Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Department Of Labor Recovers $724K In Back Wages, Damages For 255 Workers After Phoenix Contractor Denied Overtime Pay, Falsified Records

February 01, 2023 — U.S. Department of Labor
PHOENIX – The U.S. Department of Labor has recovered $724,082 in back wages and damages for 255 employees of an electrical contractor in Phoenix who denied them overtime wages and falsified records. An investigation by the department’s Wage and Hour Division found IES Residential – a subsidiary of one of the nation’s largest electrical, HVAC and plumbing, solar and cable installation contractors – capped employees’ overtime at eight hours despite some employees working up to 60 hours in a workweek. The division also learned the employer told workers – some who arrived as early as 4:45 a.m. and worked as late as 7 p.m. to record 40 hours or less on their timesheets unless their overtime was pre-approved. When IES Residential did approve, the employer limited overtime to eight hours per week even when employees worked as many as 23 hours of overtime in a workweek. “The U.S. Department of Labor will hold employers accountable for wage theft, particularly in cases like this one, where IES Residential deliberately attempted to evade the law by instructing employees to falsify timesheets to avoid paying overtime wages,” said Wage and Hour Division District Director Eric Murray in Phoenix. “Employers who fail to pay workers their full wages may face costly consequences, including penalties for intentional acts to cover-up their violations.” In fiscal year 2022, the division recovered nearly $32.9 million in back wages for 17,127 construction industry workers. The division completed more than 2,200 investigations in FY22 in the construction industry and by wages recovered, the industry ranks second among the division’s low wage, high violation industries. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

When Can a General Contractor’s Knowledge be Imputed to a Developer?

August 06, 2014 — Zach McLeroy – Colorado Construction Litigation
The Colorado Court of Appeals recently handed down an opinion clarifying when the knowledge of a general contractor can be imputed to a developer. In the case of Jehly v. Brown, 327 P.3d (Colo. App. 2013), the Court of Appeals held that a developer cannot be held liable for fraudulent concealment when the developer has no actual knowledge of the fact or facts allegedly being concealed even if the general contractor had knowledge. In this case, Brown, the developer, owned real property in Teller County and hired a general contractor to build a single-family house. Sometime before or during the construction, the general contractor became aware that part of the home site was located in a designated floodplain. Although the general contractor was aware that part of the home site was located in a floodplain, he continued to build the home without informing Brown of the floodplain designation. Once the home was complete, Brown sold the property to the Jehlys. Brown completed a Seller’s Property Disclosure Form regarding the condition of the house and property, but failed to identify that the home site was located in a governmentally designated floodplain. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zack McLeroy, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLeroy may be contacted at McLeroy@hhmrlaw.com

Rams Owner Stan Kroenke Debuts His $5.5 Billion Dream Stadium

September 14, 2020 — Christopher Palmeri - Bloomberg
The first thing you notice that’s different about SoFi Stadium is that you can walk from the parking lot almost directly into the fifth level of the arena. There’s no passing through gate after gate or ascending endless circular walkways. Construction workers dug up over 7 million cubic yards of dirt to build an arena that sits 100 feet (30 meters) below grade. It’s one of the many features that make SoFi, the National Football League’s biggest stadium, surprisingly visitor-friendly. Not that fans will be able to experience it just yet. When the stadium debuts Sunday with the first game of the Los Angeles Rams’ season, it will be spectator-free -- the result of pandemic-spurred restrictions on gatherings. But it will still be a spectacle. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Palmeri, Bloomberg

Addenda to Construction Contracts Can Be an Issue

March 30, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
We’ve all been there. Your client either has a well drafted standard subcontract (with any luck in consultation with an experienced construction attorney) that it presents to its subcontractors and suppliers or your client is presented with a construction contract that has some provisions that it would prefer were either different or gone altogether. In the first of these scenarios, your client often gets push back from a subcontractor to change certain provisions. Such a response is not necessarily a bad thing depending on the provisions that the potential subcontractor may have. The construction contract documents will govern the way that the project moves forward and will be strictly enforced in Virginia and elsewhere so some early give and take is not unusual or unwanted. In the second scenario, your client is likely to be reading a fairly one sided document. The General Contractor has drafted the contract and is “north” of your client in the payment chain. Like it or not, they will in most instances leave it to you and your attorney to root out the particularly egregious on sided terms and seek to negotiate them to some sort of equality. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Tennessee Court: Window Openings Too Small, Judgment Too Large

November 18, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Tennessee Court of Appeals has issued a ruling in the case of Dayton v. Ackerman, upholding the decision of the lower court, even as they found that the award was incorrectly computed. The Daytons purchased a house that had been designed and built by the Ackermans, who operated a construction business. The court noted that the warranty with the house promised that “for a period of 60 days, the following items will be free of defects in materials or workmanship: doors (including hardware); windows; electric switches; receptacles; and fixtures; caulking around exterior openings; pluming fixtures; and cabinet work.”

Soon, the Daytons began to experience problems with the house. Many were addressed by the Ackermans, but the Daytons continued to have problems with the windows. Neither side could specify a firm date when the Ackermans were contacted by the Daytons about the window problems. The Ackermans maintained that more than two years passed before the Daytons complained about the windows. The lower court found the Daytons more credible in this.

Initially, the Daytons included the window manufacturer in their suit, but after preliminary investigations, the Daytons dropped Martin Doors from their suit. Martin Doors concluded that the windows were improperly installed, many of them “jammed into openings that were too small for them.”

After the Daytons dismissed Martin Doors, the Ackermans sought to file a third party complaint against them. This was denied by the court, as too much time had elapsed. The Ackermans also noted that not all of the window installations were defective, however, the courts found that the Daytons ought not to have mismatched windows.

Unfortunately for the Daytons, the window repair was done incorrectly and the windows were now too small for the openings. The firm that did the repair discounted the windows and Daytons concealed the problem with plantation shutters, totalling $400 less than the original lowest estimate. However, the appeals court noted that it was here that the trial court made their computation error. Correcting this, the appeals court assessed the Ackermans $12,016.20 instead of $13,016.20.

Finally, the Ackerman’s expert was excluded as he had changed his testimony between deposition and trial. The trial reviewed the expert’s testimony and had it been admissible, it would not have changed the ruling.

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Deescalating Hyper Escalation

July 05, 2023 — Paul F. Williamson - Construction Executive
Recent years have seen the construction industry get hit by a perfect storm of rising costs, workforce shortages, delivery delays, supply-chain issues, inflation, interest-rate hikes and materials price escalation. The cost of construction has become more expensive, leaving all parties to grapple with the sufficiency of their risk-management strategies and the ramifications of contracts that are ill-equipped to deal with unprecedented cost increases. Of particular concern to industry participants are the volatile price fluctuations that construction materials have undergone and how to appropriately mitigate the risks they present. Although owners, general contractors and subcontractors may seek to mitigate future risks, many who are party to an existing contract all too often must scramble to divine how to absorb significantly more financial risk than they expected pre-pandemic. Contracts that were bid and entered into prior to the pandemic may have seen, in some instances, double- and triple-digit percent increases in prices due to hyper escalation, with little recourse to address such situations. While parties to private contracts are free to mitigate their risk through contract negotiations, parties to federal or state public procurements are somewhat more constrained. Reprinted courtesy of Paul F. Williamson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

How SmartThings Wants to Automate Your Home

July 02, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
SmartThings, a U.S. start-up company, “has built a first-of-its-kind platform that allows the objects in your home–doors, locks, lightbulbs, even sprinkler systems–to talk to one another and prioritize your needs,” according to Time. The only requirements are a smartphone and a $200 starter kit. Alex Hawkinson created SmartThings after he returned from a family vacation and discovered that pipes had burst, resulting in a $100,000 repair bill: “How is it possible that someone hasn’t created something I could plug in that would alert me when something went wrong?” Hawkinson commented to Time. SmartThings got its start through Kickstarter (Ashton Kutcher was one of the investors), but is now a General Electric partner. Time reported that there are “legitimate fears of cybercriminals commandeering your smart locks and cameras [that] have made people wary of making their homes potentially hackable.” Hawkinson stated that SmartThings has hired “white-hat hackers to continuously probe SmartThings’ technology and pinpoint vulnerabilities that must be fixed.” “We’re at the outset of this wave where … your home can give you security, peace of mind and more,” Hawkinson told Time. “Eventually, everything that should be connected will be connected.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Application of Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Supports Coverage

January 06, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

Relying on the efficient proximate cause doctrine, the court determined coverage potentially existed for damage caused by water. Union Sav. Bank v. Allstate Indem. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134398 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 21, 2011).

The Tods purchased property that was mortgaged by Union Savings. The Tods obtained a Landlords Policy for the property from Allstate. When the Tods were in default on their loan, Union Savings notified them that foreclosure proceedings would commence. Union Savings sent an appraiser to the property who discovered water in the basement. Water and electricity to the building were off. Union Savings notified Allstate and later filed a formal claim under the mortgagee clause in the Landlords Policy. This clause stated, "A covered loss will be payable to the mortgagees named on the policy declaration. . . ."

Allstate denied coverage, citing exclusions for water damage.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com