Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Boys (and Girls) of Summer: New Residential Solar Energy System Disclosures Take Effect January 1, 2019

October 02, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
As we come to the end of Summer, the California Contractors State License Board advises licensees that it has finalized its Solar Energy System Disclosure Document. The Solar Energy System Disclosure Document, required under Business and Professions Code Section 7169 as amended by Assembly Bill 1070 in 2017, requires that the disclosure language of the document be:

Included in all contracts providing for the installation of a “solar energy system” on a residential building;
Included on the front page or cover page of the contract;

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

#2 CDJ Topic: Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools

December 30, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In July of this year, Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP analyzed the results of the Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools case, in which “a California appeals court held that equities favor an insurer seeking equitable subrogation over a subcontractor that agreed to defend and indemnify claims arising out of its performance of work under the subcontract.” Read the full story... In the article, “General Liability Insurer Entitled to Subrogate Against its Insured’s Indemnitor,” Matthew S. Foy and Michael A. Pursell of Gordon & Rees LLP also discussed the details of the Valley Crest v. Mission Pools case that involved installing a swimming pool on a St. Regis hotel property: “In Valley Crest Landscape Development, Inc. v. Mission Pools of Escondido, Inc., the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that an insurer was entitled to equitably subrogate a breach of express indemnity claim against its insured’s indemnitor.” Read the full story... This month, Graham C. Mills of Newmeyer & Dillion reported on the decision by the Court of Appeals regarding the Valley Crest case, which “reinforces the right of a general contractor to defense and indemnity by a subcontractor when the parties have contractually allocated risk to the subcontractor. To ensure compliance with that right, the Valley Crest court imposed a strong penalty against a subcontractor that defaulted on its obligation.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New York State Trial Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues

January 21, 2019 — Paul Briganti - White and Williams
On November 21, 2018, the New York Supreme Court, Onondaga County, issued a summary-judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising from asbestos-related bodily injury claims against plaintiffs Carrier Corporation (Carrier) and Elliott Company (Elliott). See Carrier Corp., et al. v. Travelers Indem. Co., et al., Index No. 2005-EG-7032 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 21, 2018). First, the court held that under New York’s “injury in fact trigger of coverage,” injury occurs from the first date of exposure to asbestos through death or the filing of suit. The court primarily relied on: (1) New York federal court decisions and the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in In re Viking Pump, Inc., 148 A.3d 633 (Del. 2016) holding that injury continues from first exposure through death or the assertion of a claim; and (2) medical and scientific evidence that the plaintiffs had submitted in support of their motion. The court specifically declined to follow Continental Cas. v. Wausau, 60 A.D.3d 128 (1st Dep’t 2008) (Keasbey), in which the New York Appellate Division found a question of fact whether injury occurs from exposure to asbestos through manifestation and that summary judgment was therefore inappropriate. The Carrier court stated that Keasbey was distinguishable because it “involved operations coverage, a non-product claim, and thus the [Keasbey] Court required a more stringent proof of injury in fact than is necessary here, in a products case.” Carrier, op. at 8. The Carrier court was also dismissive of affidavits offered by the defendant-insurer’s medical experts, finding that the affidavits did not create an issue of fact. See Op. at 2-9. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul Briganti, White and Williams
Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com

Colorado Senate Bill 13-052: The “Transit-Oriented Development Claims Act of 2013.”

January 25, 2013 — CDJ STAFF

Last fall the Denver Regional Council of Governments approached the Colorado Association of Home Builders to inquire as to why there are no builders developing or constructing for-sale, multi-family projects along the newly constructed light rail lines. By surveying its membership, the CAHB quickly learned that the biggest impediment to such construction is Colorado’s litigation environment, i.e., “if you build it, they will sue.” This started a dialogue within the industry in order to determine what changes developers and general contractors would like to see made in order to consider again building for-sale, multi-family construction. The result of this dialogue is Senate Bill 13-052, introduced on January 16, 2013, and known as the Transit-Oriented Development Claims Act of 2013, sponsored by Senators Scheffel and Cadman and Representative DelGrosso. You can find the current iteration of SB 13-052 here.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain
Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Just Decided – New Jersey Supreme Court: Insurers Can Look To Extrinsic Evidence To Deny a Defense

September 05, 2022 — Randy J. Maniloff - White and Williams LLP
Last week, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided Norman International, Inc. v. Admiral Insurance Company, No. 086155 (N.J. Aug. 11, 2022). At issue was coverage for a work-site injury and the interpretation of a policy exclusion for operations or activities performed by an insured in certain counties in New York. The case is significant in terms of addressing causation for purposes of the application of exclusions. But the more wide-reaching issue has nothing to do with the scope of the exclusion. The real story from Norman is the New Jersey high court’s pronouncement that an insurer, in certain circumstances, can use extrinsic evidence to deny a defense to its insured. New Jersey duty to defend law has been a jungle land and in need of more supreme court guidance. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Randy J. Maniloff, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Maniloff may be contacted at maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com

The Future of Pandemic Coverage for Real Estate Owners and Developers

November 09, 2020 — Ashley McWilliams - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Shutdowns resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have prompted an unprecedented number of business income and business interruption insurance claims. Many claims have resulted in litigation and require judicial intervention to determine whether private insurance carriers owe policyholders indemnification for pandemic related losses. Private insurance carriers that have denied the claims, in large part, argue that they did not underwrite coverage for the pandemic and assert that pandemic coverage is much too unpredictable to underwrite. Private carriers contend that a government-backed insurance program is necessary to mitigate the economic impact resulting from pandemic claims. The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted real estate owners and developers. Real estate owners and developers have sustained business income losses in the form of lost rents at commercial properties, service disruption, labor and/ or material shortages, to name a few. Questions about whether the virus caused “direct physical damage,” as well as whether specific “virus exclusions” on policies, have provided hurdles to coverage under existing schemes, click here.Those that have filed lawsuits against their insurers seeking coverage under current policy terms are having mixed results, at best. Click here to view SDV’s Litigation Tracker. A predictable source of indemnification for future pandemic-related losses would greatly relieve business disruption and, ultimately, the impact on the economy. However, the question remains, who will pay for such massive losses? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ashley McWilliams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. McWilliams may be contacted at AMcWilliams@sdvlaw.com

Jason Poore Receives 2018 Joseph H. Foster Young Lawyer Award

July 21, 2018 — Jason Poore - White and Williams LLP
Jason Poore, an associate in the General Litigation Group, recently received the 2018 Joseph H. Foster Young Lawyer Award during the Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel’s annual meeting. The Joseph H. Foster Young Lawyer Award honors “a young lawyer who best exemplifies the qualities of professionalism and dedication as defense counsel in the practice of law and in the promotion of the highest ideals of justice in the community." Jason continues to make significant contributions to the local bar and community. In addition to serving on the Executive Committee of the Philadelphia Bar Association Young Lawyers Division, he is the creator and Chair of the PBA's Youth Courts Committee. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Poore, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Poore may be contacted at poorej@whiteandwilliams.com

San Diego’s NFL Stadium Dream Counts on Munis for Chargers’ Home

June 10, 2015 — James Nash and Darrell Preston – Bloomberg
San Diego, still dealing with the legacy of a pension crisis that led politicians to consider bankruptcy a decade ago, may throw taxpayer money behind municipal bonds for a football-stadium bidding war. The city and the National Football League’s Chargers are negotiating on a proposed $1.3 billion coliseum to keep the team from leaving for Los Angeles. A plan backed by a city panel would have San Diego pay $121 million of the new stadium’s debt, even though it still owes $52 million for the Chargers’ current home. San Diego County would chip in, too. The quest to keep the team has triggered a debate over whether to finance professional football as the city deals with $2 billion of deferred maintenance brought about in part by mounting pension costs. The city’s retirement system has a shortfall just as large, which led voters three years ago to approve reducing benefits for city workers. Reprinted courtesy of James Nash, Bloomberg and Darrell Preston, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES