CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Indemnity Provision Provides Relief to Contractor; Additional Insured Provision Does Not

January 06, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found that the contractor was entitled to relief under the contractual indemnity provision, but not the policy's additional insured clause. Chatelain v. Fluor Daniel Constr. Co., 2015 La. App. LEXIS 2257 (Ct. App. La. Nov. 10, 2015). Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA retained Fluor Enterprises, Inc. as a contractor to transport and install FEMA trailers. Fluor entered a Blanket Ordering Agreement (BOA) with Bobby Reavis Contracting, Inc. to transport and install the trailers. The BOA provided Reavis would defend and indemnify Fluor from all liability arising from the subcontractor's work. Reavis also agreed to name Fluor as an additional insured under its CGL policy. Reavis installed a FEMA trailer for Connie Chatelain. Ms. Chatelain was injured when she fell exiting her FEMA trailer. She sued Fluor and Reavis. Fluor tendered the suit to Reavis and Reavis' insurer, Guilford Insurance Company. The tender was rejected and Fluor filed a third-party action demanding indemnification, reimbursement of all legal expenses and damages for insurer misconduct. 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

---

Builder Must Respond To Homeowner’s Notice Of Claim Within 14 Days Even If Construction Defect Claim Is Not Alleged With The “Reasonable Detail”

June 05, 2017 — Richard H. Glucksman & David A. Napper - CGDRB News & Publications
On February 10, 2017, California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal held that if a builder fails to acknowledge receipt of a homeowner’s Notice of Claim within 14 days, as required by the Right to Repair Act (“SB800”), specifically California Civil Code §913, the homeowner is released from the requirements of SB800 and may proceed with the filing of a lawsuit. In Blanchette v. Superior Court, Blanchette owned 1 of 28 homes constructed by GHA Enterprises, Inc. (“GHA”). On February 2, 2016, Blanchette served GHA with notice of a claim, setting forth the alleged defects in all 28 homes. On February 23, 2016, GHA responded that the construction defects were not alleged with sufficient “reasonable detail” as required by Civil Code §910. In response, Blanchette asserted that GHA’s response was untimely and thus excused him and the other homeowners from any obligations under SB800. The trial court found for the builder, GHA, holding that Blanchette’s Notice of Claim lacked detail sufficient to trigger GHA’s obligations under SB800. Blanchette appealed the ruling. Reprinted courtesy of Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and David A. Napper, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court Sharpens The “Sword” And Strengthens The “Shield” Of Contractors’ License Law

July 24, 2023 — Kyle S. Case - ConsensusDocs
Performing construction work without the necessary license can have significant repercussions on a contractor’s business. California in particular has become known for its imposition of “strict and harsh” penalties for a contractor’s failure to maintain proper licensure. In the realm of public works projects, any contract with an unlicensed contractor is deemed void. See Business & Professions Code Section 7028.15(e). On private projects, California’s Contractors’ License Law prohibits contractors from maintaining any action to recover payment for their work, and more severe, may require a contractor to disgorge all funds paid to it for performing unlicensed work. See Business & Professions Code Section 7031). These methods of deterrence are referred to as the “shield” and “sword” of the Contractors’ State License Law. Loranger v. Jones, 184 Cal. App. 4th 847, 854 (2010). In any discussion surrounding licensure, it is important to review the language of the Business and Professions Code (“Bus. & Prof.”). Section 7031(a) states:

Except as provided in subdivision (e), no person engaged in the business or acting in the capacity of a contractor, may bring or maintain any action, or recover in law or equity in any action, in any court of this state for compensation for the performance of any act or contract where a license is required by this chapter without alleging that they were a duly licensed contractor at all times during the performance of that act or contract regardless of the merits of the cause of action brought by the person…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kyle S. Case, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald LLP
Mr. Case may be contacted at kcase@watttieder.com

---

Priority of Liability Insurance Coverage and Horizontal and Vertical Exhaustion

June 22, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Recently, I participated in a webinar involving the horizontal and vertical exhaustion of insurance coverage. Say what? This pertains to the PRIORITY of liability insurance coverage and the interface between a general contractor’s (or upstream party’s) primary insurance and the subcontractor’s (or downstream party’s) excess insurance, particularly when the general contractor is required to be indemnified by the subcontractor and named as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s liability policies. For instance, let’s assume the general contractor has a $2M primary policy and a $5M excess policy. Its subcontractor has a $1M primary and a $5M excess policy. The general contractor is an additional insured under the subcontractor’s policies and the subcontractor is required to contractually indemnify the general contractor. An issue occurs caused by the subcontractor’s negligence resulting in a $5M judgment against the general contractor and the subcontractor. 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

---

Denver’s Proposed Solution to the Affordable Housing Crisis

March 06, 2022 — Taylor Ostrowski - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
Over the past ten years, Colorado has seen a population growth of almost 15 percent, with many residing in Denver. In fact, in 2020, Denver ranked among the top five cities for inbound growth in the United States. At the same time, from 2010 through 2020, the state’s production of new housing decreased by 40 percent. The decrease in supply, coupled with the increase in demand has exasperated the already rising cost of housing in the state. This, along with other external factors such as job loss due to the COVID pandemic, has resulted in a statewide housing crisis. The City of Denver is proposing a revision to the municipal code that would expand affordable housing through three main tools: (1) increasing “linkage fees,” (2) requiring new multi-family development to designate a percentage of units to be affordable, and (3) offering zoning and financial incentives. The proposal addresses both rental housing and ownership opportunities. Although it is essential to combat the housing crisis and increased homelessness in the region, it is equally important to understand the impacts the proposed affordable housing ordinance would have on developers, if and when enacted. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Taylor Ostrowski, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Ostrowski may be contacted at ostrowski@hhmrlaw.com

---

Supreme Court Rejects “Wholly Groundless” Exception to Question of Arbitrability

February 06, 2019 — Justin Fortescue - White and Williams LLP
In newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s first opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that the “wholly groundless” exception to arbitrability, which some federal courts had relied on as justification to decide questions of arbitrability over the express terms of a contract, was inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent. Based on this decision, where a contract delegates the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator, courts must respect the parties’ contract and refer the question to the arbitrator. Schein v. Archer & White, 586 U.S. __ (2019). In Schein, Archer & White brought a lawsuit against Henry Schein alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws and seeking both monetary damages and injunctive relief. The relevant contract between the parties contained an arbitration provision that provided:

“Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief . . .) shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Justin Fortescue, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Nationwide Immigrant Strike May Trigger Excusable Delay and Other Contract Provisions

February 23, 2017 — Adam P. Handfinger & Meredith N. Reynolds – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Yesterday, February 16, 2017, media outlets reported a nationwide strike by immigrants and businesses referred to as “A Day Without Immigrants”. The protest, organized largely through social media, was a response by some to the Trump Administration’s immigration and foreign trade policies. Participating businesses shut down and immigrants refused to work or spend money in an eff ort to demonstrate the role of foreign-born workers in the U.S. economy. While the number of businesses and individuals that participated is not yet known, several contractors reported labor shortages and construction project delays or temporary shut downs as a result of the protest. Reprinted courtesy of Adam P. Handfinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Meredith N. Reynolds, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Handfinger may be contacted at ahandfinger@pecklaw.com Ms. Reynolds may be contacted at mreynolds@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York’s Second Department Holds That Carrier Must Pay Judgment Obtained by Plaintiff as Carrier Did Not Meet Burden to Prove Willful Non-Cooperation

November 23, 2020 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
In the recent case of DeLuca v. RLI Insurance Company, 2020 WL 5931054 (October 7, 2020), the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department held that RLI had a duty to pay a judgment obtained by an underlying plaintiff against RLI’s insured, MLSC. The underlying plaintiff brought the action directly against the carrier after obtaining a judgment against MLSC, and when the judgment remained unsatisfied, serving RLI with the judgment. As an initial matter, the court found that the direct action by the plaintiff was proper under New York Insurance Law 3420(a), which allows for an injured plaintiff to maintain a direct action against a carrier if a judgment against that carrier’s insured remains unsatisfied for a period of 30 days and the carrier is served with that judgment. In that event, the plaintiff steps into the shoes of the insured and is entitled to the rights of the insured (and is also subject to the carrier’s coverage defenses). Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---