FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING CONSULTANT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Federal Court Reiterates Broad Duty to Defend in Additional Insured Cases

April 22, 2024 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
In the recent case of Travelers Indem. Co. of Am. v. Accredited Sur. & Cas. Co., No. 21-CV-7189 (FB) (JRC), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44634 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2024), the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York had occasion to consider an additional insured tender on behalf of a prime contractor, Archstone, to a subcontractor, Topline, who was named as a direct defendant in a New York labor law case. Even though Topline’s carrier put forth evidence that Topline was not negligent, the court held, under New York’s broad duty to defend, that Topline’s carrier owed a duty to defend the prime contractor. Initially, the court was satisfied that a purchase order, signed only by Topline and not Archstone, was binding on Topline. That purchase order specified that Topline agreed to name Archstone as an additional insured. With respect to the duty to defend, the court found that it was enough that the underlying plaintiff alleged that all defendants, including Topline, were negligent in permitting a ladder that plaintiff was on to remain in a defective condition and in failing to foresee the existence of a hazard from the condition of the subject ladder. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

---

Top 10 Insurance Cases of 2023

January 29, 2024 — Jeffrey J. Vita & Michael A. Amato - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Federal and state courts tackled many interesting insurance-related issues this past year. Perhaps no state had a more impactful year than Illinois, which held that construction defects could constitute an occurrence, that a LEG 3 “extension” attempting to preclude coverage for faulty or defective workmanship was ambiguous as a matter of law (applying Illinois law), and that ostensibly prohibitive “catch-all exclusions” can render policy language ambiguous in favor of coverage. Other courts wrestled with procedural inquiries, such as the legal duty of a broker in providing notice to an insurer or the ability of an insured to recoup its attorneys’ fees in pursuing a coverage action against its insurer. These are merely a sampling of the impactful insurance decisions rendered in 2023. Each year, we endeavor to identify cases of general interest to our clients and the broader insurance community. Specifically, we attempt to identify trends, cases of first impression, cases illustrating conflicts among the courts, or cases dealing with emerging issues. We now proudly unveil the top 10 most influential coverage decisions of 2023 and look ahead to a few cases to watch as 2024 unfolds. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Michael A. Amato, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com Mr. Amato may be contacted at MAmato@sdvlaw.com Read the full story...

---

Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team for Prevailing on a Highly Contested Motion to Quash!

January 08, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to Newport Partners Tyler Offenhauser and Jonathan Cothran, and Associate Anisha Kohli, who recently prevailed on behalf of BWB&O’s client before the Orange County Superior Court on a highly contested Motion to Quash Service based on Plaintiff’s failure to timely file and serve a DOE Amendment, naming our client. BWB&O’s client was the owner of a building where Plaintiff, a licensed electrician, was electrocuted while performing an upgrade to the building’s electrical infrastructure. Plaintiff’s original lawsuit named only the building’s tenant, who was also represented by BWB&O. BWB&O was successful earlier this year on a Motion for Summary Judgment under the Privette Doctrine and won judgment on behalf of the client/tenant. While that MSJ was pending, Plaintiff surreptitiously added the building’s owner to the suit with a DOE Amendment, after several months earlier learning the owner and then tenant were entities operated by the same individual. However, Plaintiff never informed counsel or any other party of the filing. Moreover, after the MSJ was granted, Plaintiff then waited several more months to serve the building’s owner. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Partner Jason Taylor and Senior Associate Danielle Kegley Successful in Appeal of Summary Disposition on Priority of Coverage Dispute in the Michigan Court of Appeals

December 11, 2023 — Jason Taylor & Danielle K. Kegley - Traub Lieberman
In this appeal brought before the Michigan Court of Appeals, the appellate court ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s insurance carrier client (the “Carrier” or “Client”), affirming an award of summary disposition in favor of the Carrier in a coverage lawsuit. The coverage lawsuit involved a priority dispute between the Carrier and another insurer over which company’s policy had responsibility to cover the defense of their mutual insured, a heating and cooling contractor (the “Insured”) in an underlying lawsuit alleging carbon monoxide poisoning. The Carrier issued a contractor’s pollution liability policy and the other insurer issued a commercial general liability policy to the Insurer. Both the Carrier and the other insurer filed cross-motions for summary disposition in the trial court on the priority of coverage issue. The trial court granted the Client’s motion, holding that the CGL carrier was the primary insurer based on the language in the policies’ “other insurance” clauses. The trial court rejected the CGL carrier’s argument to apply the “total policy insuring intent” or “closest to the risk” tests—tests which Michigan courts have not adopted. Specifically, the court rejected the CGL carrier’s argument that the Client’s contractor’s pollution liability policy was more specifically tailored to the loss in the underlying lawsuit. The trial court also rejected CGL carrier’s alternative argument that the “other insurance” clauses in the policies were irreconcilable, requiring a pro rata allocation based on the respective limits of the policies. Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman and Danielle K. Kegley, Traub Lieberman Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com Ms. Kegley may be contacted at dkegley@tlsslaw.com Read the full story...

---

Eleventh Circuit Finds Professional Services Exclusion Applies to Construction Management Activities

April 29, 2024 — Ashley Kellgren - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Colony Ins. Co. v. Coastal Constr. Mgmt., LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4809 (11th Cir. Feb. 29, 2024), the Eleventh Circuit found the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured based on a professional services exclusion. In that case, the underlying claims arose out of the construction of a four-story apartment complex. The owner and project developer contracted with the insured to provide construction management services as a construction manager and construction consultant. Several years after the project was completed, the owner filed suit against the architect, general contractor, and the insured alleging numerous defects and deficiencies with respect to the project. The owner asserted claims against the insured for breach of contract and negligence, alleging various failures by the insured in connection with its supervision of construction and failures to properly and timely complete the project, and correct inadequate, defective, and noncomplying work. Colony issued two commercial general liability policies to the insured, both of which contained a professional services exclusion. Although the policy did not expressly define “professional services,” the professional services exclusion provided a non-exhaustive list of examples, including: (2) preparing, approving, or failing to prepare or approve maps, drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, change orders, designs or specifications; Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ashley Kellgren, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Kellgren may be contacted at akellgren@tlsslaw.com

---

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa M. Rolle, Eric D. Suben, and Justyn Verzillo Secure Dismissal of All Claims in a Premises Liability Case

November 16, 2023 — Lisa M. Rolle, Eric D. Suben & Justyn Verzillo - Traub Lieberman
On an appeal of an order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint in a slip-and-fall action commenced in Kings County Supreme Court, Traub Lieberman attorneys Lisa M. Rolle, Eric D. Suben, and Justyn Verzillo successfully secured dismissal of all claims by the Appellate Division, Second Department, on behalf of Traub Lieberman’s client. The lawsuit sought to recover damages arising out of injuries the Plaintiff allegedly sustained when she slipped and fell in the shower of a rental property owned by the Defendant, a limited liability company. Plaintiff alleged that the subject shower was defective, and the Defendant negligent, based on the absence of non-slip surfacing and grab bars in the shower. Aside from premises liability (negligence), Plaintiffs asserted eight other causes of action, including gross negligence, breach of warranty of habitability, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, alter-ego liability, loss of consortium, and for declaratory judgment. The judge in Supreme Court denied Traub Lieberman’s motion to dismiss on behalf of Defendant, citing as the sole reason that the affidavits submitted with the motion were unsigned, and ignoring Traub Lieberman’s arguments pointing out the glaring facial deficiencies of Plaintiff’s pleading and that the signed affidavits were in fact submitted before the return date. Reprinted courtesy of Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman, Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman and Justyn Verzillo, Traub Lieberman Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com Mr. Verzillo may be contacted at jverzillo@tlsslaw.com Read the full story...

---

More Clear, But Not Yet Crystal: Virginia Amends its Prompt Payment Law and Legislation Banning “Pay-If-Paid Clauses in Construction Contracts Effective July 1, 2023

November 16, 2023 — Hanna Lee Blake - ConsensusDocs
The Virginia General Assembly has joined a minority of jurisdictions that ban pay-if-paid clauses in construction contracts on public and private projects. Senate Bill 550 went into effect applying to contracts executed after January 1, 2023, and most recently has been amended effective July 1, 2023. This update highlights the recent amendments to Virginia’s prohibition against pay-if-paid provisions, of which owners and contractors should be aware to ensure that their contracts comply with developing law in the Commonwealth. Recap on Senate Bill 550 On April 27, 2022, the Virginia General Assembly passed Senate Bill 550, which amended Virginia Code §§ 2.2-4354 and 11-4.6, which govern both public and private sector contracts. In short, SB 550 (as the bill is commonly known) prohibited pay-if-paid clauses, and established fixed deadlines for the payment of invoices on private projects. Previously, Virginia’s Prompt Payment Act only applied to public projects. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hanna Lee Blake, Watt Tieder
Ms. Blake may be contacted at hblake@watttieder.com

---

Port Authority Revises Plans for $10B Midtown NYC Bus Terminal Replacement

March 04, 2024 — Marigo Farr - Engineering News-Record
New York City's Midtown Manhattan bus terminal replacement project advanced last week after the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey released a draft environmental impact statement and a revised project plan based on feedback from commuters, residents and local officials. Reprinted courtesy of Marigo Farr, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story...

---