CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Has Hydrogen's Time Finally Come?

April 05, 2021 — Mary B. Powers, Debra K. Rubin, Michael Dumiak, and Pam Radtke Russell - Engineering News-Record
Global conditions to harness the potential of hydrogen to fuel the developing clean energy transformation—particularly technology innovation, political investment and growing acceptance that climate change is a reality—finally appear to be lining up. While reports have noted hydrogen eyed as a fossil fuel replacement as far back as Jules Verne’s 1875 novel “The Mysterious Island,” with costs high and changemaking slow, it never captured the market many hoped for. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, ENR, Debra K. Rubin, ENR, Michael Dumiak, ENR, and Pam Radtke Russell, ENR Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Wildfire Is Efficient Proximate Cause of Moisture Reaching Expansive Soils Under Residence

November 05, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court considered whether a wildfire (covered risk) or moisture in the soils (excluded risk) was the cause of damage to the insureds' home. Encompass Ins. Co. v. Berger, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142870 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2014). In May 2009, the Jesusita Fire caused damage to the insureds' home and surrounding area. The west wall of the house was burned, causing damage to a bedroom. A shed, hot tub, wooden decks and some vegetation, including eucalyptus trees, were damaged. The insureds submitted a claim to Encompass. Eventually, Encompass spent $400,000 repairing the property. 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

---

Who is a “Contractor” as Used in “Unlicensed Contractor”?

June 08, 2020 — Taylor Orgeron - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
A recent Georgia Court of Appeals case established a rule concerning the effect of an unlicensed contractor failing to disclose that he is unlicensed. In Fleetwood v. Lucas,[1] the contractor was hired by the homeowners to perform renovations on two homes. One of the projects went over budget, and the homeowners failed to pay the remaining balances on both projects. Following their failure to pay, the contractor sued the homeowners for breach of contract, and the jury delivered a verdict in his favor. The homeowners appealed on the grounds that the contractor was barred from bringing suit because the contractor did not have a license to perform the work. Generally, if a contractor does not have a residential or general contractor’s license but performs work when a license is required, the contract is unenforceable. O.C.G.A. § 43-41-17(b). However, under O.C.G.A. § 43-41-17(g), a contractor may perform repair work without a license if the contractor discloses that he does not have a license, and the work does not affect the structural integrity of the project. In this case, the contractor failed to disclose that he did not have a license. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Taylor Orgeron, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Orgeron may be contacted at orgeron@ahclaw.com

---

California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies

November 12, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
On August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public policy” of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in Pitzer had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law – which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York – that provision can be overridden by California’s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in Pitzer also held that the notice-prejudice rule “generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,” but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context. The Pitzer case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer “denied coverage based on Pitzer’s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer’s] consent before commencing the remediation process.” The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until “three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment “claiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy’s notice and consent provisions.” Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Thanks for Four Years of Recognition from JD Supra’s Readers’ Choice Awards

May 20, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
A big thank you to the folks at JD Supra and its readers for recognizing us in its Construction category for its 2019 Readers’ Choice Awards! We’re honored to be among the 228 authors recognize for their visibility, engagement and thought leadership out of more than 50,000 who have published articles on JD Supra this past year. Congratulations as well to the other JD Supra 2019 Readers’ Choice Award recipients whose hard work encourages us to be better authors. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Revamp to Nationwide Permits Impacting Oil and Gas Pipeline, Utility and Telecom Line Work

March 29, 2021 — Alex P. Prochaska, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocs
To avoid delay costs and penalties, contractors involved in pipeline and utilities construction maintenance, repair and removal need to understand how the 43 year old Nationwide Permit (NWP) regime has changed specific to the NWP 12 and what is now required for compliance. This change is important for contractors who construct, maintain, or repair pipelines that cross or impact waters of the United States, including wetlands. NWPs are a useful tool to streamline construction of a pipeline project, but it is important for contractors to know when certain terms and conditions still apply to the particular NWP and those that have been eliminated. On January 13, 2021, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) published a final rule that reissued and modified twelve existing NWPs and issued four new NWPs that will take effect on March 15, 2021.1 The remaining 40 NWPs that were not reissued or modified under this rule will continue under the general conditions and definitions of the January 6, 2017 final rule. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alex P. Prochaska, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Prochaska may be contacted at aprochaska@joneswalker.com

---

10 Year Anniversary – Congratulations Greg Podolak

November 23, 2016 — Edwin L. Doernberger – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
2016 marks 10 years of successful practice for SDV Partner, Gregory Podolak. Greg has spent his entire professional career with Saxe, Doernberger & Vita, rising up the ranks from Summer Associate to Managing Partner of SDV’s first satellite office located in Naples, FL. Greg also manages SDV’s Cyber Risk group and is a nationally recognized author and speaker on the topic. Over the past decade, Greg has been honored with numerous awards, including the Connecticut Law Tribune’s 2015 New Leaders in the Law, and for the past five years in a row has been chosen as a Super Lawyers® Rising Star. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Edwin L. Doernberger, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Doernberger may be contacted at eld@sdvlaw.com

---

Amazon Feels the Heat From Hoverboard Fire Claims

January 20, 2020 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 3:18CV166-M-P, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189053 (Oct. 31, 2019), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi considered a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon). Amazon argued that, because it was a “service provider” who cannot be held liable under Mississippi’s Product Liability Act (MPLA), Miss. Code § 11.1.63, the negligence and negligent failure to warn claims filed against it by plaintiff State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (State Farm) failed as a matter of law. The court, looking beyond the MPLA, held that State Farm’s complaint stated a claim against Amazon. In State Farm, Taylor and Laurel Boone (the Boones), State Farm’s subrogors, purchased two hoverboards from third parties in transactions facilitated by Amazon. They purchased the first hoverboard on October 31, 2015 and the second on November 10, 2015. The Boones started using the hoverboards on or about December 25, 2015. On March 16, 2016, the hoverboards caught fire and the fire spread to destroy the Boones’ home. As alleged in the amended complaint, the hoverboards were “manufactured by unknown manufacturers from China.” State Farm, as the Boones’ subrogee, filed suit asserting negligence and negligent failure to warn claims against Amazon. Amazon filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that State Farm’s claims against it were governed by the MPLA and, as a service provider, it was not liable under the MPLA. In response, State Farm argued that Amazon was liable because it acted as a “marketplace” and that, rather than MPLA claims, Amazon is subject to common law negligence and failure to warn claims. The District Court agreed with State Farm. 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

---