CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Chinese Telecommunications Ban to Expand to Federally Funded Contracts Effective November 12, 2020

September 21, 2020 — Lori Ann Lange & Sabah Petrov - Peckar & Abramson
In our previous alert, we discussed the Federal Government’s Ban (the “Ban”) on certain Chinese covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment and services in federal government contracts. The ban prohibits government contractors and subcontractors from supplying to the Federal Government or using in their own internal operations certain telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services produced by Huawei Technologies Company, ZTE Corporation, Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, and Dahua Technology Company, as well as their subsidiaries and affiliates. The Ban currently applies to companies contracting directly with the Federal Government. Soon, however, the Ban – at least in part – will expand to contractors and subcontractors who are awarded certain federally assisted contracts and subcontracts. On August 13, 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) published Final Guidance revising its grants and agreements regulations (2 CFR Part 200) to prohibit recipients and subrecipients from using loan or grant funds to purchase or obtain covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment or services. Effective November 12, 2020, recipients and subrecipients are prohibited from obligating or expending loan or grant funds to:

1. Procure or obtain;
2. Extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain; or
3. Enter into a contract (or extend or renew a contract) to procure or obtain equipment, services, or systems that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system.

Reprinted courtesy of Lori Ann Lange, Peckar & Abramson and Sabah Petrov, Peckar & Abramson Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com Ms. Petrov may be contacted at spetrov@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

A Funny Thing Happened to My Ground Lease in Bankruptcy Court

November 25, 2024 — Christopher F. Graham & Morgan A. Goldstein - White and Williams LLP
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ground leases are an important – if somewhat unusual – part of the real estate finance industry. Because they typically cover large expensive properties like Rockefeller Center and The Empire State Building, to name two, and last a long time (99 years and up to start) the likelihood of something unexpected or unintended happening is high. This likelihood increases dramatically if, as highlighted below, one or both of the lease parties’ files for bankruptcy. Accordingly, real estate professionals should take note and take care when entering into any transaction involving a ground lease. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher F. Graham, White and Williams LLP and Morgan A. Goldstein, White and Williams LLP Mr. Graham may be contacted at grahamc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Goldstein may be contacted at goldsteinm@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Avoiding Wage Claims in California Construction

November 25, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
For both private works projects and state and local public works projects in California, higher-tiered contractors can find themselves opening up their wallets if their lower-tiered subcontractors fail to pay their workers. And if you think this is just another one of those crazy California things, think again. Higher-tiered parties on federal public works projects can also be asked to open up their wallets if their lower-tiered subcontractors stiff their workers. While we’re coming upon the season of giving, here’s a Scrooge-like guide on things you can do to avoid finding yourselves on the hook for your lower-tiered subcontractor’s even more Scrooge-like failure to pay their workers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

---

Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part II

March 28, 2018 — Michael Sams and Amanda Cox – Construction Executive, A publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All Rights Reserved.
Part II of this three-part series compares and analyzes important contract sections in the AIA 201 (2007 and 2017 versions) and ConsensusDocs (2014 and 2017 versions), including Schedule/Time, Consequential Damages/LDs, Claims and Disputes/ADR. Part I covered Financial Assurances, Design Risk, Project Management and Contract Administration. Part III will cover Insurance and Indemnification and Payment. SCHEDULE/TIME Relevant Sections:

• 2007 & 2017 A201: Section 3.10.1

• 2014 & 2017 ConsensusDocs: Section 6.2

AIA:

• Section 3.10.1 of the 2007 A201 requires that the Contractor promptly after being awarded the Contract, prepare and submit a construction schedule providing for Work to be completed within the time limits required in the Contract Documents.

• This schedule shall be revised at appropriate intervals.

• The 2017 edition breaks down the schedule to contain date of commencement, interim milestone dates, date of substantial completion, apportionment of Work by trade or building system, and the time required for completion of each portion of the Work.

• Under section 3.10.2 of the 2007 and 2017 versions, if the Contractor fails to provide a submittal schedule, the Contractor is not entitled to any additional compensation or a time extension based on the Owner’s or the Architect’s slow processing of submittals, regardless of how long they take.

ConsensusDocs 200:

• The 2017 Contract replaces the term Contract Time and instead requires a “Schedule of the Work…formatted in detailed precedence-style critical path method that (a) provides a graphic representation of all activities and events, including float values that will affect the critical path of the Work and (b) identifies dates that are critical to ensure timely and orderly completion of the Work.”

• The Constructor must submit an initial schedule to the Owner only before, “first application for payment” and thereafter on a monthly basis. (Section 6.2.1).

• The Owner is allowed to change the sequences provided in the schedule as long as it does not “unreasonably interfere with the Work.” (Section 6.2.2).

Reprinted courtesy of Michael Sams , Kenney & Sams and Amanda Cox, Kenney & Sams Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Zillow Topping Realogy Shows Web Surge for Housing Market

July 30, 2014 — Prashant Gopal and John Gittelsohn – Bloomberg
Zillow Inc. (Z)’s purchase of Trulia Inc. makes the online company such a force in U.S. real estate that its market value now surpasses that of Realogy Corp., owner of renowned brokerage brands from Coldwell Banker to Century 21. Zillow, the biggest U.S. real estate website, has seen its market value jump to about $5.83 billion from $4.99 billion on July 23, the day before Bloomberg News reported the deal talks with rival Trulia. Realogy, the largest residential brokerage operator, has a market value of about $5.47 billion, compared with $5.67 billion last week, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The shift underscores the growing role of the Web in U.S. home sales as buyers start their hunt for homes and mortgages online and rely less on real estate agents, a migration that has taken longer than in industries such as music or travel. While Zillow is unlikely to compete directly with brokers, whose ad dollars are its top revenue source, buying Trulia (TRLA) gives it more command over marketing fees, sparking concerns among Realtors such as Stephen FitzMaurice that costs will rise. Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net; Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Prashant Gopal and John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg

---

Event-Cancellation Insurance Issues During a Pandemic

September 07, 2020 — Lorelie S. Masters & Latosha M. Ellis - Hunton Andrews Kurth
As the effects of coronavirus continue, organizations and companies now are considering whether events in late 2020 and early 2021 can take place or need to be converted to virtual events. What insurance effects will those changes and cancellations have? Consideration of these important decisions requires a review of both event-cancellation insurance and a consideration of force majeure and other such issues. On the insurance front, years ago, many policyholders purchased event-cancellation insurance for events in 2020, 2021, and even as far out as 2024. Such policies, purchased before the middle of March 2020, generally contain explicit coverage “buy-backs” for losses from “communicable disease.” That is, the policyholders paid an extra, specifically identified premium to remove any exclusion for communicable disease from these policies. Typically, these policies do not use the word, “virus”, but rather use “communicable disease”; and exclude neither. Those policies typically cover a specified amount of net profit and include additional coverages for “Cost of Remedial Action”, “Future Marketing Expense”, etc., over and above that specified amount of coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolute Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage For Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims

January 24, 2018 — White and Williams LLP
On December 28, 2017, the Ohio Court of Appeals (Eighth District) held in GrafTech International, Ltd., et al. v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., et al., No. 105258 that coverage for alleged injurious exposures to coal tar pitch was barred by a liability insurance policy’s absolute pollution exclusion. Applying Ohio law, the court concluded that Pacific Employers had no duty to defend GrafTech or pay defense costs in connection with claims by dozens of workers at Alcoa smelting plants that they were exposed to hazardous substances in GrafTech products supplied to Alcoa as early as 1942. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams

---

Occurrence Found, Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Bar Coverage for Construction Defects

May 13, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined that the supplier of cement for the construction of pools had coverage for alleged construction defects in the finished pools. Harleysville Worcester Ins. Co. v. Paramount Concrete, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43889 (D. Conn. March 31, 2014). R.I. Pools sued Paramount, a manufacturer and supplier of shotcrete, after cracking appeared in nineteen pools built by R.I. Pools using Paramount's shotcrete. The jury awarded R.I. Pools compensatory damages of $2,760,000. Paramount's insurer, Harleysville, defended under a reservation of rights. After the verdict, Harleysville filed for a declaratory judgment that there was no coverage under the CGL policy. Paramount filed for partial summary judgment. Harleysville first argued there was no occurrence. The policy's definition of occurrence included the phrase, "continuous exposure." This broadened the term "occurrence" beyond the word accident to include a situation where damage occurred over a period of time, rather than suddenly or instantaneously. 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

---