Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Tennessee High Court Excludes Labor Costs from Insurer’s Actual Cash Value Depreciation Calculations

May 27, 2019 — Michael S. Levine & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Andrews Kurth
The Tennessee Supreme Court has refused to construe an ambiguous definition of actual cash value to allow for deduction of labor costs as part of depreciation calculations where that subset of repair costs are not clearly addressed in the policy. Despite the split of authority nationwide, the Tennessee case presents a straightforward application of policy interpretation principles to a common valuation issue in first-party property claims. In Lammert v. Auto-Owners (Mutual) Insurance Co., No. M2017-2546-SC-R23-CV (Tenn. Apr. 15, 2019), insureds brought a class-action lawsuit against their property insurer, Auto-Owners, alleging breach of contract. The plaintiffs each owned buildings damaged by a hail storm and had each submitted claims to Auto-Owners. Auto-Owners accepted the claims and determined that the losses would be determined on an actual cash value basis. In performing those valuations, Auto-Owners depreciated both the building materials and the labor costs associated with repairing the properties. The insureds challenged the labor cost depreciation. Auto-Owners moved to dismiss the lawsuit. In response, the insureds requested that the district court certify to the Tennessee Supreme Court whether, “[u]nder Tennessee law, may an insurer in making an actual cash value payment withhold a portion of repair labor as depreciation when the policy (1) defines actual cash value as ‘the cost to replace damaged property with new property of similar quality and features reduced by the amount of depreciation applicable to the damaged property immediately prior to the loss,’ or (2) states that ‘actual cash value includes a deduction for depreciation?”’ Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Georgia House Bill Addresses Construction Statute of Repose

May 04, 2020 — Jason Gropper - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
On March 2, 2020, by a unanimous vote, the House passed HB 968. This Bill seeks to clarify which civil actions are subject to Code Section 9-3-51, which is the eight-year statute of repose for deficiencies in connection with improvements to realty. If passed by the General Assembly, it would explicitly state that the statute of repose will not apply to breach of express warranties. If the Bill is passed, O.C.G.A § 9-3-51 would include a subsection that provides: “This Code section shall not apply to actions for breach of contract, including, but not limited to actions for breach of express contractual warranties.” Jason Gropper, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP Mr. Gropper may be contacted at Gropper@ahclaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Virginia General Assembly Tweaks Pay-if-Paid Ban

April 03, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Last year, the Virginia General Assembly passed into law a ban on the so-called pay-if-paid clauses, effective January 1, 2023. I shared my thoughts and concerns with the legislation as drafted at the time of its passage. During this most recent legislative session, and among some other construction-related bills, the General Assembly sought to clarify its past enactment. The enrolled bill fills in certain gaps in the law as follows:

For both private and public contracts, the General Contractor, if it has good reason to withhold any payment, now has a maximum of 50 days from receipt of a proper invoice to notify its subcontractor of the reason for the withholding, including the contractual noncompliance, the amount to be withheld, and the lower-tier subcontractor responsible for the contractual noncompliance.
For private contracts, the Owner now has 45 days in which to provide any written notice of intention to withhold payment. This notice must include the specific contractual non-compliance and the dollar amount to be withheld. NB- Owners do not need to specify the subcontractor responsible for the non-compliance.

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

Required Contract Provisions for Construction Contracts in California

October 08, 2014 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
One question I get fairly often when drafting or reviewing construction contracts is what provisions, if any, are required in construction contracts in California. This is, of course, different than what should be included in a construction contract which is a post for another day. So, here you go: Provisions Required in All Construction Contracts There’s only one requirement applicable to all construction contracts in California. And, that is, that you must include your California contractor’s license number if you are performing or bidding on work requiring a license. California Business and Professions Code section 7030.5 requires that licensed contractors include their license number in “(a) all construction contracts; (b) subcontracts and calls for bid; and (c) all forms advertising, as prescribed by the register of contractors, used by such person.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

Genuine Dispute Summary Judgment Reversed for Abuse of Discretion and Trial of Fact Questions About Expert Opinions

July 27, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Fadeeff v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (No. A155691, filed 5/22/20 ord. pub. 6/8/20), a California appeals court held that triable issues of fact and the trial court’s failure to address a request for a continuance precluded summary judgment for an insurer under the genuine dispute doctrine. In Fadeeff, the policyholders made a claim to State Farm for smoke damage to their home from the 2015 Valley Fire in Hidden Valley Lake, California. With State Farm’s approval, the insureds retained the restoration company, ServPro, to assist with smoke and soot mitigation. State Farm documented smoke and soot on the interior walls, ceilings and carpeting, and on all exterior elevations, including on the deck and handrail. State Farm made a series of payments on the claim totaling about $50,000. The insureds then hired a public adjuster and submitted supplemental claims for further dwelling repairs and additional contents replacement, totaling approximately $75,000. State Farm responded by using its own independent adjuster to investigate, who was neither licensed as an adjuster, nor as a contractor. State Farm also retained forensic consultants for the structure and the HVAC system, but neither the independent adjuster nor the consultants were aware that State Farm had an internal operation guide for the use of third-party experts in handling first party claims, which guidelines were therefore not followed. In addition, the consultants made allegedly superficial inspections, with one attributing smoke and soot damage to other sources of combustion, including the insureds’ exterior propane barbecue, an internal wood fireplace and wood stove and candles that had been burned in the living room. None of the consultants asked the insureds when they had last used any of the sources of combustion. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The 2017 ASCDC and CDCMA Construction Defect Seminar and Holiday Reception

November 21, 2017 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The annual Construction Defect Seminar and Holiday Reception presented jointly by the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel (ASCDC) and the Construction Defect Claims Managers Association (CDCMA) takes place this November 30th at the Hilton Costa Mesa. This one-day seminar includes two sessions: Session 1, Recent developments in Insurance Coverage and Related Impacts on Case Resolution; Session 2, Impact of Design Claims in Construction Defect Actions. A holiday reception will immediately follow the seminar. The keynote speaker this year is Hon. Charles Margines, Presiding Judge of the Orange Superior Court. Other speakers include David Napper, Esq., of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger, Adrienne Cohen, Esq., Law Offices of Adrienne D. Cohen, Blenda Eyvazzadeh, Chub North American Claims, and many others. This activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education Credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 3.0 hours. November 30th, 2017 Hilton Costa Mesa 3050 Bristol Street Costa Mesa, California 92626 United States PDF Registration... Online Registration... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Florida Extends Filing Time for Claims Subject to the Statute of Repose

June 13, 2018 — William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist
Under Florida’s construction-related statute of repose, Fla. Stat. § 95.11, actions based on the design, planning or construction of an improvement to real property are barred if not commenced within 10 years after the later of several possible dates, including the date of actual possession by the owner and the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Florida Legislature recently amended the statute to extend the time within which defendants subject to a suit filed close to the end of the 10-year period can file claims. Under the revised law, a defendant can file “counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party claims up to 1 year after the pleading to which such claims relate is served.” Regardless of when the cause of action at issue accrued, the law applies to actions commenced on or after July 1, 2018, except that any action that would not have been barred under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(c) prior to the amendment may be commenced before July 1, 2019. The revised law provides relief to defendants because, under the prior law, they had to file claims against other potentially responsible third parties before the expiration of the statute of repose. Under the new law, defendants can bring third parties into the action after the expiration of the 10-year statute of repose period. 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

Viewpoint: Firms Should Begin to Analyze Lessons Learned in 2020

January 04, 2021 — Rich Friedman - Engineering News-Record
If there’s one phrase that describes 2020, it was not “business as usual.” How AEC firms fared last year depended upon their strategies for navigating an uncertain landscape. While we talk about finding a new normal, company leaders in 2021 will have to think more expansively about what they want that “normal” to look like. Reprinted courtesy of Rich Friedman, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES