FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Equal Access to Justice Act Fee Request Rejected in Flood Case

January 06, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured's claim for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) for seeking coverage under a flood policy was rejected. Hampson v. Wright Nat'l Flood Ins. Co., No. 4:19-cv-10083-KMM (S.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2019)(Order on Motion to Dismiss). The order is here. The insurer did not compensate plaintiff for flood-related damages under the terms of a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP). The insurer was a Write-Your-Own (WYO) Program insurance carrier participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). By statute, a WYO carrier acts as a "fiscal agent" and "fiduciary" of the United States. The insured's property suffered damage from a hurricane. The insured sued the carrier for breach of contract and attorney's fees under EAJA. The insurer moved to dismiss the claim for fees under EAJA. A party could recover fees and costs under the EAJA as the prevailing party in a case "brought by or against the United States . . . unless the court finds the position of the United States was substantially justified." 28 U.S.C. 2412 (d) (1) (A), (b). The statute defined the "United States" to include "any agency and any official of the United States acting in his or her official capacity." However, attorney's fees were not recoverable under the EAJA in cases for breach of an SFIP brought against a WYO program insurance carrier participating in the NFIP because WYO carriers were not considered "agencies" under the EAJA. 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

---

Blurred Lines: New York Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Privileged Documents in Connection with Pre-Denial Communications Prepared by Insurer's Coverage Counsel

September 17, 2015 — Greg Steinberg – White and Williams LLP
In a recent decision, the New York Supreme Court clarified the scope of privileged documents with respect to communications prepared by an insurer’s counsel prior to issuing a denial of coverage letter. The coverage litigation at issue arose out of MF Global Inc.’s claims under fidelity bonds for losses incurred as a result of large trades made by former MF Global employee, Evan Dooley. The trades cost MF Global, Dooley’s former clearing firm, $141 million after it had to reimburse the CME Group, Inc. futures clearinghouse that handled the trade. The insurers that issued the fidelity bonds contested coverage and sued MF Global in 2009. The opinion underscores the fact that there is no “bright line” rule in New York with respect to disclosure of communications in the insurance context prior to the issuance of a coverage determination – the disclosure requirement will instead turn on what’s actually privileged. In addition, while retention of counsel may not serve as an automatic shield for all documents prepared prior to the coverage decision, insurers will not be required to disclose, among other things, communications which include an “indicia of the provision of legal services.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Greg Steinberg, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Steinberg may be contacted at steinbergg@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Home Prices Rose in Fewer U.S. Markets in Fourth Quarter

February 12, 2014 — Prashant Gopal – Bloomberg
Prices for single-family homes rose in 73 percent of U.S. cities in the fourth quarter, fewer than in the previous three months, as surging values in the past two years started to reduce affordability. The median transaction price for an existing home climbed from a year earlier in 119 of 164 metropolitan areas measured, the National Association of Realtors said in a report today. In the third quarter, 88 percent of markets had increases. While tight inventories and improving employment are bolstering the housing recovery, home-price gains are poised to decelerate as an increase in mortgage rates from record lows cuts into affordability. Values have been rising faster than incomes, particularly in the West, the Realtors group said. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg
Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net

---

Scaffolding Collapse Kills Workers at China Construction Site

November 30, 2016 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The New York Post reported that a scaffolding collapsed in Beijing, China, “sending iron pipes, steel bars and wooden planks tumbling down on about 70 workers in the country’s worst work-safety accident in over two years.” Out of seventy workers, sixty-seven are reported to have died in the accident, while two are injuried, and one worker is missing. The cause of the accident is still under investigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Court of Appeal Holds That the Right to Repair Act Prohibits Class Actions Against Manufacturers of Products Completely Manufactured Offsite

February 06, 2019 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Kohler Co. v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. App. 5th 55 (2018), the Second District of the Court of Appeal of California considered whether the lower court properly allowed homeowners to bring class action claims under the Right to Repair Act (the Act) against a manufacturer of a plumbing fixture for alleged defects in the product. After an extensive analysis of the language of the Act, the court found that class action claims under the Act are not allowed if the product was completely manufactured offsite. Since the subject fixture was completely manufactured offsite, the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision. The court’s holding establishes that rights and remedies set forth in the Right to Repair Act are not available for class action claims alleging defects in products completely manufactured offsite. In Kohler Co., homeowners instituted a class action against Kohler, the manufacturer of water pressure and temperature regulating valves that were installed into their homes during original construction. The class action was filed on behalf of all owners of residential dwellings in California in which these Kohler valves were installed as part of original construction. The complaint asserted, among other claims, a cause of action under the Act. Kohler filed a motion for anti-class certification on the ground that causes of actions under the Act cannot be certified as a class action. The trial court denied the motion with respect to the Act but certified its ruling for appellate review. Kohler filed a petition with the Court of Appeals, arguing that certain sections of the Act explicitly exclude class action claims under the Act. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Judgment Stemming from a Section 998 Offer Without a Written Acceptance Provision Is Void

March 22, 2021 — Arezoo Jamshidi, Stevie B. Newton & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Mostafavi Law Group, APC v. Larry Rabineau, APC (B302344, Mar. 3, 2021), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (Los Angeles), addressed an issue of first impression: whether the purported acceptance of a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (“section 998”) offer lacking an acceptance provision gives rise to a valid judgment. The appellate court held that a section 998 offer to compromise (“998 Offer”) without an acceptance provision is invalid and any judgment stemming from it is void. In Mostafavi Law Group, plaintiffs sued defendants for defamation per se, among other claims, which was litigated at-length over several years. Defendants served plaintiffs with a written 998 Offer, offering to settle the action for the sum of $25,000.01. The 998 Offer did not specify the manner in which plaintiffs were to accept the offer. Within the statutory time period for acceptance, plaintiffs’ counsel hand-wrote the following onto the 998 Offer: “Plaintiff Mostafavi Law Group, APC accepts the offer.” That day, plaintiffs also filed a notice of acceptance of the 998 Offer, along with proof thereof, and sent a copy to defendants. The next day, having received the notice of acceptance, defendants advised plaintiffs that they would “draft and send . . . a settlement agreement for . . . signature” before paying the settlement funds. Reprinted courtesy of Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, Stevie B. Newton, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com Mr. Newton may be contacted at snewton@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

A Glimpse Into Post-Judgment Collections and Perhaps the Near Future?

July 13, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
According to a recent study conducted by the Harvard University, the University of Chicago, and the University of Illinois, more than 100,000 small businesses (firms with fewer than 500 employees) representing 2% of small businesses in the America have closed their doors permanently due to the coronavirus. The next case, although about events occurring before COVID-19, provides a glimpse of what litigation may look like in the intervening months and years as companies struggle to keep their doors open. The Wanke Case Waterproofing company Wanke, Industrial, Commercial, Residential, Inc. sued a former employee, Scott Keck, and his competing company, WP Solutions, Inc., for trade secret misappropriation and obtained a judgment for $1,190,929. At the time, general contractor AV Builder Corp. had hired WP Solutions as a waterproofing subcontractor on fire residential and commercial projects. In the face of the judgment obtained by Wanke, Keck declared bankruptcy and dissolved WP Solutions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Protect Your Right To Payment By Following Nedd

August 03, 2022 — Denise Motta - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
In order to preserve your right to payment, you must satisfy the contractual requirements supporting a change order for the increased costs or time due to the delay. The key to the successful presentation of change order claims is educating your team on the following: 1. NOTICE

• Review the change order and notice provisions of your contracts. Make your contract searchable and insert the term “Noti” and look for the items listed below.
• Who: Check the designated representative for notice.
• It may not be the project manager.
• Confirm who can authorize the change order.
• Is owner approval required?
• Ensure that the party approving the change order has authority to do so.

• What: Check for specific information required by the contract.
• Provide ALL information available.
• If certain information is not yet available, state that the information will be provided when available.
• Reserve all rights to amend and submit additional information.
• Request both an increase to the Contract Sum and Contract Time.
• Make the request even if you do not believe the delay or time necessary will cause a significant impact.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Denise Motta, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
Ms. Motta may be contacted at dmotta@grsm.com

---