Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Designed to Expose: Beware Lender Certificates

August 20, 2018 — Jacob Goodelman - Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog
Danny the Developer wishes to build Greenacre, a large residential and retail condominium complex in downtown Boston. However, Danny’s lender – the Bank of Barbara – will not lend Danny the money to develop the complex unless Danny’s architect signs a lender certificate. Danny presents the lender certificate to Allie the Architect, the certificate is relatively short and simple, it states:

“Allie the Architect prepared plans and specifications relating to Greenacre. Allie the Architect certifies that the plans are in accordance with all applicable zoning, building, housing and other laws, ordinances, regulations including but not limited to the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, and the Americans with Disability Act. The Plans do not encroach over, across or upon any such easements, rights-of-way, or subsurface rights and the like. Allie further certifies that the load bearing capacity of the soil is adequate to support the plans. The Bank of Barbara shall rely upon Allie the Architects certification in loaning money to Danny the Developer for Greenacre.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jacob Goodelman, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Goodelman may be contacted at jgoodelman@grsm.com

Megaproject Savings Opportunities

April 15, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Joel Levy in Construction Digital interviewed Christopher Dann, a Partner of Booz & Company’s Energy, Chemicals and Utilities practice, regarding how to be more efficient and save money when managing billion dollar construction megaprojects. According to Construction Digital, “Booz & Company, (recently rebranded as Strategy&), is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year, and over a century of working with huge clients in several sectors, has gathered the knowledge to identify what it terms a $40 trillion opportunity for savings in construction megaprojects over the next 20 years as clients combat a 30 percent average figure of overrun in schedule and cost.” Dann cited several reasons for inefficiencies in megaprojects, including “inefficient advance planning and analysis” and “lack of completion of detail design engineering prior to the start of construction,” reported Construction Digital. The inefficiencies can be countered, according to Dann, “when following a clear strategy.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Recent Environmental Cases: Something in the Water, in the Air and in the Woods

July 22, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
State of Texas, et al. v. US EPA. The revised regulatory definition of “Waters of the U.S.” continues to generate litigation in the federal courts. On May 28, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas held that the 2015 rulemaking proceedings used by EPA and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to redefine this important component of the Clean Water Act were flawed in that the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) were violated because insufficient notice was provided by these agencies that “adjacent” waters newly subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of these agencies, can be determined on the basis of specific distances, which was a change in the agencies’ thinking, and insufficient notice of this change was provided to the public. In addition, the final rule “also violated the APA by preventing interested parties from commenting on the scientific studies that served as the technical basis” for the rule. However, the court did not vacate the new rule, but remanded the matter to the “appropriate administrative agencies” to give them an opportunity to fix this problem. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma v. US EPA and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. A day later, on May 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma rejected arguments that the new redefinition should be preliminarily enjoined.While this case was filed in 2015, intervening litigation in the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, caused a substantial delay in the disposition of this case. The court, noting that the tests for granting such an injunction against the federal government are fairly exacting, held that the plaintiffs, the State of Oklahoma and a number of industry groups and associations, failed to convince the court that the harm they would suffer if the rules remained effective would be irreparable. Presumably, this case will be going to trial in the near future. 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

Colorado Supreme Court Grants the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes

June 22, 2016 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
We have previously reported on the Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes case, in which the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld a provision in an association's declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions, which required declarant consent before an arbitration provision could be amended out of the document. To read the past articles on the case, please review Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: The Colorado Court of Appeals' Decision Protecting a Declarant’s Right to Arbitration in Construction Defect Cases and The Vallagio HOA Appeals the Decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals. Today, the Colorado Supreme Court granted the association's petition for writ of certiorari, en banc, on the following reframed issues:

Whether the court of appeals erred by holding as a matter of first impression that Colorado’s Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”) permits a developer-declarant to reserve the power to veto unit owner votes to amend common interest community declarations.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McClain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McClain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Dispute Resolution in Your Construction Contract

February 07, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There are important provisions in your construction contract that are geared towards dispute resolution. These are provisions you want to understand – not when a dispute arises, but BEFORE the dispute ever occurs. Many times, dispute resolution provisions are cast aside or not appreciated until a dispute rears its ugly head. This can put you in a reactive stance versus a proactive stance, which you want to be in, because you want to proactively make sure all rights are preserved relative to the dispute. You want to proactively make strategic decisions based on the dispute resolution provisions and process in your contract. Before your contract even gets signed, you may want to negotiate aspects of the dispute resolution process for many reasons. The process could be one-sided. It could be onerous. It could be complex. It could be unfavorable or costly with respect to how you want to progress a dispute. If you appreciate the dispute resolution process from the get-go, you will be in a more effective position to navigate the process while ensuring you are preserving your rights moving forward. 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

Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement

June 18, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Hartford Casualty Ins. v. Swift Distribution (No. S207172, filed 6/12/14), the California Supreme Court affirmed a 2012 appeals court holding that there is no advertising injury coverage on a theory of trade disparagement if the competitor's advertisements do not expressly refer to the plaintiff's product and do not disparage the plaintiff's product or business. In doing so, the Supreme Court expressly disapproved Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 969 ("Charlotte Russe"), which held that coverage could be triggered for "implied disparagement" by allegations that a retailer's heavy discounts on a manufacturer's premium apparel suggest to consumers that the manufacturer's products are of inferior quality. In Hartford v. Swift the plaintiff, Dahl, held a patent for the "Multi-Cart," a collapsible cart that could be manipulated into different configurations. When Dahl's competitor Ultimate began marketing the "Ulti-Cart," Dahl sued alleging that Ultimate impermissibly manufactured, marketed, and sold the Ulti-Cart, which infringed patents and trademarks for Multi-Cart and diluted Dahl's trademark. Dahl alleged patent and trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution of a famous mark, and misleading advertising arising from Ultimate's sale of Ulti-Carts. However, the advertisements for Ulti-Cart did not name the Multi-Cart, Dahl, or any other products beside the Ulti-Cart. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Chicago Developer and Trade Group Sue City Over Affordable Housing Requirements

September 03, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Chicago Tribune reported that Hoyne Development and Home Builders Association of Greater Chicago are suing the city of Chicago, claiming that the “Affordable Requirements Ordinance is unconstitutional because it involves the taking of private party without ‘just compensation,’ violating the Fifth Amendment.” Shannon Breymaier, spokeswoman for Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, however, disputes the claims, and told the Chicago Tribune in an email that the city planned to “defend the ordinance vigorously.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insured Versus Insured Clause Does Not Bar Coverage

September 17, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fifth Circuit considered whether coverage was barred under the policy's insured versus insured provision. Kinsale Ins. Co. v. Georgia-Pacific, L.L.C., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12976 (5th Cir. July 27, 2015). Georgia-Pacific hired Advanced Services, Inc. for demolition work at Georgia-Pacific's idled plywood plant. A fire occurred at the plant, damaging equipment Advanced had leased from H&E Equipment for the demolition work. Several lawsuits followed. One was brought by H&E against Advanced. Advanced filed a third-party demand for indemnification against Georgia-Pacific for any damages Advanced was required to pay H&E. 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

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES