FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

No Duty to Indemnify Where No Duty to Defend

February 08, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Montana Supreme Court held that because there was no duty to defend the insureds' intentional acts, the insurer had no duty to defend. Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Wessel, 2020 Mont. LEXIS 2617 (Mont. Dec. 22, 2020). The insureds' property was accessed by Turk Road. Turk Road was also used by the neighbors to access their land. The insureds asked for permission to snowmobile across the neighbors' property. Permission was denied because the property was in a conservation easement which prohibited motorised used. The insureds' thereafter retaliated by not allowing the neighbors to use Turk Road. The neighbors then purchased an easement from another landowners to construct a new driveway which did not traverse the insureds' property. The insureds built snow berms and gates, felled trees, and created other obstacles to prevent the neighbors from using the new driveway. Physical threats were also made by the insureds. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Following California Law, Federal Court Adopts Horizontal Allocation For Asbestos Coverage

May 19, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Following California law, the federal district court adopted horizontal allocation to settle a dispute among carriers for an insured sued for selling asbestos products. New England Fire Ins. Corp. v. Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., Civil No. 3:12cv948 (D. Conn. April 8, 2014) [ruling here] The insured was a California-based corporation that sold plumbing supply products that contained asbestos. The insured was named in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits that were filed largely in California. The insured had primary and excess coverage for bodily injury claims. New England Fire Insurance issued an excess policy to the insured. The policy provided the insurer would be liable for the ultimate new loss in excess of the insureds underlying limit, which was defined as the amount equal to the limits of the underlying insurance, plus the applicable limits of any other underlying insurance collectible by the insured. 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

---

Connecticut Court Holds Unresolved Coverage Issues Makes Appraisal Premature

July 18, 2018 — Michael S. Levine, Lorelie S. Masters & Geoffrey B. Fehling – Hunton Insurance Recovery Law Blog
A Connecticut court recently denied a motion to compel appraisal of a claim for coverage of a commercial property damage claim, holding that, where the insurance policy at issue provides for appraisal of disputes related to the value or quantum or a loss suffered—not the rights and liabilities of the parties under the policy—appraisal is premature. The decision relied on law that equates insurance appraisal to arbitration and follows a number of decisions holding that parties cannot expand the scope of appraisal clauses to resolve questions of coverage or liability where, as in this case, those issues are not supported by the applicable policy language. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys Michael S. Levine, Lorelie S. Masters and Geoffrey B. Fehling Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California’s Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements: Public Works and AB 3018, What You Need to Know

December 09, 2019 — Brenda Radmacher & Nicholas Krebs - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
Do you have the proper skilled and trained workforce for your construction projects? If you take on public works projects in California, you may not be in compliance with the new changes in the law. To avoid civil penalties or nonpayment and potentially being precluded from future bids on public works contracts, you must critically review your team and proposal prior to accepting an award. Once awarded a public contact requiring a skilled and trained workforce, diligent reporting practices and oversight are required to maintain compliance. Compliance with California’s skilled and trained workforce requirements for contractors, engineers, architects, design professionals, and suppliers competing for public works construction projects in California is mandated through enforcement with the enactment of AB 3018. Signed by Governor Brown in his last legislative session, AB 3018 dramatically increased the penalties for non-compliance with the existing skilled and trained workforce requirements in California. The new penalties include civil fines by the Labor Commissioner up to $10,000 per month per non-compliant contractor, disqualification from bidding on future public works contract, and withholding of payment for delinquent contractors. This update provides information on California’s skilled and trained workforce requirements, identifies key issues on compliance to avoid penalties, and discusses the impact of enforcement on construction professionals’ business practices. Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani and Nicholas Krebs, Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@grsm.com Mr. Krebs may be contacted at nkrebs@grsm.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Show Me the Money: The Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Penalties

March 13, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
California has a number of prompt payment penalty statutes on the books. Among them is Civil Code section 8800 which requires project owners on private works projects to pay progress payments to direct contractors within 30 days after demand for payment pursuant to contract or be subject to prompt payment penalties of two percent (2%) per month on the amount wrongfully withheld. Like California’s other prompt payment penalty statutes, however, there is an important carve out: If there is a good faith dispute between the project owner and the direct contractor the project owner may withhold up to 150% of the dispute amount and not be subject to prompt payment penalties. And that, my friends, is a higher-tiered party’s “get out of jail free” card. In a case of first impression, the 1st District Court of Appeals, in Vought Construction Inc. v. Stock (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 622, examined whether a project owner’s claim for liquidated damages constitutes a good faith dispute under Civil Code section 8800. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

U.S. Supreme Court Weighs in on Construction Case

January 13, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on a construction case (Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v United States District Court for the Western District of Texas)—an occurrence newsworthy of itself, according to The California Construction Law Blog. Large general contractors may benefit by the court’s decision regarding “the enforceability of forum selection clauses.” According to the blog, the U. S. Supreme Court set three standards, “which, together, strongly support the enforceability of forum selection clauses: (1) The party defying a forum selection clause bears the burden of proof…. (2) The inconvenience to the party defying a forum selection clause bears no weight…. [and] (3) The law of the selected forum applies when determining whether to transfer a case.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien “Waivers” and “Releases”: What’s the Difference?

March 19, 2015 — Thomas C. Rogers – White and Williams LLP
In the world of Pennsylvania mechanics’ liens there is much confusion about the interchangeable use of the words mechanics lien “waiver” and mechanics’ lien “release.” Many who work in the world of real estate in Pennsylvania, be they contractors, subcontractors, developers, lenders, or attorneys, use these terms interchangeably without understanding that there is a meaningful difference. Failure to understand the difference creates confusion when discussing issues and drafting documents regarding mechanics’ liens. In Pennsylvania a mechanics’ lien “waiver” is the pre-construction waiver of liens that was historically executed by a general contractor and an owner and filed with the Prothonotary in the county in which construction is located. These pre-construction lien “waivers,” assuming they were properly prepared, signed by the contractor and owner and filed in accordance with applicable law, negated the ability of that contractor and its subcontractors to file a mechanics’ lien on the subject property. These pre-construction lien “waivers” were part of every construction loan closing up through the amendments to the Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien Act that went into effect in 2007. Since 2007, the Mechanics’ Lien Act has been amended twice to further address those circumstances in which pre-construction lien waivers still have vitality. Except with respect to those narrow situations specifically provided for in the statute, pre-construction lien “waivers” are against public policy in Pennsylvania. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Thomas C. Rogers, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Rogers may be contacted at rogerst@whiteandwilliams.com

---

California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase “Ongoing Operations” In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations

September 14, 2017 — Gary Barrera - California Construction Law Blog
In a victory for additional insureds, a California appeals court held, in Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co., Cal.Ct.App. (4th Dist.), Docket No. D070478 (filed 8/30/17), that an insurer’s denial of coverage for completed operations based on the inclusion of the phrase “ongoing operations” in an additional insured endorsement, was improper. Additionally, an insurer wishing to limit coverage under an additional insured endorsement to ongoing operations must do so via clear and explicit language. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gary Barrera, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Barrera may be contacted at gbarrera@wendel.com

---