Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Properly Trigger the Performance Bond

January 04, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Originally Published by CDJ on January 5, 2017 A performance bond is a valuable tool designed to guarantee the performance of the principal of the contract made part of the bond. But, it is only a valuable tool if the obligee (entity the bond is designed to benefit) understands that it needs to properly trigger the performance bond if it is looking to the bond (surety) to remedy and pay for a contractual default. If the performance bond is not properly triggered and a suit is brought upon the bond then the obligee could be the one materially breaching the terms of the bond. This means the obligee has no recourse under the performance bond. This is a huge downside when the obligee wanted the security of the performance bond, and reimbursed the bond principal for the premium of the bond, in order to address and remediate a default under the underlying contract. A recent example of this downside can be found in the Southern District of Florida’s decision in Arch Ins. Co. v. John Moriarty & Associates of Florida, Inc., 2016 WL 7324144 (S.D.Fla. 2016). Here, a general contractor sued a subcontractor’s performance bond surety for an approximate $1M cost overrun associated with the performance of the subcontractor’s subcontract (the contract made part of the subcontractor’s performance bond). The surety moved for summary judgment arguing that the general contractor failed to property trigger the performance bond and, therefore, materially breached the bond. The trial court granted the summary judgment in favor of the performance bond surety. Why? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Hawaii Court of Appeals Remands Bad Faith Claim Against Title Insurer

January 14, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the trial court's issuance of summary judgment to the title insurer on a bad faith claim and remanded the case. Anastasi v. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co., 2014 Haw. App. LEXIS 585 (Haw. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2014). Fidelity issued a title insurance policy to Anastasi insuring that Alajos Nagy had good title to the property. The policy insured Anastasi against loss in the event a mortgage on the property executed by Nagy was not enforceable. Anastasi had loaned $2.4 million to Nagy and Nagy had executed the mortgage in favor of Anastasi as security for the loan. 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

No Concrete Answers on Whether Construction Defects Are Occurrences

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Aaron Mandel and Stevi Raab of Sedgwick Law write Construction Defect Coverage Quarterly addressing the question of “whether defective construction constitutes an ‘occurrence’ (and therefore may be covered) under liability insurance policies.” They note that some courts have held that construction defects are not an occurrence but instead are the “natural consequence of performing substandard work.” Other courts conclude that while construction defects are not occurrences, “the resulting damage may be covered because it was fortuitous and unintended.” And, finally, other courts have concluded that “defective construction work itself is accidental and the inured rarely expects construction defects.” Mandel and Raab put forth that “these decisions essentially provide insured with huge, unintended and unfair windfalls – performance bonds for basically no premium.” Legislatures have also looked at this issue, passing laws that mandate that construction defects are occurrences. These are all fairly recent and the courts have yet to address these laws, and Mandel and Raab note that “it is unclear what their ultimate effect on the ‘occurrence’ issue will be.” They do not expect the laws to end litigation over whether construction defects are occurrences. Finally, they discuss what the ultimate results of these court decisions and laws will be. Insurers might write more policy exclusions, or increase premiums, or even cease insuring construction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Predicting Our Future with Andrew Weinreich

May 03, 2017 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
In this podcast episode, my guest is Andrew Weinreich. We talk about the future of homebuilding against the backdrop of Andrew’s new podcast Predicting Our Future. Is construction ripe for disruption? Andrew believes that homebuilding is much closer to a tipping point than ever before. In this interview, he explains why. “In the United States, modular construction significantly lags behind what we see elsewhere around the world,” Andrew reminds. “When everything you can imagine today, from the paperclip to your smartphone is made in a factory, why is it that -certainly in this country- we associate homes made in factory with the lowest of low end homes.” “The first question is: why is that? And the second question is: could that change? Could we be on the precipice of looking at the next Tesla; not for car-building, but for homebuilding.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at info@aepartners.fi

Haight’s Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Southern California Rising Stars

June 14, 2021 — Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Congratulations to partner Kristian Moriarty who was selected to the Super Lawyers 2021 Southern California Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5% of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Congratulations to Las Vegas Team on Their Successful Motion for Summary Judgment!

May 06, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
This case arose from an alleged trip and fall on an uneven surface in a parking lot outside of BWBO’s client’s restaurant. Plaintiff alleged more than $385,000 in past medical specials (with high potential for future care and treatment) with exposure in excess of $1,000,000.00. The Plaintiff named as Defendants BWBO’s client as well as several entities related to their landlord. Early in the case, Las Vegas Partner Jeffrey W. Saab and Senior Associate D. Ryan Efros moved for summary judgment based on terms of the restaurant’s lease. They argued that based on the lease, the duty to maintain the surface of the parking lot fell exclusively to the landlord, rather than the restaurant’s client. Plaintiff opposed the motion arguing that the prevailing case law held that any agreement between a tenant and its landlord does not preclude a plaintiff from asserting either or both defendants breached their duties of care. Jeff and Ryan distinguished that case and successfully persuaded the Court that there could be no contractual duty and no common law duty to maintain the parking surface, clearing the way for the court to grant summary judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Ruling Finds Builder and Owners at Fault in Construction Defect Case

December 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A Minnesota home owners association has been found 30liable for some of the damage to their homes in a jury trial. The Interlachen Propertyowners Association made a claim of construction defects against Keupers Architects and Builders who had constructed the 24-unit town home complex. According to the association’s lawyer, the half-log siding was improperly installed, leading to water intrusion and rot. The jury did find for the homeowners on the construction defect claim, but found on a claim of negligent repairs that the association was 30% at fault, due to insufficient maintenance of the building. “We don’t think any amount of maintenance would have saved these buildings,” said Jason Tarasek, the lawyer for the association. The association is likely to appeal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Double-Breasted Dilemma

July 18, 2022 — Lauren E. Rankins & Saloni Shah - ConsensusDocs
What Is A Double-Breasted Operation? A double-breasted operation is when a firm has two entities, and one entity performs work under collective bargaining agreements and the other does not. While this type of operation is not outright prohibited, it is often subject to a variety of challenges and scrutiny. To legally run a double-breasted operation, the two companies must remain separate and distinct. If the companies are not sufficiently separate and distinct from one another, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) or a court may find that the two companies are operating as a single entity or that the non-union company, or also known as the open shop, is merely an alter ego of the union company and, therefore, bound by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. In order to determine whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct, the two entities must pass either the single employer test or the alter ego test depending on the nature of the double-breasted operation. Typically, the single employer test is used when the two entities run parallel operations, and the alter ego test is used when the open shop replaces the union company. Under the single employer test, the NLRB or courts will generally consider four factors: (1) the interrelation of operations; (2) common management; (3) common control of labor relations; and (4) common ownership. The alter ego test does not require a finding that the companies are a single bargaining unit, but analyzes to what extent the two entities have substantially identical management, business operation and purpose, business equipment, customers, and ownership. While common ownership is a factor considered under both the single employer and alter ego tests, common ownership alone is not dispositive of whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct. In other words, the NLRB and courts do not simply look for common ownership to determine whether the double-breasted operation is lawful. It is merely one of many factors to consider. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lauren E. Rankins, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Rankins may be contacted at lrankins@watttieder.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES