Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Expert Medical Science Causation Testimony Improperly Excluded under Daubert; ID of Sole Cause of Medical Condition Not Required

April 15, 2014 — R. Bryan Martin & Whitney L. Stefko - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On April 4, 2014, in Messick v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Defendant Pharmaceutical Corporation because the district court improperly excluded expert testimony. The three-judge panel held that the district court erred by excluding causation testimony offered by Plaintiff's expert it found to be irrelevant and unreliable. Plaintiff was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000. In response to her development of osteoporosis after chemotherapy, Plaintiff treated with the drug Zometa for several months in 2002. Zometa is a bisphosphonate, a class of drug commonly used to treat multiple myeloma. Such drugs are generally used to reduce or eliminate the possibility of skeletal-related degeneration and injuries to which cancer patients are particularly susceptible. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation produces Zometa, which was approved by the FDA in 2001 and 2002. In 2005 after encountering issues with her jaw, it was discovered that Plaintiff had osteonecrosis near three of her teeth. The oral specialists treating Plaintiff did so under the assumption that she was suffering from bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw ("BRONJ"), a condition recognized by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons ("AAOMS"). Plaintiff's BRONJ healed in 2008 - three years after beginning treatment. Thereafter, Plaintiff brought suit against Novartis for strict products liability, negligent manufacture, negligent failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranty, and loss of consortium. In support of her claims, Plaintiff offered her expert's testimony on ONJ and BRONJ, and on the causal link between plaintiff's bisphosphonate treatment and later development of BRONJ. Novartis filed a Daubert motion to exclude the specific causation testimony of Plaintiff's experts and a motion seeking summary judgment. The district court granted both motions on the basis that Plaintiff's expert testimony was irrelevant and unreliable. Reprinted courtesy of R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Requesting an Allocation Between Covered and Non-Covered Damages? [Do] Think Twice, It’s [Not Always] All Right.

October 12, 2020 — Todd Likman - Colorado Construction Litigation
As is often the case in construction defect and other insurance defense litigation, a plaintiff’s claims for relief typically encompass both covered and uncovered damages. Obviously, it is in the insured’s best interests to have as many damages covered by insurance as possible. From the insurer’s perspective and against the backdrop of owing duty of good faith and fair dealing to its insureds, however, it is generally better to have an allocation of covered vs. non-covered damages. This places the insurer, insured, and insurance retained defense counsel in a difficult position. A recent opinion from U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Rockhill Ins. Co. v. CFI-Global Fisheries Mgmt, Civil Action No. 1:16-CV-02760-RM-MJW, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35209 (D. Colo. Mar. 2, 2020), sheds light on the issue, even though some may feel it only further muddies already murky waters. Rockhill involved review of an arbitration proceeding that property-owner, Heirloom I, LLC (“Heirloom”) filed against CFI-Global Fisheries Management (“CFI”). Rockhill Insurance Company (“Rockhill Insurance”) was asked to defend the arbitration as CFI’s professional and general liability insurer. At issue in the arbitration was Heirloom’s claim that CFI defectively designed and constructed a fisheries enhancement that was destroyed by natural processes four times in three years. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Todd Likman, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. Likman may be contacted at likman@hhmrlaw.com

60-Mile-Long Drone Inspection Flight Points to the Future

January 15, 2019 — Tom Sawyer - Engineering News-Record
Black & Veatch announced in December the successful conclusion of a 60-mile-log, non-stop, proof-of-concept drone-based inspection flight conducted by a remote pilot in a command center miles away in rural Illinois. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Sawyer, ENR
Mr. Sawyer may be contacted at sawyert@enr.com

Coverage Article - To Settle or Not To Settle?

September 20, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
My colleagues Rina Carmel, Karin Aldama and I authored an article entitled, "To Settle or Not to Settle? Bad-Faith Implications in Resolving Underlying Actions." The article appears in the current edition of Coverage, published by the Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee of the ABA. The article is here. The article addresses the obstacles faced when settling liability claims. The insurer and insured may have fundamental disagreements on whether to settle or how much to pay in settlement. Should the insured contribute to the settlement? Whether the insurer should seek from the policyholder, or the policyholder offers to make, a settlement contribution presents thorny issues, including whether such a contribution can convert an excess demand into a demand within limits—which, in turn, affects the standard for evaluating the insurer’s response to the third-party demand. On the other hand, the policy holder may not want to settle and set a bad precedent. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Terminating Contracts for Convenience — “Just Because”

June 28, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Termination for convenience provisions are important provisions to include in construction contracts. These are provisions that allow a party to terminate the contract for ANY REASON. No cause is needed to exercise the termination for convenience provision. In other words, the terminating party does not have to demonstrate the other party breached the contract. A termination for convenience can be exercised “just because.” Typically, the party providing the service should not get to terminate for convenience. However, the party receiving the service will want to be afforded this contractual right. For example, an owner (receiving a service) will want to include a termination for convenience provision with its prime contractor (providing a service). And, a general contractor (receiving a service) will want to include a termination for convenience provision in its subcontract with its subcontractor (providing a service). However, a general contractor providing a service for an owner, or a subcontractor providing a service to a general contractor, should not be able to terminate the contract for their convenience “just because” a better opportunity comes along. 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

Property Insurance Exclusion for Constant or Repeated Leakage of Water

March 14, 2018 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
A property insurance policy, no different than any insurance policy, contains exclusions for events that are NOT covered under the terms of the policy. One such common exclusion in a property insurance policy is an exclusion for damages caused by "constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water…over a period of 14 or more days." The application of this exclusion was discussed in the recent opinion of Hicks v. American Integrity Ins. Co. of Florida, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D446a (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). In this case, while the insured was out of town, the water line to his refrigerator started to leak. When the insured return home over a month later, the supply line was discharging almost a thousand gallons of water per day. The insured submitted a property insurance claim. The property insurer engaged a consultant that opined (likely, correctly) that the water line had been leaking for at least five weeks. Based on the above-mentioned exclusion, i.e., that water had been constantly leaking for over a period of 14 days, the insurer denied coverage. This denial led to the inevitable coverage dispute. 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

Delaware Court Holds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship

May 07, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
A Delaware trial court found that the carrier properly denied coverage to a contractor who allegedly caused property damage due to faulty workmanship. Westfield Ins. Co., Inc. v. Miranda & Hardt Contracting and Building Serv., L.L.C., 2015 Del. Super. LEXIS 160 (Del. Super. Ct. March 30, 2015). In 2004 and 2005, Miranda built a home pursuant to a contract with Fenwick Ventures, LLC. The homeowners purchased the home from Fenwick in 2006. In 2012, the homeowners contacted Fenwick to complain about defects in the home's construction. In 2014, the homeowners filed a complaint against Fenwick and Miranda. The lawsuit alleged that during the construction of the home, Miranda used inadequate building materials, improperly installed building materials, violated building codes, and fraudulently represented that the home was properly constructed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

San Francisco Museum Nears $610 Million Fundraising Goal

June 26, 2014 — Dan Levy – Bloomberg
The biggest museum fundraising campaign in San Francisco history is nearing its $610 million goal two years before the opening of a new wing that will more than double the space for artworks by Andy Warhol, Mark Rothko and David Hockney. About $570 million, or 94 percent, has been raised by the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art for its 235,000-square-foot (21,800-square-meter) expansion and to add $245 million to the museum’s endowment. The $305 million wing designed by the Snohetta architecture firm is rising behind SFMOMA’s current home, opened two decades ago in the technology-heavy South of Market area, or SOMA. “In 1995, we were the pioneers when SOMA was pretty run-down, and the tech boom followed us,” Neal Benezra, the museum’s director, said June 20 in a presentation at Bloomberg LP’s San Francisco offices. “Our expansion will solidify the neighborhood as a cultural hub.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dan Levy, Bloomberg
Mr. Levy may be contacted at dlevy13@bloomberg.net

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES