FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Delay In Noticing Insurer of Loss is Not Prejudicial

April 28, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Tenth Circuit reversed a district court's determination that untimely notice of the loss was prejudicial, eliminating the insurer's coverage obligations. B.S.C. Holding, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4492 (10th Cir. March 11, 2014). In January 2008, the insured's employees detected an inflow of water in a salt mine and feared dissolution of the salt or structural problems. The insured tried to devise a solution. Two and a half million dollars were spent to find the cause of the water inflow and to identify a solution. In April 2010, the insured determined the inflow was caused by an improperly sealed oil well. In July 2010, the insured notified Lexington of the water inflow. The ultimate proof of loss was for $7.5 million, which included remediation measures that the insured had performed before notifying Lexington. Lexington's all-risk policy required the insured to notify the company in writing as soon as practicable. 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

---

Insurance Policies and Indemnity Provisions Are Not the Same

October 19, 2020 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Just because you own a pair of Air Jordans doesn’t make you Michael Jordan. In the next case, Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation, Case No. A154757 (July 23, 2020), the 1st District Court of Appeal denied an insurance carrier’s equitable subrogation claim explaining that an insurer’s obligations under its insurance policy are not the same as an idemnitee’s obligations under an indemnity provision. Or, as aptly put by the Court of Appeal, while a “subrogated insurer is said to ‘stand in the shoes’ of its insured, because it has no greater rights than the insured. Here . . . [the insurer] is seeking to stand in a different, more advantageous set of shoes.” Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation Pulte Home Corporation was sued for construction defects by 38 homeowners in two housing developments. Various subcontractors had worked on the projects, but under their subcontracts, each subcontractor agreed to indemnify Pulte from and against “all liability, claims, judgments, suits, or demands for damages to persons or property arising out of, resulting from, or relating to Contractor’s performance of work under the Agreement (‘Claims’) unless such Claims have been specifically determined by the trier of fact to be the sole negligence of Pulte . . . ” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

The 2023 Term of the Supreme Court: Administrative and Regulatory Law Rulings

December 03, 2024 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
It is instructive to review the Supreme Court’s record in its most recent term, concentrating on regulatory and administrative law cases, which are usually back-burner issues. But not this term. The Supreme Court began the current term on October 7, 2024. The Court has already chosen many cases to review in the new term, and it promises to be as interesting as the 2023 term, which produced several significant rulings affecting regulatory and administrative law, chiefly the Loper Bright Enterprises ruling. Loper Bright overturned the Court’s landmark administrative law ruling of Chevron, USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The Background to Loper Bright In 1984, the Supreme Court decided Chevron USA, Inc. v. National Resource Defense Council. (See 467 U.S. 839 (1984).) The unanimous decision, written by Justice Stevens, reversed then-D.C. Circuit Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s ruling that set aside EPA’s Clean Air Act “bubble policy,” which was intended to provide regulatory relief from certain EPA permitting requirements. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Wall Street Journal Analyzes the Housing Market Direction

June 26, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Nick Timiraos of the Wall Street Journal listed “five takeaways” from this week’s housing reports. First, he stated that unless the May “seasonally adjusted annual rate isn’t revised down,” the sales of new homes were “at their highest levels in six years.” Second, Timiraos claimed that “[s]ales have been soft, in part, because builders have been slow to ramp up production. While inventories are still very low, they are up 16% from last year.” For his final “takeaway,” Timiraos stated that while “home prices are up nearly 25% from their early 2012 levels, they’re still down 18% from their 2006 peak. There’s considerable variation, of course, from one city to another. Prices in Denver and Dallas have reached new highs. Others, such as Miami and Phoenix, have posted double digit increases over the past year, but prices are still off of their peak by more than a third.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Additional Elements a Plaintiff Must Plead and Prove to Enforce Restrictive Covenant

April 19, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Florida Statute s. 542.335 is a statute that deals with restrictive covenants in contracts that impose a restraint on trade. It is an important statute to determine invalid restraints on trade that unreasonably or unfairly prevent competition. Any invalid restraint on trade is unenforceable. Restrictive covenants–or covenants in agreements that restrict you or prevent you from doing something–may unsuspectingly be included in contracts or the impact of the restrictive covenant may not be appreciated at the onset. A party seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant in a contract has the additional burden of PROVING the validity and reasonableness of the restrictive covenant:

Under section 542.335, three requirements must be satisfied for a restrictive covenant to be enforceable: (1) the restrictive covenant must be “set forth in a writing signed by the person against whom enforcement is sought”; (2) the party seeking to enforce the restrictive covenant “shall plead and prove the existence of one or more legitimate business interests justifying the restrictive covenant”; and (3) the party seeking to enforce the restrictive covenant “shall plead and prove that the contractually specified restraint is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest or interests justifying the restriction.”

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

---

Terminating Contracts for Convenience — “Just Because”

June 28, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Termination for convenience provisions are important provisions to include in construction contracts. These are provisions that allow a party to terminate the contract for ANY REASON. No cause is needed to exercise the termination for convenience provision. In other words, the terminating party does not have to demonstrate the other party breached the contract. A termination for convenience can be exercised “just because.” Typically, the party providing the service should not get to terminate for convenience. However, the party receiving the service will want to be afforded this contractual right. For example, an owner (receiving a service) will want to include a termination for convenience provision with its prime contractor (providing a service). And, a general contractor (receiving a service) will want to include a termination for convenience provision in its subcontract with its subcontractor (providing a service). However, a general contractor providing a service for an owner, or a subcontractor providing a service to a general contractor, should not be able to terminate the contract for their convenience “just because” a better opportunity comes along. 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

---

Scope of Alaska’s Dump Lien Statute Substantially Reduced For Natural Gas Contractors

March 16, 2020 — Trevor Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In All American Oilfield, LLC v. Cook Inlet Energy, LLC,[1] the Supreme Court of Alaska clarified and substantially reduced a natural gas contractor’s ability to secure a preferred lien for its contribution to a natural gas well. Alaska’s dump lien statute (AS § 34.35.140) authorizes a laborer to claim a lien for the amount owed for their labor in the production of a “dump or mass” of “extracted, hoisted and raised” matter from a mine. While Alaska’s dump lien statute is one of three Alaskan statutes allowing laborers to attach liens to mines, mining equipment or minerals,[2] the dump lien statute is unique because it is prior and preferred over other liens, increasing the laborer’s chance of being paid in a bankruptcy proceeding. Attaching a lien to a “dump or mass” of hard-rock minerals piled outside a mine or oil stored in a tank is relatively straightforward. However, natural gas is typically left in its natural reservoir until removed by a pipeline that carries the gas to a location far from the mine. Natural gas is not extracted and stored in a “dump or mass” like other minerals, and until August 2019, controversy existed over how—or if—the dump lien statute could be used by natural gas contractors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Trevor Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Lane may be contacted at trevor.lane@acslawyers.com

---

S&P 500 Little Changed on Home Sales Amid Quarterly Rally

July 01, 2014 — Lu Wang and Jacob Barach – Bloomberg
June 30 (Bloomberg) --The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index was little changed, capping the longest string of quarterly gains since 1998, as a jump in pending home sales offset weaker-than-forecast manufacturing data. D.R. Horton Inc. rallied 3.2 percent, leading gains among homebuilders. Yahoo! Inc. (YHOO) rose 2.6 percent after Piper Jaffray Cos. recommended buying the stock. MannKind Corp. jumped 9.6 percent as the maker of diabetes drugs rebounded from its worst week in two months. Allergan Inc. declined 2.7 percent following regulatory decisions on its drugs. The S&P 500 fell less than 0.1 percent to 1,960.23 at 4 p.m. in New York. The equity benchmark gauge rose 4.7 percent for the quarter, a sixth consecutive advance. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 25.24 points, or 0.2 percent, to 16,826.60 today, trimming its quarterly advance to 2.2 percent. The Nasdaq Composite Index rose 0.2 percent, giving it a 5 percent increase for the three months. Ms. Wang may be contacted at lwang8@bloomberg.net; Mr. Barach may be contacted at jbarach1@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lu Wang and Jacob Barach, Bloomberg

---