purposes of the implied warranty of habitability:
  • The presence of mold, which is defined as “microscopic organisms or fungi that can grow in damp conditions in the interior of a building.”
  • A refrigerator, range stove, or oven (“Appliance”) included within a residential premises by a landlord for the use of the tenant that did not conform “to applicable law at the time of installation” or that is not “maintained in good working order.” Nothing in this statute requires a landlord to provide any appliances, but these requirements apply if the landlord either agreed to provide appliances in a written agreement or provided them at the inception of the tenant’s occupancy.
  • Other conditions that “materially interfere with the tenant’s life, health or safety.”
  Read the court decision
  Read the full story...
  Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mcklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
  Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

  ---