ASHBURN VIRGINIA EXPERT WITNESS ENGINEER
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

North Carolina Federal Court Holds “Hazardous Materials” Exclusion Does Not Bar Duty to Defend Under CGL Policy for Bodily Injury Claims Arising Out of Direct Exposure to PFAs

December 07, 2020 — Paul A. Briganti - White and Williams LLP
On October 19, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina held that a “hazardous materials” exclusion contained in a CGL policy did not preclude a duty to defend the insured against claims alleging bodily injury resulting from direct exposure to perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which are man-made chemicals within the group of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs).[1] In Colony Insurance Company v. Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, the insured was named a defendant in hundreds of underlying suits relating to its manufacture of fire equipment containing aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), a fire suppressant.[2] The underlying plaintiffs alleged that: (a) the AFFF contained PFOS and PFOA; (b) PFOA and PFOS are highly carcinogenic; and (c) exposure to AFFF contained in the defendants’ products caused bodily injury or property damage. Around a third of the underlying complaints alleged harm from both direct exposure to the foam and exposure through the environment. Representative language from those complaints was: “[d]uring [underlying plaintiff’s] employment as a firefighter and firefighter instructor, he was significantly exposed to elevated levels of PFOS and PFOA in their concentrated form as a result of regular contact with [d]efendant’s AFFF products and through PFOS and PFOA having contaminated the FireCollege well system.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Illinois Legislature Enables Pre-Judgment Interest in Personal Injury Cases

February 01, 2021 — Justin Zimmerman - Lewis Brisbois
On January 13, 2021, the Illinois General Assembly passed HB 3360, which will enable pre-judgment interest of 9% in personal injury cases. The legislation was sponsored by Madison County, Illinois-area representative Jay Hoffman (D-Belleville) and Illinois state senator Dan Harmon (D-Oak Park). Under current Illinois law, plaintiffs are not entitled to pre-judgment interest in personal injury cases because the nature and extent of a plaintiff’s damages cannot be calculated in advance and liability is uncertain (compared, for example, to a breach of contract claim). If signed by the governor, personal injury actions in Illinois will be subject to 9% per annum pre-judgment interest accruing “on the date the defendant has notice of the injury from the incident itself or a written notice." Notably, the bill will also impact pending litigation as interest begins to accrue on the effective date of the legislation for cases already filed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Justin Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Zimmerman may be contacted at Justin.Zimmerman@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Mitigating FCRA Risk Through Insurance

November 30, 2020 — Sergio F. Oehninger, Geoffrey B. Fehling & Matt Revis - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
As reported in a recent Hunton Andrews Kurth client alert, Mitigating FCRA Risks in the COVID-19 World (Oct. 23, 2020), consumer litigation claims related to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) doubled in the years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic. After a slight decrease in FCRA filings due to court closures and other COVID-19 restrictions, claims will likely resume their previous upward trajectory. In fact, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has already seen an uptick in consumer complaints, many of which mention COVID-19 specific keywords. Given the anticipated rise in FCRA complaints, the alert highlights the need for financial institutions and financial services companies to develop FCRA-compliant policies and procedures, including training on those policies and procedures, to mitigate the risk of FCRA-related enforcement actions and litigation claims, particularly in light of the regulatory changes relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. Another important risk mitigation tool to consider is insurance, which can offer protection when even the most robust preventative measures fail to prevent an FCRA claim. Coverage for FCRA-related claims—often from directors’ and officers’ (D&O) or errors and omissions (E&O) policies—might be broader than one would initially expect. Policies may cover defense costs involving legal fees, as well as indemnification for damages. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Matt Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Hawaii Federal District Rejects Another Construction Defect Claim

November 30, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Federal District Court, District of Hawaii, continued it long line of cases finding no coverage for claims of faulty workmanship. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Summary Judgment RMB Enters., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200468 (D. Haw. Oct. 28, 2020). Property owners entered a construction contract with RMB Enterprises to develop and construct residential structures and a pond. The pond walls enclosed residential spaces, providing structural foundations for the walls of the building. After completion of the project, the pond leaked into its pump room. RMB performed remedial work by injecting epoxy into cracks. Later, water from the pondleaked into the interior of a residence near a staircase. Water also leaked into the master bedroom area causing musty odor, mood growth, and increased humidity. The owners sued RMB asserting breach of contract, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, and negligence claims. Nautilus denied coverage. The policy provided that faulty workmanship did not constitute an "occurrence." But when faulty workmanship caused property damage to property other than "your work," then such property damage would be considered caused by an occurrence. 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

---

First-Party Statutory Bad Faith – 60 Days to Cure Means 60 Days to Cure

October 19, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a first party bad-faith lawsuit, such as a bad faith claim against an insured’s property insurer, there are three requirements that must be met before the bad faith lawsuit is filed: “‘(1) determination of the insurer’s liability for coverage; (2) determination of the extent of the insured’s damages; and (3) the required notice must be filed under section 624.155(3)(a).’” Fortune v. First Protective Ins. Co., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2092a (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (citation omitted). The third requirement is for the insured to file a Civil Remedy Notice (known as a “CRN”) as a condition precedent to filing a statutory bad faith lawsuit giving the insurer 60 days’ notice of the bad faith violation and to cure the violation, i.e., pay the claim if the violation is payment. A very common bad faith payment violation is the assertion that the insurer did NOT attempt “in good faith to settle claims when, under the circumstances, it could and should have done so, had it acted fairly and honestly towards its insured and with due regard for his or her interests.” Fla. Stat. s. 624.155(1)(b)(1). 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

---

Common Law Indemnification - A Primer

April 12, 2021 — Brian F. Mark - Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.
“Common law indemnification is generally available ‘in favor of one who is held responsible solely by operation of law because of his relationship to the wrongdoer.’” McCarthy v. Turner Constr., Inc., 17 N.Y.3d 369, 375 (2011), quoting Mas v. Two Bridges Assocs., 75 N.Y.2d 680, 690 (1990). What is Common Law Indemnification and Who Can Assert it? Indemnification, in general terms, is the right of one party to shift a loss to another and may be based upon an express contract or an implied obligation. Bellevue S. Assoc. v. HRH Constr. Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 282 (1991). Based on a separate duty owed the indemnitee by the indemnitor, common law indemnification, or implied indemnification, permits one who was compelled to pay for the wrong of another to recover from the wrongdoer the damages paid to the injured party. D’Ambrosio v. City of New York, 55 N.Y.2d 454, 460 (1982); Curreri v. Heritage Prop. Inv. Trust, Inc., 48 A.D.3d 505, 507 (2d Dept. 2008). The premise of common law indemnification is vicarious liability, defined as “liability that a supervisory party (such as an employer) bears for the actionable conduct of a subordinate or associate (such as an employee) based on the relationship between the two parties” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Common law indemnification “reflects an inherent fairness as to which party should be held liable for indemnity.” McCarthy, 17 N.Y.3d at 375. It is a restitution concept which permits shifting the loss because, to fail to do so, would result in the unjust enrichment of one party at the expense of the other. Mas, 75 N.Y.2d at 680, 690; Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center v. Islam, 172 A.D.3d 1342, 1343 (2d Dept. 2019). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian F. Mark, Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.
Mr. Mark may be contacted at bfm@hurwitzfine.com

---

Is A Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound by A Default or Default Judgment Against Its Principal?

February 08, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Maguire-O’Hara Construction, Inc. v. Cool Roofing Systems, Inc., 2020 WL 6532852 (W.D. Oklahoma 2020) is an interesting case dealing with suretyship law and the subject of whether a Miller Act payment bond surety is bound by a default or default judgment against its prime contractor (bond principal). In this case, a subcontractor sued a prime contractor for breach of contract and the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond surety for a breach of the payment bond. The prime contractor did not respond to the lawsuit and the subcontractor obtained a default against the contractor. The Miller Act payment bond surety did engage counsel to defend itself in the dispute. Prior to trial, the subcontractor moved in limine to preclude the surety from raising defenses at trial under the subcontract because a default was entered against the prime contractor. The subcontractor argued that the surety should be bound by the default and, therefore, precluded from raising liability defenses under the subcontract. Such a ruling would leave the surety no defenses disputing liability at trial.

[A] suretys’ liability under the Miller Act coincides with that of the general contractor, its principal. Accordingly, a surety [can] plead any defenses available to its principal but [can]not make a defense that could not be made by its principal. Maguire-O’Hara Construction, supra, at *2 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

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

---

Assessing Defective Design Liability on Federal Design-Build Projects

March 22, 2021 — Dirk Haire, Adam Hamilton & Dana Molinari - ConsensusDocs
A common misconception by many government officials is that a design-builder is always responsible for every design error or omission on a design-build project. This article examines the actual liability standard applied by the courts and boards of contract appeals when a design defect arises on a federal design-build project. Background: Design-Build Contracts and the Spearin Doctrine Design-build contracts combine the design and construction elements of a construction project into one contract. Design-build contracts often include two types of specifications: design and performance. Design specifications may set forth various parameters, such as precise measurements, tolerances, and materials. In doing so, the specifications create a fixed “roadmap” governing a contractor’s performance of the project. Performance specifications, on the other hand, set forth “operational characteristics” to achieve a particular objective or standard, but generally leave the details to the contractor. Reprinted courtesy of Dirk Haire, Fox Rothschild LLP, Adam Hamilton, Fox Rothschild LLP and Dana Molinari, Fox Rothschild LLP Mr. Haire may be contacted at dhaire@foxrothschild.com Mr. Hamilton may be contacted at ahamilton@foxrothschild.com Ms. Molinari may be contacted at dmolinari@foxrothschild.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---