CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Town Concerned Over Sinkhole at Condo Complex

September 24, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Despite the assurances of their engineering firm, the township of Old Bridge, New Jersey has yet to release the performance bond to the construction of Plaza Grande, a condominium complex for residents over 55. One resident summarized the problem for the Suburban, a newspaper for towns in the area. “Our major concern is a sinkhole near Building 4 that has come back several times.” D.R. Horton, the developer on the project, has dug out the sinkhole, then backfilled and compacted it. However , one member of the Old Bridge Township Council said that she noticed that the area was beginning to sink again. The council member, Mary Sohor, said that Horton “should’ve dug a little deeper and did a little more.” D.R. Horton said that the issues do not affect the safety of the residents and attribute them to seasonal wear and tear. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Supreme Court Declines Request to Expand Exceptions to Privette Doctrine for Known Hazards

January 17, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
First things first. Happy New Year! Hope you had a good one. To start things off in the new year we’ve got an employment-related case for you – Gonzalez v. Mathis, 12 Cal.5th 29 (2021) – a California Supreme Court case involving the Privette Doctrine. For those not familiar with the Privette Doctrine, the Privette Doctrine is named after the case Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689 (1993), which held that project owners and higher-tiered contractors are not liable for workplace injuries sustained by employees of lower-tiered contractors. Since then, courts have carved out a few exceptions to the Privette Doctrine including the “retained control exception” (also known as the Hooker exception – that’s the name of the case not the occupation of the injured worker) whereby a “hirer,” that is, the higher-tiered party who hired the lower-tiered party whose employee is injured, can be held liable if the hirer: (1) retains control over any part of the lower-tiered party’s work; and (2) negligently exercises that control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the worker’s injury. Another exception is the “concealed hazard exception” (also known as the Kinsman exception) whereby a hirer can be held liable if: (1) the hirer knew, or should have known, of a concealed hazard on the property that the lower-tiered contractor did not know of and could not have reasonably discovered; and (2) the hirer railed to warn the lower-tiered contractor of that hazard. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Think Before you Execute that Release – the Language in the Release Matters!

June 17, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you execute a release in exchange for payment or other consideration, remember the language in the release means something. THE RELEASE LANGUAGE MATTERS! And the meaning in the release may be way more than you intended so please make sure you truly digest and consider release language before executing. This sentiment could not be truer than in the 2009 decision Bell BCI Company v. United States, 570 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In this case, a contractor entered into a modification (change order) with the government. The modification included the following language: increase the contract amount by $2,296,963 … as full and equitable adjustment for the remaining direct and indirect costs of the Floor 4 Fit-out (EWO 240–R1) and full and equitable adjustment for all delays resulting from any and all Government changes transmitted to the Contractor on or before August 31, 2000. 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

---

Massachusetts High Court: Attorney's Fee Award Under Consumer Protection Act Not Covered by General Liability Insurance Policy

September 19, 2022 — Jeffrey J. Vita & David G. Jordan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In the case of Vermont Mutual Insurance Co. v. Poirier, 189 N.E.3d 306 (Mass. 2022), Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court concluded that an award of attorney's fees pursuant to Chapter 93A (Massachusetts’ Consumer Protection Act) is not covered under an insured’s general liability insurance policy. Applying Massachusetts law, the Court found that a statutory award of attorney’s fees stemming from a bodily injury claim is not reasonably considered “damages because of bodily injury” or “costs taxed against the insured” so as to trigger general liability coverage. Facts of the Case A Servpro company (owned by Mr. and Mrs. Poirier) was hired to clean up a basement after a sewage spill. The owners of the home were injured by fumes from chemicals used in the cleanup and accordingly brought suit against the Poiriers and their Servpro business. In the lawsuit, the homeowners alleged negligence, breach of contract, and also a Chapter 93A claim, asserting breach of warranty of merchantability and warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Prior to trial, the plaintiffs waived the negligence and breach of contract claims and sought a bench trial on the Chapter 93A claims alone. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Amazon Can be Liable in Louisiana

August 05, 2024 — Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation Strategist
In June 2024, the Supreme Court of Louisiana held that: (1) Amazon can be considered a “seller” of defective products sold by third parties on its website; and (2) Amazon can be liable under a theory of negligent undertaking for third-party products. In Pickard v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2023-CQ-01596, 2024 La. LEXIS 1112, a Louisiana man, Archie Pickard, died from burns sustained in a house fire allegedly caused by a defective battery charger purchased on Amazon from a third-party seller located in China. Mr. Pickard’s family filed a lawsuit against Amazon in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana alleging claims under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) and for negligent undertaking. Amazon filed a motion for summary judgment, which prompted the federal court to certify questions to the Supreme Court of Louisiana regarding these two claims. Amazon Can be a “Seller” Under the Louisiana Products Liability Act Amazon does not neatly fit within the definition of “seller” under the LPLA because the LPLA was drafted in 1988, before the internet existed. The LPLA defines a “seller” as a person or entity (who is not the manufacturer) who conveys title or possession of the product to another for something of value. La R.S. 9.2800.53(s) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court of Louisiana determined that Amazon was a “seller” because it conveyed “possession” of the charger to Mr. Pickard through the “Fulfillment by Amazon” (FBA) program, which provides storage, delivery, customer service, and returns of third-party products sold on Amazon. Most products on Amazon are sold by third parties, rather than Amazon. Many third-party sellers are small or medium-size companies, and some are individuals seeking to make supplemental income. Amazon offers the FBA program to handle storage and logistics to third-party sellers. When a product is sold through the FBA program, the seller sends the product to Amazon’s warehouses, where it is stored until it is purchased. When an FBA-product is purchased, Amazon collects payment, delivers the product (often in an Amazon van), and handles the potential return of the product. The Supreme Court of Louisiana determined that Amazon was a “seller” of the battery charger even though Amazon did not pass title to Mr. Pickard because: (1) Amazon had physical custody of the charger while stored in the warehouse; and (2) Amazon controlled the transaction and logistics through its FBA program. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams
Mr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com

---

North Carolina Appeals Court Threatens Long-Term Express Warranties

April 09, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Jonathan Massell of the firm Nexsen Pruet explained how a “recent holding by the North Carolina Court of Appeals is threatening to render many long-term express warranties ineffective,” in the online publication Lexology. In Christie v. Hartley Construction, Inc., “the court held that the six-year North Carolina statute of repose for improvements to real property trumps the bargained-for duration terms of an express warranty.” In the Christie case, this meant that even though the homeowners had a twenty year warranty, because of the statute of repose, the warranty effectively expired after six years. Massell stated to “be mindful of jurisdiction.” If the express warranty is in a state other than North Carolina, it’s possible that the claim could be filed in that state instead of North Carolina. For instance, according to Massell, South Carolina’s “statue of repose does not expire until eight years after the date of substantial completion for an improvement to real property.” Furthermore, “long-term warranties are not trumped by the South Carolina statute of repose.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

All Aboard! COVID-19 Securities Suit Sets Sail, Implicates D&O Insurance

April 27, 2020 — Lorelie S. Masters, Michael S. Levine & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In a prior post, we predicted that novel coronavirus (COVID-19) risks could implicate D&O and similar management liability coverage arising from so-called “event-driven” litigation, a new kind of securities class action that relies on specific adverse events, rather than fraudulent financial disclosures or accounting issues, as the catalyst for targeting both companies and their directors and officers for the resulting drop in stock price. It appears that ship has sailed, so to speak, as Kevin LaCroix at D&O Diary reported over the weekend that a plaintiff shareholder had filed a securities class action lawsuit against Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd. alleging that the company employed misleading sales tactics related to the outbreak. The lawsuit alleges that the cruise line made false and misleading statements or failed to disclose in its securities filings sales tactics by the company that purported to provide customers with unproven or blatantly false statements about COVID-19 to entice customers to purchase cruises. Those allegations rely on two news articles reporting on the company sales practices in the wake of COVID-19: a March 11, 2020 Miami New Times article quoting leaked emails in which a cruise employee reportedly asked sales staff to lie to customers about COVID-19 to protect the company’s bookings; and a March 12, 2020 Washington Post article entitled, “Norwegian Cruise Line Managers Urged Salespeople to Spread Falsehoods about Coronavirus.” The lawsuit alleges that the company’s share price was cut nearly in half following these disclosures. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys Lorelie S. Masters, Michael S. Levine and Geoffrey B. Fehling Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com 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

---

Oregon agreement to procure insurance, anti-indemnity statute, and self-insured retention

March 05, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Continental Casualty Ins. Co. v. Zurich American Ins. Co., No. 09-35484 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2010), general contractor TCR was sued by an employee of subcontractor Safeway for bodily injuries suffered while working on the project. In the subcontract, Safeway agreed to procure primary insurance providing coverage for TCR for liability arising out of Safeway’s negligence. Safeway’s CGL policy included a self-insured retention that had to be satisfied before the insurer had a duty to defend. TCR filed suit against Safeway alleging that

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---