Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Three Recent Cases Strike Down Liquidated Damages Clauses In Settlement Agreements…A Trend Or An Aberration?

November 01, 2021 — Adam M. Tuckman - ConsensusDocs
Beginning more than one century ago, owners and contractors generally have adopted the convention of including liquidated damages in their contracts to fix potential liability for delay (and other losses) at the inception of the project. The proliferation of liquidated damages clauses in modern contracts can be attributed to economic and legal factors. From the owner’s standpoint, it may be exceedingly difficult to prove the actual cost impact of a delayed completion of the project. A properly calculated liquidated damages rate would save the owner the significant expense of quantifying its delay damages. On the contractor’s side, a reasonable amount of liquidated damages may be preferable to uncapped or unknown liability, allowing the contractor to more accurately price its bid and efficiently allocate risk. Coinciding with, or perhaps a leading cause of, the industry’s embrace of liquidated damages provisions, was the shift in courts throughout the country from disfavoring such clauses to accepting them (within limits) as an appropriate exercise of contract rights. While some variation exists among the states, courts have generally recognized that liquidated damages clauses are a viable alternative to proof of actual loss so long as (i) actual losses were difficult to quantify, and (ii) the stipulated sum bears a reasonable relationship to the anticipated loss at the time of contracting. See, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 356. Conversely, a clause that penalizes the breaching party rather than serving as an estimate of probable loss is likely to be found unenforceable. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Adam M. Tuckman, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP
Mr. Tuckman may be contacted at atuckman@watttieder.com

Spreading Cracks On FIU Bridge Failed to Alarm Project Team

May 20, 2019 — Scott Judy & Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
On the morning of last year’s Florida International University pedestrian bridge collapse, when the engineer of record assured project team members that there were no safety risks related to cracks propagating across a part of the unusual single-truss structure, other project team members voiced mild concern, but no alarm. In hindsight, considering that the bridge had no inherent structural redundancy as it sat, incomplete, straddling a busy highway—and would suffer a sudden, catastrophic and deadly collapse just hours later—the team’s lack of urgency remains puzzling, say engineering experts contacted by ENR for comment. Reprinted courtesy of Scott Judy, ENR and Richard Korman, ENR Mr. Judy may be contacted at mailto:judys@enr.com Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Withholding Payment or Having Your Payment Withheld Due to Disputes on Other Projects: Know Your Rights to Offset

January 04, 2021 — Christopher C. Broughton, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocs
Introduction The right to offset refers to the common sense ability to reduce or eliminate your payment obligations to a party who owes you money on another contract. With offsets, common law largely tracks common sense. The right of offset is recognized by statute and court decisions in many states as well as under federal law and the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The right to offset can also be established in the contract or subcontract. But like many things that may seem simple, the right to offset can easily become complex. This article provides an overview of the extent and limits of the right to offset varies from state to state and with federal government contracts about the extent and limits of the right of offset. Construction trust fund statutes add another layer of complications. These variations may not be obvious or intuitive, but they have a tremendous impact on your right to get paid or your right to withhold payment. Because of the variations, you must always confirm the law applicable to your contract or subcontract, which may not be where the project or you are located. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher C. Broughton, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Broughton may be contacted at cbroughton@joneswalker.com

The Fourth Circuit Applies a Consequential Damages Exclusionary Clause and the Economic Loss Doctrine to Bar Claims by a Subrogating Insurer Seeking to Recover Over $19 Million in Damages

February 23, 2016 — William L. Doerler – White and Williams LLP
In Severn Peanut Company, Inc. v. Industrial Fumigant Company, 807 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. (N.C.) 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit), applying North Carolina law, considered whether a consequential damages clause in a contract between the Severn Peanut Company, Inc. (Severn) and Industrial Fumigant Company (IFC) barred Severn and its subrogating insurer, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers), from recovering over $19 million in damages that Severn suffered as the result of a fire and explosion at its Severn, North Carolina plant. The Fourth Circuit, rejecting Severn’s unconscionability and public policy arguments related to the consequential damages clause and finding that the economic loss doctrine barred Severn from pursuing negligence claims, affirmed the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment in IFC’s favor. As noted in the Severn decision, the facts showed that Severn and IFC signed a Pesticide Application Agreement (PAA) requiring IFC to use phosphine, a pesticide, to fumigate Severn’s peanut storage dome and to apply the pesticide “in a manner consistent with instructions . . . and precautions set forth in [its] labeling.” With respect to damages, the PAA specified that IFC’s charge for its services, $8,604 plus applicable sales tax, was “based solely upon the value of the services provided” and was not “related to the value of [Severn’s] premises or the contents therein.” In addition, the PAA specified that the $8,604 sum to which the parties agreed was not “sufficient to warrant IFC assuming any risk of incidental or consequential damages” to Severn’s “property, product, equipment, downtime, or loss of business.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com

Reroof Blamed for $10 Million in Damage

November 06, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A renovation of the city hall in Bay City, Michigan went wrong when roof repairs lead to fire and flooding of the historic building. Bay City has sued Gregory Construction and Mihm Enterprises, who earlier had been awarded a $1.5 million contract to reroof the building. The cost of repairing the building is expected to exceed the city’s insurance limit of $10 million. The fire that damaged the building is alleged to have started when a roofer allegedly used a DeWalt grinder in attempt to remove some bolts. Under the contract with the city, the contractor was not going to use grinders, due to the risk of fire. The suit alleges that further water damage was caused, beyond the damage due to the firefighting, due to the contractor failing to “secure a section of the roof which was part of the Roofing Project with a tarp or other water-resistant covering.” The contractors dispute the claims made by Bay City, with Gregory Construction describing them as “untrue and contrary to the facts.” Gregory Construction also claims that their obligations were delegated to Mihn Enterprises. Mihn Enterprises disputes this and states that they do not “owe a duty to the Plaintiffs; as a result their negligence claim is unenforceable as a matter of law.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Atlantic City Faces Downward Spiral With Revel’s Demise

August 13, 2014 — Terrence Dopp – Bloomberg
The shuttering next month of Revel, the $2.6 billion hotel and casino that was meant to usher in a new era of opulence in Atlantic City when it opened in 2012, is set to quicken the seaside community’s downward spiral. Five years after the longest recession since the 1930s, hotel rooms sit vacant and revenue keeps falling in what was once the second-largest U.S. casino market. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s turnaround plan for the municipality, begun in 2011 and hinged on Revel’s success, hasn’t delivered, prompting Moody’s Investors Service to cut the city’s $245 million of general-obligation debt to junk last month. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Terrence Dopp, Bloomberg
Mr Dopp may be contacted at tdopp@bloomberg.net

Roots of Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam Reach Back a Decade

August 05, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Recent court documents in the Las Vegas HOA scandal reveal that the late Nancy Quon, thought to be a mastermind in the scam was involved with a similar case before 2001. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that the Nevada attorney general’s office launched an investigation of the Starfire condominium complex. Claims were made that an architect and a construction company attempted to fill the Starfire board with straw buyers. Quon represented a resident to filed a claim over defective windows. Chris Rasmussen, the attorney for Edith Gillespie, Leon Benzer’s half sister, has noted that his client was not charged in the Starfire case, but the Review-Journal notes that no one was, as the insurance company settled quickly, which ended the chances for a criminal investigation. The Starfire case is described as “a $6 million lawsuit based on fraudulent construction defect claims.” Quon, Benzer, and their co-conspirators are alleged to have modeled their subsequent actions after Starfire. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

How to Challenge a Project Labor Agreement

May 24, 2018 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
Building and Construction Trades Council of Metropolitan District v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts Rhode Island, Inc Massachusetts Water Resources Authority v. Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts Rhode Island, Inc, 507 U.S. 218, 113 S.Ct. 1190, 122 L.Ed.2d 565 (1993) , affectionately knows as Boston Harbor, is the seminal Supreme Court decision that held that the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) does not preempt government mandated project labor agreements (“PLAs”) if the government entity is acting as a market participant rather than a market regulator. Boston Harbor has led to many believing that virtually all PLAs are legal when the government agency is a project owner or if the PLA involves a private project. However, does Boston Harbor really cut that far? In short, no. The primary issue in Boston Harbor was one of preemption. The Supreme Court addressed whether the NLRA preempted state and local laws and ordinances mandating PLAs. On that narrow issue, the Supreme Court said there is no preemption if the government is acting as a market participant. What the Court did not address is whether other federal statutes invalidate PLAs. Specifically, whether PLA’s can run afoul of Section 8(e), the so called “hot cargo” provisions, of the NLRA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES