Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

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

US Supreme Court Backs Panama Canal Owner in Dispute with Builders

May 20, 2024 — C.J. Schexnayder - Engineering News-Record
A long-running legal battle over the concrete used in construction of the Panama Canal's third lane expansion locks has reached its end in U.S. courts—with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26 upholding a $271.8-million award to the project owner, the Panama Canal Authority, against its contractor group, Grupo Unidos por el Canal. Reprinted courtesy of C.J. Schexnayder, Engineering News-Record Mr. Schexnayder may be contacted at schexnayderc@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

2018 Update to EPA’s “Superfund Task Force Report”

September 04, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released its Superfund Task Force Recommendations 2018 Update (the Update). The Superfund Task Force was established by former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to “provide recommendations on an expedited timeframe on how the agency can restructure the cleanup process, realign incentives of all involved parties to promote expeditious remediation, reduce the burden on cooperating parties, incentivize parties to remediate sites, encourage private investment in cleanups of sites and promote the revitalization of properties across the country.” Over the years, thousands of sites have been listed on EPA’s National Priority List (NPL) of Superfund sites, but the process by which listed sites are cleaned up and finally removed from the NPL has been agonizingly slow. The process is governed by the National Contingency Plan rules. The Update states that, as of July 3, 2018, there are 1,346 sites listed on the NPL, and overall, 399 sites have been removed from the NPL. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Business Risk Exclusions (j) 5 and (j) 6 Found Ambiguous

April 22, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Reversing the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer, the Tenth Circuit found that exclusions (j) 5 and (j) 6 were ambiguous as applied to the facts of the case. MTI, Inc. v. Emplrs. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 2543 (10th Cir. Jan. 25, 2019). Western Farmers Electrical Cooperative (WFEC) owned cooling towers which were serviced by MTI, Inc. Wausau provided a CGL policy to MTI. In 2011, MTI found that anchor bolts in Cooling Tower 1 were corroded. WFEC hired MTI to make repairs by installing new anchor castings with anchor bolts and anchor adhesive. On May 23, 2011, MTI employees removed all of the corroded anchor bolts in Tower 1. Because the adhesive applicator had not yet arrived, MTI did not immediately install new anchor bolts. On the night of May 24, strong winds struck the tower, causing it to lean and several structural components broke. Due to the extent of the structural damage, removal and replacement of the tower was determined to be the only viable option. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Voluntary Payments Affirmative Defense Does Not Apply in Contract Cases

July 16, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In certain matters, there is an affirmative defense referred to as the “voluntary payments” defense. This defense states, “where one makes a payment of any sum under a claim of right with knowledge of the facts such a payment is voluntary and cannot be recovered.” Avatar Properties, Inc. v. Gundel, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D1272c (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) quoting City of Miami v. Keton, 115 So.2d 547, 551 (Fla. 1959). This voluntary payments defense could be construed as a “gotcha” defense, right? Unfair! You voluntarily made the payment with knowledge of the facts; therefore, you are s**t out of luck when it comes to recovering the potentially wrongful payment. Well, guess what? This voluntary payments affirmative defense does NOT apply in contract disputes. This is codified by Florida Statute s. 725.04 which states: “When a suit is instituted by a party to a contract to recover a payment made pursuant to the contract and by the terms of the contract there was no enforceable obligation to make the payment or the making of the payment was excused, the defense of voluntary payment may not be interposed by the person receiving payment to defeat recovery of the payment.” Fla.Stat. s. 725.04. See also Avatar Properties, supra (explaining voluntary payment defense does not apply in contract cases and even in non-contract cases it doesn’t apply if payment made under coercion or compulsion). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Differing Site Conditions: What to Expect from the Court When You Encounter the Unexpected

September 05, 2022 — Margarita Kutsin - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
[1]Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), a joint venture of Dragados USA and Tutor Perini, entered into a $1.4 billion contract with the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) to replace the Highway 99 viaduct. In December 2013, a tunnel boring machine (“TBM”) bearing the moniker “Bertha,” then the largest TBM ever built, measuring 425 feet long and 57 feet in diameter, struck an underground pipe. Shortly after the impact, Bertha overheated and eventually could no longer make forward progress. A massive repair effort ensued causing a 2.5-year delay in reaching substantial completion. WSDOT sued STP for the delay, seeking liquidated damages of $57 million. In response, STP argued its delay was excusable because it was caused by Bertha’s impact with the pipe, and the steel well casing was a Differing Site Condition (DSC) undisclosed in the contract documents. STP asserted counterclaims against WSDOT, alleging breach of contract and seeking $300 million in damages. Ultimately, a jury found that the steel well casing on the pipe was not a DSC, foreclosing STP’s excusable delay defense and counterclaims, and resulting in a $57 million verdict, plus interest, in favor of WSDOT. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Ms. Kutsin may be contacted at margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com

Traub Lieberman Partner Stephen Straus Wins Spoliation Motion in Favor of Defendant

June 05, 2023 — Stephen D. Straus - Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman Partner Steve Straus represented a refrigeration installation and service company in a subrogation action filed by a property insurer after paying a claim related to extensive water damage at premises on Long Island, New York. The premises owner purchased a refrigerator, which was sold without a hose to connect to the water source inside the premises. The defendant retailer retained Traub Lieberman’s client to install the refrigerator. Rather than complete the installation using a new water line, the installer used the existing line from the refrigerator that was being replaced. Approximately one week after installation, the owner’s son discovered water on the floor near the refrigerator, and significant water damage in the basement of the residence. The owner filed a claim with the insurer, which sent an investigator to the premises. The retailer also sent a technician to investigate and replace the water supply line. It was reportedly determined that the original line had failed, causing the water release. After the repair, the owner’s son took possession of the old water line, which he kept for a couple of years and then discarded. The insurer initiated a subrogation action against the retailer and the installation company, alleging that the water release was caused by the defendants’ failure to replace the water line when the new unit was installed. Plaintiff claimed that photographs of the old line established that it had been damaged or defective. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephen D. Straus, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Straus may be contacted at sstraus@tlsslaw.com

Nevada Supreme Court Clarifies the Litigation Waiver of the One-Action Rule

September 07, 2017 — Bob L. Olson - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Nevada has a one-action rule which, with limited exceptions, requires a creditor seeking to recover a debt secured by real property to proceed against the security first prior to seeking recovery from the debtor personally. In the event that a law suit is filed in violation of the one-action rule, final judgment may be entered in favor of the creditor but that judgment “releases and discharges the mortgage or other lien.” NRS 40.455(3). Nevada law further provides that, with the exception of certain guaranties, any provision in an agreement relating to the sale of real property which contains a waiver of Nevada’s anti-deficiency laws may not be enforced by a court because doing so violates Nevada’s public policy. NRS 40.453. Nevada law also addresses when the one-action rule may be waived in litigation. In the author’s view, the governing statute, NRS 40.435 is ambiguous. Section 2 of that statute states that if the one-action rule is timely interposed as an affirmative defense, the action must either be dismissed without prejudice or continued to allow the creditor to file amended pleadings to convert the action into one which does not violate the one-action rule. This suggests that the one-action rule must be asserted as an affirmative defense in the debtor’s answer to the complaint or it is waived by the debtor. The first sentence of section 3 of the statute, however, seems to suggest that the debtor has up until the entry of a final judgment to waive the one-action rule by stating: “[t]he failure to interpose, before the entry of a final judgment, the provisions of NRS 40.430 [the one-action rule] as an affirmative defense in such a proceeding waives the defense in that proceeding.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bob L. Olson, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Olson may be contacted at bolson@swlaw.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES