Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Robinson+Cole’s Amicus Brief Adopted and Cited by Massachusetts’s High Court

July 31, 2024 — Erica Whaley - Construction Law Zone
Earlier this year, the Associated Subcontractors of Massachusetts hired Robinson+Cole attorney Joseph Barra to submit an amicus brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for consideration in the appeal pending before it in Business Interiors Floor Covering Business Trust v. Graycor Construction Co., Inc. In its June 17, 2024 decision in that case, the Court interpreted the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act, which applies to private construction projects and “requires that parties to a construction contract approve or reject payment within” an allotted time period and in compliance with certain procedures else such payments will be deemed approved. Two years ago, the Massachusetts Appeals Court, in Tocci Building Corp. v. IRIV Partners, LLC, decided that an owner who fails to timely advise its general contractor of the reasons as to why it was withholding payment, coupled with failure to certify that such funds are being withheld in good faith, violates the Prompt Pay Act and makes the owner liable for funds owed.[1] However, the Tocci Building Court left open the question of whether one who violates the Prompt Pay Act forfeits its substantive defenses to non-payment, such as fraud, defective work, or breach of material obligation of the contract. The facts of Business Interiors involve a general contractor, Graycor, which subcontracted Business Interiors to perform certain flooring work for a movie theatre in Boston’s North End. When Graycor failed to formally approve, reject, or certify, in good faith, its withholding of payment of three of Business Interiors’ applications for payment as prescribed by the Prompt Pay Act, Business Interiors brought suit alleging, among other things, breach of contract. Business Interiors then moved for summary judgement arguing that Graycor’s failure to comply with the Act rendered it liable for the unpaid invoices. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robinson + Cole

Alabama Supreme Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect to Contractor's own Product

October 21, 2013 — Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law Hawaii
The Alabama Supreme Court followed prior precedent and found that the contractor's faulty workmanship causing damage to his own product did not arise from an occurrence. Owners Ins. Co. v. Jim Carr Homebuilder, LLC, 2013 Ala. LEXIS 122 (Ala. Sept. 20, 2013). The plaintiffs contracted with Carr to construct a new home. After completion of the home and taking occupancy, the plaintiffs noted several problems with the house related to water leaking through the roof, walls and floors, resulting in water damage to various areas of the house. The plaintiffs sued Carr and the case eventually went to arbitration. The arbitrator entered an award in favor of plaintiffs for $600,000. Owners filed an action against Carr for a declaratory judgment seeking to establish there was no coverage because the property damage did not arise from an occurrence. The trial court granted summary judgment to Carr. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Navigating Abandonment of a Construction Project

March 02, 2020 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara
No construction or real estate developments goes completely as planned. Despite the expectation that modifications will likely be necessary to finalize a project, far too many parties suffer losses related to these projects. In California, abandonment of a project without legal excuse gives rise to a legal claim. An abandonment occurs if there was a material failure to complete any construction project or operation for the price stated in the contract or in any modification of the contact. If abandonment occurs, litigation likely follows. Disputes most commonly arise when the parties fail to retain a paper trail. Therefore, to limit litigation, document everything. Change orders can offer protection, but they must be in writing. Handshakes or oral promises are not sufficient. Rather, obtain written agreements signed by the contractor, and retain all documentation provided by the contractor, including invoices, receipts, work estimates and change orders. If the construction project has been abandoned, take photographs and/or videos of the job as it appears. To mitigate damages, preserve any leftover materials that a new contractor may be able to use. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara

Terms of Your Teaming Agreement Matter

February 11, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
These days in construction, and other pursuits, teaming agreements have become a great method for large and small contractors to work together to take advantage of various contract and job requirements from minority participation to veteran ownership. With the proliferation of these agreements, parties must be careful in how they draft the terms of these agreements. Without proper drafting, the parties risk unenforceability of the teaming agreement in the evewnt of a dispute. One potential pitfall in drafting is an “agreement to agree” or an agreement to negotiate a separate contract in the future. This type of pitfall was illustrated in the case of InDyne Inc. v. Beacon Occupational Health & Safety Services Inc. out of the Eastern District of Virginia. In this case, InDyne and Beacon entered into a teaming agreement that provided that InDyne as Prime would seek to use Beacon, the Sub, in the event that InDyne was awarded a contract using Beacon’s numbers. The teaming agreement further provided:

The agreement shall remain in effect until the first of the following shall occur: … (g) inability of the Prime and the Sub, after negotiating in good faith, to reach agreement on the terms of a subcontract offered by the Prime, in accordance with this agreement.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds Fire Damage Resulted from Single Occurrence

November 21, 2018 — Brian Margolies - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
In its recent decision in Secura Ins. v. Lyme St. Croix Forest Co., LLC 2018 WI 103 (Oct. 30, 2018), the Wisconsin Supreme Court had occasion to consider whether a forest fire that caused damage to several homes and properties should be considered a single or multiple occurrences. Secura insured Lyme St. Croix Forest Company under a general liability policy. Of relevance was the policy’s $500,000 sublimit of coverage for property damage due to fire arising from logging or lumbering operations, subject to a $2 million general policy aggregate limit. Lyme St. Croix sought coverage under the policy for a fire that resulted from its logging equipment. The fire lasted for three days, burning nearly 7,500 acres and causing damage to numerous homes and businesses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
Mr. Margolies may be contacted at bmargolies@tlsslaw.com

Century Communities Acquires Dunhill Homes Las Vegas Operations

April 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Big Builder, “Colorado-based Century Communities” has acquired “the Las Vegas operations team and 1,849 lots of Dunhill Homes.” This brings Century’s “total land position of owned and controlled lots to 10,095, an increase of 21% since the end of 2013.” “More than the homes and land inventory, this acquisition allows us to add an experienced operations team, with a reputation of delivering quality homes in well-located communities,” stated Robert Francescon and Dale Francescon, Co-Chief Executive Officers of Century Communities, in a statement as quoted by Big Builder. “Additionally, Las Vegas remains a land constrained market, and we are now uniquely positioned within communities that would be very difficult to replicate today, with land inventory to drive future growth.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Bond, No Recovery: WA Contractors Must Comply With WA Statutory Requirements Or Risk Being Barred From Recovery If Their Client Refuses To Pay

September 18, 2018 — Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
The risk that a contractor’s client may refuse to pay the full contract balance is a day-to-day reality for every contractor. That risk – and the stress it causes in the mind of any contractor – is tempered by the knowledge that Washington statutes provide contractors with ready access to the courts to file a lawsuit and be fully compensated for the work performed. But a recent case provides a grim reminder that the same statutes that giveth court access can also taketh away. Washington’s Contractor Registration Act (“WCRA”)[1] requires every contractor engaging or offering to engage in services in Washington to register with the Department of Labor and Industries (”L&I”). In order to sue to collect compensation for work or to enforce a contract, a contractor must prove that he/she “was a duly registered contractor and held a current and valid certificate of registration at the time he or she contracted for the performance of such work or entered into such contract.”[2] In order to conclude that a contractor has substantially comply with these requirements, a court must find that: (1) The department has on file the information required by RCW 18.27.030; (2) the contractor has at all times had in force a current bond or other security as required by RCW 18.27.040; and (3) the contractor has at all times had in force current insurance as required by RCW 18.27.050.[3] Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Lane may be contacted at joshua.lane@acslawyers.com

LAX Runway Lawsuit a Year Too Late?

January 17, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The City of Los Angeles filed a lawsuit against Tutor-Saliba Corp. and O&G Industries Inc., which had created a joint venture to rebuild Runway 25L at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), according to Brian Sumers writing for the Daily Breeze. However, lawyers for the construction companies are alleging that the lawsuit was filed a year too late: “…the complaint’s first four causes of action against Joint Venture are indisputably barred under California Law,” lawyers from Castle & Associates claimed. This news came soon after a plane blew a tire on the same runway involved in the lawsuit, as reported by the Los Angeles Times. The blown out tire may not be related to the alleged construction defects: “The runway is usable,” Nancy Castles, spokeswoman for Los Angeles World airports told the Los Angeles Times. Castles explained that “the lawsuit is about ‘deterioration’ and that at some point the runway will need to be rebuilt, but that time is not now.” Read the full story at the Daily Breeze... Read the full story at the Los Angeles Times... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES