Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Colorado House Bill 17-1279 – A Misguided Attempt at Construction Defect Reform

March 29, 2017 — David McClain - Colorado Construction Litigation
On March 17th, House Bill 17-1279, concerning the requirement that a unit owners’ association obtain approval through a vote of unit owners before filing a construction defect action, was introduced and assigned to the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee. The bill is currently scheduled for its first committee hearing on March 29th, at 1:30 in the afternoon. While, on its face, this appears to be a step in the right direction towards instituting “informed consent” before an HOA can file a construction defect action, the bill actually restricts the ability of developer to include more stringent requirements in the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions for an association, thereby lowing the threshold of “consent” required to institute an action. House Bill 17-1279 would amend C.R.S. § 38-33.3-303.5 to require an association’s executive board to mail or deliver written notice of the anticipated commencement of a construction defect action to each unit owner and to call a meeting of the unit owners to consider whether to bring such an action. Any construction professional against which a claim may attend the unit owners’ meeting and have an opportunity to address the unit owners and may include an offer to remedy any defect in accordance with C.R.S. § 13-20-803.5(3). The conclusion of the meeting would initiate a 120-day voting period, during which period the running of any applicable statutes of limitation or repose would be tolled. Pursuant to this bill, an executive board may only institute a construction defect action only if authorized by a simple majority of the unit owners, not including: 1) any unit owned by any construction professional, or affiliate of a construction professional, involved in the design, construction, or repair of any portion of the project; 2) any unit owned by a banking institution; 3) any unit owned in which no defects are alleged to exist, and/or 4) any unit owned by an individual deemed “nonresponsive.” 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

Contract, Breach of Contract, and Material Breach of Contract

July 05, 2023 — Wendy Rosenstein - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
At its most basic level, a contract is an agreement to make a trade. Parties to a contract agree to perform a specific action on the condition that the other side also performs a specific action. For instance, you and a Girl Scout could create a contract in which the Girl Scout agrees to deliver one box of cookies and you agree to pay her $6.00. In this case, both you and the Girl Scout have obligations under the contract. If the Girl Scout failed to send you the cookies, what do you do? You send her a note, in writing, telling her that you expect the cookies (or assurance that you will get the cookies) within a certain amount of time—this is notice and the opportunity to cure. Most contracts have a “notice and opportunity to cure” provision, which essentially says that one side must give the other side an opportunity to fix breaches before canceling the contract. Once a party receives a notice to cure, they must either rectify the problem or offer adequate assurances that they will fix the problem. Generally, the party has only a short period of time to address the breach. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wendy Rosenstein, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC

Everyone Wins When a Foreclosure Sale Generates Excess Proceeds

August 07, 2018 — Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Introduction When a foreclosure sale generates more money than needed to pay off the lien, the excess proceeds usually go first to creditors in the order of their priority, and second to the owner after creditors are paid in full. So, in truth, not everyone wins when a foreclosure sale brings in too much money. Amusingly, in Steinmetz v. Everyone Wins, the court awarded excess sale proceeds to….you guessed it…Everyone Wins, despite the owner’s argument that Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes barred it from recovering anything. In addition to supplying a clever title for this post, Steinmetz v. Everyone Wins provides an important analysis of how Arizona’s anti-deficiency statutes, homeowner’s assessment lien statutes, and foreclosure statutes apply when determining who “wins” when it comes to excess sale proceeds. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

Death of Subcontractor’s Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Project Owner

April 12, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In a previous article, I discussed a subcontractor’s unjust enrichment claim against a project’s owner and the death of this equitable claim if the owner fully paid the general contractor or paid the general contractor for the subcontractor’s work. This can be best summarized from a very short 1995 opinion out of the Fourth District Court of Appeal: “Unjust enrichment is equitable in nature and cannot exist where payment has been made for the benefit conferred. [Owner] paid [General Contractor] the full amount of its contract for the construction project. Accordingly, there can be no unjust enrichment claim to support [Subcontractor’s] claim.” Gene B. Glick Co., Inc. v. Sunshine Ready Concrete Co., Inc., 651 So.2d 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A. Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

AGC’s 2024 Construction Outlook. Infrastructure is Bright but Office-Geddon is Not

February 12, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
The Associated General Contractors of America has issued its 2024 Construction Outlook. According to its survey of construction contractors throughout the United States, contractors have a mixed outlook for 2024 with firms predicting transitions in the demand for projects, the types of challenges they will face and technologies they plan on embracing. According to the survey, contractors continue to cope with significant labor shortages, the impact of higher interest rates and input costs and a supply chain which, while better than in past few years, is still far from normal. Of the 17 categories of construction types included in the survey, respondents expected a net positive growth in 14 of those categories, with infrastructure projects leading the net positive readings following the passage of the Infrastructure Bill in 2021, and commercial retail and office leading the net negative readings as a result of the continuing office-geddon: Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Arizona Court Cites California Courts to Determine Construction Defect Coverage is Time Barred

December 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Construction defect claims in an Arizona community are time barred and so the judge had determined that National Fire & Marine Insurance is not liable for coverage. National Fire claimed that while there was no Arizona case law concerning statutes of limitations for equitable contributions by insurance carriers, the court agreed that “its position is directly supported by cases from other jurisdictions.” In the underlying construction defect case, Steadfast Insurance had settled with homeowners over allegations of construction defects. National Fire was a co-insurer and declined coverage. National Fire’s citing of two California cases was not unique for the Arizona courts. Other Arizona cases cited the same two California cases. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Court Finds That SIR Requirements are Not Incorporated into High Level Excess Policies and That Excess Insurers’ Payment of Defense Costs is Not Conditioned on Actual Liability

April 22, 2019 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Deere & Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (No. A145170, filed 2/25/19), a California appeals court held that the insured was not required to pay additional self-insured retentions (SIRs) in order to trigger higher level excess coverage because the retained limits applicable to the first layer of coverage did not also apply to the higher-layer excess policies. In Deere, the insured was sued for injuries from alleged exposure to asbestos-containing assemblies used in Deere machines. In a declaratory relief action against its umbrella and excess insurers, the case was tried on: (1) whether the higher-layer excess policies were triggered once the first-layer excess policy limits, which were subject to an SIR paid by Deere, had been exhausted; and (2) whether the insurers’ indemnity obligation extended to Deere’s defense costs incurred in asbestos claims that had been dismissed. The trial court found in favor of the insurers, concluding that the retained limits in the first layer of coverage also applied to the higher-layer excess, which was not triggered until Deere paid additional SIRs. The court also concluded that the insurers were not obligated to pay defense costs when underlying cases were dismissed without payment to a claimant either by judgment or settlement. Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

What to do about California’s Defect-Ridden Board of Equalization Building

October 01, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Jerry Brown recently signed into law a bill requiring the state of California “to assess its properties in the Sacramento area and develop long-term plans for renovating, replacing or selling the most troublesome buildings,” according to SF Gate. Some say the Board of Equalization building, which was built for $80 million and then repaired for $60 million has construction defects, is “jeopardizing the health and safety of public employees.” Current problems include “[f]looding, mold, falling windows and free-falling elevators,” reported SF Gate. Furthermore, recently, “three employees filed a $75 million lawsuit against the state, alleging toxic mold in the building is causing extreme fatigue, skin rashes, persistent flu-like symptoms, respiratory illnesses, frequent headaches, memory lapses and fears of cancer.” “This is a disaster,” Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, who authored the bill regarding assessing state capitol buildings, told SF Gate. “It endangers the health and safety of employees and the public alike. And it is costing state taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES