Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Statutory Bad Faith and an Insured’s 60 Day Notice to Cure

April 11, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent case came out in favor of an insured and against a first-party property insurer in the triggering of a statutory bad faith action. Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal in Demase v. State Farm Florida Insurance Company, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D679a (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) held that if an insurer pays a claim after the 60-day notice to cure period provided by Florida Statute s. 624.155(3), this “constitutes a determination of an insurer’s liability for coverage and extent of damages under section 624.155(1)(b) even when there is no underlying action.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Insurance Law Alert: California Appeals Court Allows Joinder of Employee Adjuster to Bad Faith Lawsuit Against Homeowners Insurer

April 08, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Bock v. Hansen (No. A136567, filed 4/2/14), a California appeals court held that an adjuster employed by an insurer can be sued personally for falsely representing that a first party claimant's policy does not cover a loss. In Bock, a 41-foot long, 7,300 pound tree limb crashed onto the insureds' home, damaging the roof, chimney, living room walls, windows and floors. The assigned adjuster was alleged to have engaged in "appalling" conduct, including instructing the insureds to clean up the damage themselves (leading to personal injury); denying that the tree cracked the chimney; insulting and disparaging the insureds; altering the scene before taking photographs; misrepresenting the terms of the policy; preparing false claim reports; conspiring with a contractor to prepare an intentionally false report; and knowingly relying on the false report in order to deny a legitimate claim. The homeowners sued the insurer and named the adjuster personally on causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. But the adjuster demurred arguing that he could not be sued personally because, as an employee of the insurer, he owed no duty to the insureds. The adjuster relied on Sanchez v. Lindsey Morden Claims Services, Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 249 and Lippert v. Bailey (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 376, to argue that employees and agents of insurers cannot be held personally liable since, under the law of agency, the proper cause of action is against the principal and not the agent. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Understanding Liability Insurer’s Two Duties: To Defend and to Indemnify

December 26, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A liability insurer has two duties that are the crux of a liability policy: the duty to defend the insured in legal actions and the duty to indemnify the insured from losses covered under the policy. Many times, policyholders (insureds) do not fully understand or appreciate these two important duties. They need to and this is why having private counsel assist with coverage-related considerations is an absolute must. An insurers’ duty to defend is separate from its duty to indemnify. A recent opinion out of the Middle District of Florida in Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Tate Transport Corp., 2022 WL 16963815 (M.D.Fla. 2022) clarifies the distinction between these duties with a focus on an insurer’s initial duty — the duty to defend. Please read below so you can have more of an appreciation of these duties. The court does a good job discussing Florida law with the emphasis on when an insurer’s initial duty to defend kicks-in: Duty to Defend Under Florida law, “an insurer’s duty to defend its insured against a legal action arises when the complaint alleges facts that fairly and potentially bring the suit within policy coverage.” The duty to defend is a broad one, broader than the duty to indemnify, and “[t]he merits of the underlying suit are irrelevant.” We determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend its insured based only on “the eight corners of the complaint and the policy,” and only as the complaint’s alleged facts are “fairly read[.]” The “facts” we consider in evaluating the duty to defend come solely from the complaint, regardless of the actual facts of the case and regardless of any later developed and contradictory factual record. “Any doubts regarding 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

Settlement Reached in California Animal Shelter Construction Defect Case

May 13, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
A construction defect case involving an animal shelter in Healdsburg, California has settled after two years of litigation, according to The Press Democrat. The $3.5 million, 7,500-square foot building had been “built largely with a behest from the estate of the late vintner Rodney Strong and his wife, Charlotte.” However, “shortly before the facility could be completed in late 2011, general contractor Syd Kelly went bankrupt. Unpaid sub-contractors filed liens for payment against the Healdsburg Animal Shelter, which in turn alleged construction and design defects in the building.” The Press Democrat reported that “[t]he most visible signs of problems were cracks in the cement foundation.” Robert Wilkie, the Healdsburg Animal Shelter board’s secretary-treasurer, stated that the shelter is “perfectly structurally viable and a rather attractive building” and that “the defects that make it not usable today can be mitigated in a variety of different ways.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Vallagio HOA Appeals the Decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals

August 04, 2015 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
As highlighted in our most recent post, the Colorado Court of Appeals’ Vallagio decision upheld a declaration provision that prohibited the amendment of a mandatory arbitration clause without the consent of the developer/declarant. Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., et al., 2015COA65 (Colo. App. May 7, 2015). This case protects a developer/declarant’s ability to arbitrate construction defect claims with a well-crafted declaration that requires declarant consent in order to amend the mandatory arbitration provisions for construction defect actions. However, the Vallagio ruling still hangs in the balance while the Colorado Supreme Court considers the condominium association’s petition for certiorari review, filed June 18, 2015. In its petition, the association argues that the declarant consent requirement violates public policy and four separate sections of the Colorado Common Interest Act (“CCIOA”). For instance, the association argued in the courts below that a declarant consent requirement violates section 217 of CCIOA, which governs unit owners’ voting percentage requirements and provides that declarations may not require more than 67% affirmative vote for amendments. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, reasoning that other provisions of section 217 contemplate consent requirements by parties other than unit owners, such as first mortgagees. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Angela Cooner Named "Top Lawyer" by Phoenix Magazine in Inaugural Publication

October 10, 2022 — Angela L. Cooner - Lewis Brisbois
Phoenix, Ariz. (September 7, 2022) – Phoenix Partner Angela L. Cooner was recently recognized for her work in Commercial Litigation by Phoenix Magazine in its inaugural list of Top Lawyers. Ms. Cooner was named a Top Lawyer after Phoenix Magazine partnered with research firm Data Joe to collect and tally online survey results from local practicing attorneys. The survey asks respondents to provide the names of up to three attorneys they deem the best in 39 legal specialties. After the votes are tallied and the nominees are confirmed to be members of Valley-based firms and in good standing, the top 10-20% of vote-getters in each category are named to the Top Lawyers list. Ms. Cooner is a member of Lewis Brisbois’ Construction and General Liability Practices. For more than two decades, she has managed an array of matters, including construction litigation, complex commercial litigation, professional liability cases, product liability issues, premises liability cases, and real estate litigation. Earlier this year, she was appointed vice-chair of the State Bar of Arizona’s inaugural Board of Legal Specialization Construction Defect Law Advisory Commission. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Angela L. Cooner, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Cooner may be contacted at Angela.Cooner@lewisbrisbois.com

Construction in the Time of Coronavirus

March 30, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
One cannot look look at one’s phone, computer or even the road outside the window without seeing signs of the impact that coronavirus (COVD-19) is having on the world at large. Schools are shut down, traffic is lighter and there is the daily count of new confirmed cases, in Virginia and elsewhere. “Social distancing” is the buzzword of the day. I am writing this post from a home office because of CDC and other guidance regarding the best way to “flatten the curve.” We have all been told to avoid large groups and stay close to home. All of this is well and good, but construction must go on. In travelling around Richmond, I see construction vehicles on the road quite a bit. This is a good thing. It seems that most of the Richmond, Virginia area contractors are trying to stay as close to “business as usual” as possible while still remaining vigilant and careful to follow CDC and OSHA guidelines on workplace activity and COVD-19. However, the situation is ever changing and government and other outside forces could lead to project slowdowns, project shutdowns or other virus related impacts to everything from permitting to staffing of a project. As I have discussed, likely ad nauseam, any commercial or residential construction project is controlled by a series of contracts (hopefully well drafted) that control the relationships on the job. Subcontractors in particular have the provisions of their subcontract and those of the prime contract to worry about. One of the major provisions that could trip up any construction professionals on these jobs is the notice provision of the subcontract (thanks for the reminder go to a friend and fellow construction lawyer Mark Cobb at his blog). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Subrogation Waiver Unconscionable in Residential Fuel Delivery Contract

April 29, 2024 — Ryan A. Bennett - The Subrogation Strategist
In a matter of first impression, the Superior Court of Connecticut (Superior Court), in American Commerce Ins., Co. v. Eastern Fuel Corp., No. CV-206109168-S, 2024 Conn. Super. LEXIS 380, held that a waiver of subrogation provision in a consumer fuel service/delivery contract violated public policy. The Superior Court overruled the motion for summary judgment filed by Eastern Fuel Corporation (Eastern) and determined that the clause was impermissible as the contract was entered into by two parties with unequal bargaining power. American Commerce Insurance Company (American) provided property insurance to Arlene and James Hillas (the Insureds) for their home in Woodbridge, Connecticut. The Insureds hired Eastern to service their heating system on or around October 25, 2018. The service work at the property included inspecting the oil filters and flushing the fuel lines. On November 1, 2018, when the Insureds turned the heating system on for the first time that season, the two oil tanks on the property were allegedly full. After a series of deliveries, claims that the oil levels were lower than expected, discovering oil staining on the floor and Eastern’s replacement of the oil lines, Eastern delivered another 429 gallons. However, after the delivery, additional leaks were discovered relating to the oil line replacements. Ultimately, the Insureds submitted a claim to American and American paid in excess of $59,000 for the damage incurred. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan A. Bennett, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at bennettr@whiteandwilliams.com

FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES