CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Buffett’s $11 Million Beach House Is Still on the Market

February 28, 2018 — Noah Buhayar – Bloomberg
Warren Buffett auctions a lunch date for charity every year, and the winning bid usually stretches to seven figures. He twice sold his used cars to fans for multiples of their Kelly Blue Book value. Someone once even paid more than $200,000 to purchase his old wallet. (It had a stock tip inside.) For those who venerate one of the world’s best investors, money is usually no object when buying a piece of the legend. A year ago, Buffett put his vacation home in Emerald Bay, a gated enclave next to Laguna Beach, Calif., up for sale. He bought the property in 1971 at the urging of his first wife, Susan, for $150,000—the equivalent of a bit less than $1 million today. At the time, he didn’t think of it much as an investment, he told the Wall Street Journal last year. Laguna was less developed back then, more surfer-and-hippie paradise than multimillionaire’s haunt. The couple and their family often spent summers at the home, as well as time around Christmas, when Buffett would hole up in the master bedroom working on his closely followed annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway Inc. shareholders. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Noah Buhayar, Bloomberg

---

TLSS Partner Burks Smith and Associate Katie Keller Win Summary Judgment on Late Reported Water Seepage Case in South Florida

November 18, 2019 — Burks A. Smith, III & Kathryn Keller - Traub Lieberman
On July 9, 2019, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP Partner, Burks A. Smith, III and Associate, Kathryn A. Keller, secured Summary Judgment on behalf of a major homeowners’ insurer in a breach of contract action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. See Lehrfield v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 2019 WL2994270 (S.D. Fla. 2019). The underlying claim involved a water loss at the Plaintiffs’ residence allegedly resulting in $91,147.32 worth of damage to their home. The claim was reported eight (8) months after the alleged date of loss, and during the inspection, the adjuster observed rot, decay, mold, and warping wood, prompting the carrier to deny the claim based on the Seepage Endorsement. The Plaintiffs filed a breach of contract action alleging that the insurer breached the Policy by denying the claim. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller argued that Plaintiffs’ Policy with the insurer imposes a duty on the Plaintiffs to comply with the Duties After Loss conditions of the Policy, including the requirement to provide prompt notice of the loss and show the damaged property. As mentioned above, the Plaintiffs provided notice of the claim eight (8) months late, and performed various repairs prior to notifying the insurer of the claim. After the close of discovery, Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the insurer based on the late reporting, and further argued that the Plaintiffs had the burden of proving direct physical loss to property within the first 13 days of the loss, given the recent decision of Hicks v. American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida, 241 So.3d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1018). In Florida, when an insured fails to comply with their Duties After Loss, a presumption of prejudice to the insurer arises. Bankers Ins. Co. v. Macias, 475 So. 2d 1216, 1218 (Fla. 1985)). In order to recover, the Plaintiffs bear the burden of overcoming the presumption, and must prove that no prejudice existed. Id. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller’s comprehensive arguments successfully proved to the Court that the Plaintiffs’ failure to timely report the claim prejudiced the insurer by prohibiting the insurer from being able to independently validate the loss, or distinguish between multiple causes of loss. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller further argued that Plaintiffs did not meet their burden to prove that the insurer was not prejudiced by the Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Duties After Loss provision of the Policy. The Motion cited numerous cases and extensive analysis supporting the insurer’s position. Reprinted courtesy of Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman and Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman Mr. Smith, may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Kumagai Drops Most in 4 Months on Building Defect: Tokyo Mover

June 11, 2014 — Kathleen Chu and Kevin Buckland - Bloomberg
Kumagai Gumi Co. (1861), a Japanese construction company, fell the most in four months after saying an apartment complex it had built has defects. The shares dropped 5.7 percent to 264 yen at the close of trading in Tokyo, the biggest decline since Feb. 4. Construction flaws in supporting pillars were found in the building completed in March 2003 in Yokohama City, south of Tokyo, the company said in a statement through the stock exchange today. The residents have been asked to relocate to temporary shelters and further investigation is required, it said. “This is a big negative for Kumagai’s reputation and it may hurt the company’s future earnings,” said Yoji Otani, an analyst at Deutsche Bank AG in Tokyo. The latest defect comes after Mitsubishi Estate Co. (8802) said in March it will rebuild a residential complex, constructed by Kajima Corp. (1812), in central Tokyo, after defects were found. Mitsui Fudosan Co. (8801) said it would repair some parts of an apartment building in Kawasaki City after the builder Shimizu Corp. (1803) found cracks in the concrete of some columns in April. Ms. Chu may be contacted at kchu2@bloomberg.net; Mr. Buckland may be contacted at kbuckland1@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kathleen Chu and Kevin Buckland, Bloomberg

---

Another Colorado District Court Refuses to Apply HB 10-1394 Retroactively

October 28, 2011 —

In Martinez v. Mike Wells Construction Company, 09CV227, Teller County District Court Judge Edward S. Colt refused to apply C.R.S. § 13-20-808 retroactively to provide coverage for the underlying construction defect allegations. According to the recitation of facts in Judge Colt’s March 2011 order, Martinez contracted with Mike Wells Construction to serve as the general contractor for the construction of a home. At that time, Mike Wells Construction was insured through ProBuilders Specialty Insurance Company, RRG. Disputes arose between Martinez and Mike Wells Construction, resulting in Martinez ordering it off of the project in mid-November 2007 and terminating its right to work there by letter dated November 28, 2007.

Mike Wells, the owner of the corporation, subsequently died. Martinez sued Mike Wells Construction in July 2009 for breach of contract and various claims relating to alleged defecting workmanship. Martinez provided notice of the suit to the special administrator of the probate estate. No answer having been filed, the court entered a default judgment against Mike Wells Construction and Martinez sought to garnish Mike Wells Construction’s ProBuilders insurance policy.

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. McClain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

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

---

One World Trade Center Tallest Building in US

November 13, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
It’s official! The tallest building in the United States is in New York. For forty years, the tallest building in the United States has been the Willis Tower in Chicago (better known by its former name, the Sears Tower). Now, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat has decreed that One World Trade Center edges it out with its 1,776 feet of height, surpassing the Willis by 325 feet. There is a caveat. The antennas on the top of the Willis building aren’t counted in. The mast on the top of One World Trade Center is, and it adds 441 feet to the height of the building. If the mast weren’t counted, One World Trade Center would be 116 feet shorter than the building in Chicago. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Contractual Waiver of Consequential Damages

January 21, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Contractual waivers of consequential damages are important, whether they are mutual or one-sided. I believe in specificity in that the types of consequential damages that are waived should be detailed in the waiver of consequential damages provision. Standard form construction agreements provide a good template of the types of consequential damages that the parties are agreeing to waive. But, what if there is no specificity in the waiver of consequential damages provision? What if the provision just states that the parties mutually agree to waive consequential damages or that one party waives consequential-type damages against the other party? Let me tell you what would happen. The plaintiff will argue that the damages it seeks are general damages and are NOT waived by the waiver of consequential damages provision. The defendant, on the other hand, will argue that the damages are consequential in nature and, therefore, contractually waived. FOR THIS REASON, PARTIES NEED TO APPRECIATE WHAT DAMAGES ARE BEING WAIVED OR LIMITED, AND POTENTIALLY THOSE DAMAGES NOT BEING WAIVED OR LIMITED, WHEN AGREEING TO A WAIVER OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES PROVISION! Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

ENR Northwest’s Top Contractors Survey Reveals Regional Uptick

June 25, 2019 — Scott Judy - Engineering News-Record
A year ago, the 25 contractors responding to ENR Northwest’s Top Contractors survey collectively reported roughly $6.4 billion in 2017 revenue from the states of Washington, Oregon and Alaska. This year, the 27 contractors listed below—in alphabetical order—reported more than $8.8 billion in regional revenue for 2018. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Judy, ENR
Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com

---

New York Court of Appeals Finds a Proximate Cause Standard in Additional Insured Endorsements

June 15, 2017 — Geoffrey Miller - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority, et al., No. 2016-00096, the New York Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision with regard to the meaning of “caused, in whole or in part, by” in the additional insured context. In a split decision, the court rejected Burlington Insurance Company’s argument that the language implied a “negligence” standard, but held that coverage was provided to the additional insured only where the named insured’s acts or omissions were the proximate cause of the injury:

While we [the majority] agree with the dissent that interpreting the phrases differently does not compel the conclusion that the endorsement incorporates a negligence requirement, it does compel us to interpret ‘caused, in whole or in part’ to mean more than ‘but for’ causation. That interpretation, coupled with the endorsement’s application to acts or omissions that result in liability, supports our conclusion that proximate cause is required here.[1]

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Geoffrey Miller, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Miller may be contacted at gjm@sdvlaw.com

---