CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

The Importance of a Notice of Completion to Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers

August 12, 2024 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
The recording of a valid “Notice of Completion” with the County Recorder is an event of significance to owners, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers alike. The recording of a Notice of Completion is one of several methods used to trigger the time period for the recording of mechanics liens and service of stop payment notices. Although the recording of a Notice of Completion is not absolutely required on any given project, all those working in the construction industry should understand its significance. When a valid Notice of Completion has not been recorded in relation to a construction project, a contractor, subcontractor, or supplier might from ninety to one hundred fifty days after completion of the project to record a mechanics lien or serve a stop payment notice to secure payment for their services on the project, depending on the facts. However, if a valid Notice of Completion is recorded, then the deadline under most circumstances accelerates and subcontractors and suppliers must record a mechanics lien or serve a stop payment notice within only thirty days thereafter. Under the same circumstances, a prime contractor has only sixty days after the recording of a valid Notice of Completion to record a mechanics’ lien. Failure to meet these deadlines often results in loss of the right to a mechanics lien or stop payment notice. There are limited exceptions to these general deadlines, depending on the facts. If you believe you may have missed an important deadline to seek collection of a construction debt, you should consult with a construction attorney immediately to secure your avenues of collection, including the mechanics lien and stop payment notice remedies, if still available. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---

Global Insurer Agrees to Pay COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims

July 06, 2020 — Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
AXA, one of the biggest insurance companies in the world, has agreed to pay COVID-related business interruption claims by a group of restaurants in Paris after a court ruled that the restaurants’ revenue losses resulting from COVID-19 and related government orders were covered under AXA’s policies. AXA initially took the position that its insurance policies did not cover business interruption caused by COVID-19. The restaurant then sued AXA in a French court, seeking coverage for operating losses resulting from a government order issued in March mandating the closure of restaurants and bars in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court concluded that the government orders, which prohibited restaurants from receiving the public and offering traditional sit-down dining services, triggered the policy’s coverage for business interruption coverage. The court rejected AXA’s argument that the pandemic was uninsurable, and made clear that if AXA intended to exclude such a risk it should have done so expressly in its policy. The court also rejected AXA’s argument that there must be a prerequisite of an insured event for the application of the “administrative closure” provision, noting that no prerequisite was required by the policy. AXA’s argument that the government orders did not require the restaurant to be closed because the restaurant was authorized to maintain take-away services was also rejected. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the policyholders, holding that the business interruption loss resulting from the government orders qualified for insurance coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Georgia Court of Appeals Upholds Denial of Coverage Because Insurance Broker Lacked Agency to Accept Premium Payment

December 07, 2020 — Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine & Rachel E. Hudgins - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In American Reliable Insurance Company v. Lancaster, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a property insurer’s summary judgment motion concerning the insurer’s denial of a fire loss claim. The basis of the denial was that the policyholders had failed to pay the policy premium. The policyholders, Charlie and Wanda Lancaster, claimed that they had paid their policy premiums for several years to their insurance agent, Macie Yawn. In October 2014, American Reliable mailed a renewal notice to the Lancasters notifying them that premium payments had to be made directly to the insurer. After it did not receive payment from the Lancasters, American Reliable sent them a cancellation notice in December 2014, again notifying them that payments be made directly to the insurer. The Lancasters denied having received either notice from American Reliable, but the record included a receipt for certificate of mailing. After the Lancaster’s home burned down in 2015, American Reliable denied coverage on the grounds that the policy had been cancelled for nonpayment of premium. In the subsequent coverage action, the trial court denied American Reliable’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that a factual issue existed as to the actual and apparent agency of the insurance agent, Yawn. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in deciding that there was a factual issue concerning Yawn’s agency. Specifically, the Court of Appeals ruled that the record showed American Reliable had terminated Yawn’s agency to accept policy premiums, and that the Lancaster’s received notice of that termination in the renewal and cancellation notices. In addition to determining that Yawn was not an actual agent, the Court held that Yawn did not have apparent agency, because the notices sent to the Lancasters stated that the premium payment was to be paid to American Reliable, not to the agent. Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

NYC Supertall Tower Condo Board Sues Over Alleged Construction, Design 'Defects'

October 04, 2021 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
The condominium board at a 1,396-ft-tall residential tower on New York City’s Billionaires’ Row has sued the building’s developers, claiming to have identified more than 1,500 construction and design defects in common areas alone. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Kentucky Supreme Court Creates New “Goldilocks Zone” to Limit Opinions of Biomechanical Experts

July 24, 2023 — Aimee E. Muller - Lewis Brisbois
Lexington, Ky. (June 26, 2023) – In a recent decision, the Kentucky Supreme Court placed stricter limitations on the opinions that biomechanical engineers may offer at trials in Kentucky courts. Specifically, the published opinion issued in Renot v. Securea, Supreme Ins. Co., 2023 Ky. LEXIS 163, recognizes a new space for the testimony of biomechanics experts – “The Goldilocks Zone.” Where is the Goldilocks Zone? The Goldilocks Zone is a perfect place in which the proffered testimony is neither too specific such that it wanders into the realm of medical causation, nor too general such that it fails to help a lay jury. Specifically, a biomechanical engineer’s expert testimony must be limited to the forces generated by the subject collision, the generally anticipated responses of a hypothetical person’s body to those forces, and the range of typical injuries resulting from such forces. Moreover, following Renot, a biomechanical engineer’s proffered opinions no longer may enter into the realm of diagnosing a specific medical condition associated with a traumatic injury. Instead, the question of whether a trauma actually caused or exacerbated a plaintiff’s injuries falls solely within the purview of a medical doctor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aimee E. Muller, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Muller may be contacted at Aimee.Muller@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Construction Robots 2023

May 08, 2023 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Here’s AEC Business’s catalog of construction robotics companies. About Construction Robotics Construction robots have been around since the 1960s. In the 1970s and 1980s, Japanese companies such as the Shimizu Corporation, Obayashi Corporation, and Takenaka Corporation created robots and remote-controlled machines for excavating, material handling, concrete placing, finishing, fireproofing, earthworks, rebar placing, and other construction tasks. However, the overall robotization of the industry has been slow. The rapid development of artificial intelligence and machine learning has changed the robotic scene. Robotic hardware is also becoming affordable. Coupled with the poor availability of professional construction workers and the urge to industrialize construction, the use of robots will inevitably increase in the coming years. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

Where Do We Go From Here?

March 21, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Green Builder CoalitionFor this week’s Guest Post Friday, I welcome an old friend and past Guest Post Friday contributor, Mike Collignon. Mike is the Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Green Builder® Coalition. He engages in national and state-level advocacy and publishes regular content for Green Builder® Media. Mike is also the Chair of the WERS Development Group and has served as the moderator or host for Green Builder® Media’s Impact Series webinars from 2012– present. This post originally appeared on Green Builder® Media’s Code Watcher. Do you ever have a line from a song just pop into your head? I get that… a lot. It’s probably due to my lifelong love of music. Anyway, while I was researching this column, the line that cites the title of “Where Do We Go From Here?” by Filter started playing between my ears. You’ll see why in a couple of minutes. In case you didn’t read about it here or elsewhere, the IECC development process has undergone an overhaul. It is now following a standards process, yet it retains the word “code” in the name. The residential committee (which is the scope of this column) is now a consensus committee and has been greatly expanded. Proposals are still submitted, reviewed and voted on by the committee. On the surface, it doesn’t sound like much has changed. As they say, the devil is always in the details. 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

---

Under Privette Doctrine, A Landowner Delegates All Responsibility For Workplace Safety to its Independent Contractor, and therefore Owes No Duty to Remedy or Adopt Measures to Protect Against Known Hazards

September 29, 2021 — Krsto Mijanovic, Jeffrey C. Schmid & John M. Wilkerson - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
In Gonzalez v. Mathis (2021 WL 3671594) (“Gonzalez”), the Supreme Court of California held that a landowner generally owes no duty to an independent contractor or its workers to remedy or adopt other measures to protect them against known hazards on the premises. The Court applied the Privette doctrine which establishes a presumption that a landowner generally delegates all responsibility for workplace safety to its independent contractor. (See generally Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689; SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 590.) As such, the independent contractor is responsible for ensuring that the work can be performed safely despite a known hazard on the worksite, even where the contractor and its workers are unable to take any reasonable safety precautions to avoid or protect themselves from the known hazard. In Gonzalez, the landowner, Mathis, had hired an independent contractor, Gonzalez, to clean a skylight on his roof. To access the skylight, Gonzalez needed to utilize a narrow path between the edge of the roof and a parapet wall. While walking along this path, Gonzalez slipped and fell to the ground, sustaining serious injuries. Gonzalez alleged this accident was caused by several dangerous conditions on the roof, including a slippery surface, a lack of tie-off points to attach a safety harness, and a lack of a guardrail. Gonzalez was aware of all of these hazards prior to the accident. Reprinted courtesy of Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, Jeffrey C. Schmid, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and John M. Wilkerson, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Schmid may be contacted at jschmid@hbblaw.com Mr. Wilkerson may be contacted at jwilkerson@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---