Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Social Distancing and the Impact on Service of Process Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic

April 13, 2020 — Robert Devine, James Burger & Susan Zingone - White and Williams
Service of process usually requires person-to-person contact and is an essential part of civil procedure. It notifies the defendant of the legal proceedings against him/her and establishes jurisdiction. “Process” refers to the documents that must be served on a defendant. If service of process is not performed pursuant to the governing rules of civil procedure, a lawsuit cannot proceed. Service of Process in NJ and PA Personal service is required to be the first attempted means of service in New Jersey. If personal service is not successful, then service may be made by mailing a copy of the process via registered or certified mail with return receipt requested to the defendant’s usual place of abode or business/place of employment, or to an authorized agent. The party attempting to serve the defendant by mail can choose to mail the process by regular mail as well, and if the defendant refuses to accept or claim the registered or certified copy, and the regular mail copy is not returned, then service is considered effectuated. Pennsylvania allows for a defendant to be served via personal service by handing a copy to the defendant or by delivering a copy to an adult family household member at the defendant’s residence. Pennsylvania also permits service of process by mail. Process can be served by mail requiring a signature of the defendant. If the mail is unclaimed, alternative service must be attempted. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys Robert Devine, James Burger and Susan Zingone Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Burger may be contacted at burgerj@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Zingone may be contacted at zingones@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Court of Appeals Says, “We Like Eich(leay)!”

March 30, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Time is money. And nowhere can than be best observed than on a construction project. Project delays can mean lost profits for owners, liquidated damages for general contractors, and increased material, labor, field overhead, and home office overhead costs for general contractors and subcontractors alike. Pricing the impact of delays, however, can be thorny. Particularly, for home office overhead. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

As Some States Use the Clean Water Act to Delay Energy Projects, EPA Issues New CWA 401 Guidance

August 26, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
In just the past few weeks, three states have used their Clean Water Act 401 authority to delay, for an indefinite period, FERC-authorized pipeline expansion projects. On May 6, 2019, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality denied, without prejudice, Jordan Cove’s application for a Section 401 water quality certification. Jordan Cove plans to build an LNG export terminal at Coos Bay, Oregon, if it can obtain the necessary federal and permits. Under Section 401(a) of the Clean Water Act, any applicant for a federal permit to conduct any activity, including the operation of facilities which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters, shall provide the permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge may originate that any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of the Clean Water Act, including effluent limitations and state water quality standards. The States have a “reasonable time”—which shall not exceed one year after the receipt of the 401 application—in which to act, or the state’s authority may be waived by this inaction. The Oregon DEQ concluded that Jordan Cove has not demonstrated that its project, as presently configured, will satisfy state water quality standards. The 401 applications submitted by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. (Transco) to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the New York State Department of Environmental Protection were similarly rejected without prejudice on May 15, 2019 (New York) and June 5, 2019 (New Jersey). This use of the states’ 401 authority has frustrated plans to build and operate LNG pipelines around the country. 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

California Homeowners Can Release Future, Unknown Claims Against Builders

June 10, 2015 — Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and William L. Doerler – White and Williams LLP
In Belasco v. Wells, 183 Cal. Rptr.3d 840, 234 Cal. App. 4th 409 (2015), the California Court of Appeals for the Second District addressed the question of whether a homeowner, when settling an administrative complaint against a licensed homebuilder, can release future, unknown claims. Despite the presence of a California statute, Cal. Civ. Code § 1542, stating that a general release does not extend to claims that the releasor does not know about, the court held that the homeowner’s express release of future claims was enforceable. Thus, the homeowner’s release - signed as part of a 2006 settlement of the homeowner’s construction defect claims against the defendant, a homebuilder - barred the homeowner’s 2012 claims against the builder based on latent defects in the roof of the home that the homeowner discovered in 2011. Background The plaintiff, David Belasco, a patent attorney, bought a newly-constructed home from the defendant-builder, Gary Wells, in 2004. Wells holds a Class B General Building Contractor license issued by the Contractors State License Board (the Board). In 2006, Belasco filed a complaint against Wells with the Board based on alleged construction defects in the home. As a result of Belasco’s complaint to the Board, the parties engaged in arbitration. At the arbitration, both parties were represented by counsel. Wells offered to settle the dispute for the sum of $25,000 and Belasco accepted Wells’ offer. Reprinted courtesy of Edward A. Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP and William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Guardrail Maker Defrauded U.S. of $175 Million and Created Hazard, Jury Says

October 22, 2014 — Patrick G. Lee – Bloomberg
Secret changes by Trinity Industries Inc. to its guardrail systems were found to have cheated the U.S. government, exposing the company to $1 billion in damages and penalties and sending shares plummeting as states question the safety of the product. The east Texas jury’s verdict comes as scrutiny of the highway-safety product called the ET-Plus intensifies across the country after it’s been blamed for multiple deaths. The Federal Highway Administration this month asked all states to start submitting information on crashes involving the ET-Plus to the agency’s safety office. The agency will evaluate the findings of the case and “consider whether it affects the continued eligibility of the ET-Plus,” Brian Farber, a spokesman for the Department of Transportation, said in an e-mail. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick G. Lee, Bloomberg
Mr. Lee may be contacted at plee315@bloomberg.net

Specific Performance: Equitable Remedy to Enforce Affirmative Obligation

January 18, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When a party breaches an agreement, particularly when dealing with real estate, there is an equitable remedy known as specific performance that requests the trial judge issue an order to affirmatively force the breaching party to perform, i.e., close on the real estate contract. You are asking the court to require the other party to specifically perform an affirmative obligation. See Melbourne Ocean Club Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Elledge, 71 So.3d 144, 146 (Fla. 2011).

A decree of specific performance is an equitable remedy ‘not granted as a matter of right or grace but as a matter of sound judicial discretion’ governed by legal and equitable principles. Specific performance shall only be granted when 1) the plaintiff is clearly entitled to it, 2) there is no adequate remedy at law, and 3) the judge believes that justice requires it. Castigliano v. O’Connor, 911 So.2d 145, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (internal citations omitted).

An example of specific performance may play out, as mentioned, in a real estate contract where a seller refuses to close on the transaction. 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

The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation: A Redux

January 17, 2013 — David McLain, Higgings, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

I previously wrote an article entitled “The Hidden Dangers of Construction Defect Litigation” for the Common Interests magazine, the monthly periodical of the Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Community Associations Institute. In that article, I discussed the potential negative effects of homeowners associations bringing construction defect suits as anything other than a last resort. The purpose of this post is to bring to light, by way of a real life example, the problems discussed in my previous article.

I have recently seen a lawsuit filed by an individual homeowner within a common interest community against the homeowners association, its management company, and the attorneys retained by the association to represent it in a construction defect lawsuit against the original developer, general contractor, and one of the design professionals. In his suit, the homeowner complains that the association’s construction defect attorneys “neglected to amend [their] complaint to include only and specifically the claims for damages for those properties, those buildings or condominium units, either by owner or specific locations, which had sustained damages or had faulty construction for which damages were being sought.” As a result of claiming damages throughout the entire community, the homeowner alleged that the entire community was tarred “with the black brush of litigation.”

As the homeowner explained in his complaint, he purchased a condominium for his daughter-in-law when she moved to Colorado to care for him after the death of his wife.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain
Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

The Secret to an OSHA Inspection

December 02, 2015 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Wouldn’t it be nice to know ahead of time what an OSHA inspector will be looking for when he comes to your work site? Well, I know the secret. And, it’s not really a secret. Just look at OSHA’s top ten citation standards and it becomes quite clear. In 2015, OSHA’s top ten most frequently cited violations are:

1. Fall protection (C) 2. Hazard communication 3. Scaffolding (C)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@ldmlaw.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES