Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Flooded Courtroom May be Due to Construction Defect

September 01, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The General Services Administration wouldn’t pin it on a construction defect, but a spokesperson said that a pipe that was misaligned during installation was the likely cause of a flood in the Thomas F. Eagleton US Courthouse on August 23. According to the St. Louis Dispatch, the burst pipe caused a 17-story waterfall in the courthouse, soaking ceilings and floors, and drenching the building’s contents.

The building was dedicated eleven years ago. During the nearly ten years before the building was complete, there were construction disputes and soil contamination issues.

Read the full story…

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

NY Supreme Court Rules City Not Liable for Defective Sidewalk

February 12, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Eileen N. Fanning sued the city of Watertown, New York after incurring injuries from a fall on a sidewalk on Court Street, according to the Watertown Daily Times. A state Supreme Court judge dismissed the lawsuit. According to Fanning as reported by the Watertown Daily Times, the plaintiff “fell on an uneven section of sidewalk” and “suffered multiple broken bones in her hand, as well as neurological damage to her arm, among other injuries.” She claimed that the damage is permanent. The lawsuit involved Purcell Construction (the landscape pavers), Neighbors of Watertown (a renovation project), and the city of Watertown. The judge ruled that “Neighbors of Watertown was not liable for her injuries because the agency neither owned nor controlled the property where the injuries occurred and therefore ‘did not owe a duty of care’ to users of the walk as it was not responsible for the sidewalk’s maintenance.” The city was not held liable “because it had received no prior written notice about the alleged defective condition of the property.” Furthermore, the judge “agreed with Purcell Construction’s claim that the area claimed to be defective is ‘one little section’ of sidewalk ‘over which the public walked’ for nearly 20 years.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Separation of Insureds Provision in CGL Policies

August 31, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
CGL policies contain a “Separation of Insureds” provision. This provision oftentimes states:

As if each named insured were the only Named Insured; and
Separately to each insured against whom claim is made or “suit” is brought.

This provision is designed to “create separate insurable interests in each individual insured under a policy, such that the conduct of one insured will not necessarily exclude coverage for all other insured.” Evanson Ins. Co. v. Design Build Interamerican, Inc., 569 Fed.Appx. 739 (11th Cir. 2014). This provision also allows one insured under the policy (e.g., additional insured) to sue another (e.g., named insured) without violating potential coverage because there are separate insurable interests. This is a valuable provision in CGL policies. 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

Contractor Prevails in Part Against CalOSHA in Valley Fever Case

February 26, 2024 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Fever. Specifically, Valley fever. Caused by the fungus Coccidioides. It lives in the top two to 12 inches of soil, can become airborne when the soil is exposed, and can cause respiratory illness and even death. And apparently, it is present in many parts of California particularly in the Central Valley and along the coast. Who knew? In Granite Construction Company v. Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board, Case No. C086704 (2023), contractor Granite Construction was cited by CalOSHA for exposing its employees to Coccidioides at a large solar power plant known as California Flats Solar Project in Monterey California. The 3rd District Court of Appeal reversed in part. It should be noted that this case originally unpublished, it was then published, and then later depublished, so it should not be relied on for precedential value. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

When it Comes to COVID Emergency Regulations, Have a Plan

December 07, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
As I hope readers of this construction corner of the “blogosphere” know, Virginia adopted emergency COVID workplace regulations effective July 27, 2020, and with enforcement beginning at the end of September. Among the various items found in these regulations are general requirements for all employers, including among others, the requirement to self determine the employer’s risk level and disinfecting requirements. The regulations also have some requirements that seem specially directed toward construction industry employers. These include among them engineering controls and various requirements relating to communications with subcontractors. For a good overview of these requirements, see this great post at the Virginia Bar Association’s construction law blog. One item that is not included in the emergency regulations is a statement that following the regulations immunizes an employer from COVID infection-related lawsuits. For this reason, among others, all construction (and other industry) employers should have a COVID plan that meets the requirements of these regulations at whatever “hazard level” that employer meets. These plans should be written and distributed to all employees and include protocols for workplace/job site screening and what to do if there is a need for contact tracing. I also highly recommend that any plan be created with the help of a good Virginia workplace safety consultant well versed in the COVID regulations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

The Court of Appeals Holds That Indifference to Safety Satisfies the Standard for a Willful Violation Under WISHA

May 16, 2022 — Cameron Sheldon - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In March 2022, the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division One, issued Marpac Constr., LLC v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., No. 82200-4-I, 2022 WL 896850, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2022) holding Marpac Construction, LLC (“Marpac”) liable for three willful Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973 (WISHA) violations pertaining to safe crane operation near energized power lines. Marpac was the general contractor on an apartment complex construction project in West Seattle. The worksite had high voltage power lines running throughout the site. Seattle City Light had flagged some with a 10-foot offset, but none of the other power lines were flagged. Marpac’s superintendent assumed that the lines were between 26 kilovolts (kV) and 50 kV based on their connection to the lines flagged by Seattle City Light. The superintendent never called Seattle City Light to check the voltage of the lines and the lines remained above ground. In September 2016, a subcontractor began work on the project’s structural foundation. The subcontractor expressed concerns about working around the power lines, but Marpac promised it was working on mitigation of the power line hazard and directed the subcontractor continue working. At one point, the subcontractor’s employees had to move the crane and concrete forms away from the power lines to allow a cement truck to park in its place. The crane’s line contacted the power lines, causing serious injuries to two of the subcontractor’s employees. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Cameron Sheldon, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Sheldon may be contacted at cameron.sheldon@acslawyers.com

TOP TAKE-AWAY SERIES: The 2023 Fall Meeting in Washington, D.C.

November 13, 2023 — Marissa L. Downs & Jennifer M. Kanady - The Dispute Resolver
Over 500 construction lawyers, experts, and consultants descended on Washington last week for the Forum’s 2023 Fall Meeting. Newly minted Forum Chair John Cook and Program Coordinators Catherine Delorey and Brian Zimmerman put together a stellar program focused on navigating government construction. For this installation of the post-meeting post, I'm teaming up with guest contributor, Jennifer Kanady, to bring you 10 of our top take-aways from this unique program. 10. Contracting with the government is replete with risk that could easily trap the unwary. Nobody likes to be taken advantage of. But hell hath no fury like the U.S. Government scorned. Erin Cannon-Wells and Aaron Silberman, gave a (truly) delightful, Indiana-Jones-inspired presentation on the regulations that can doom the unwitting contractor who is less than perfectly forthright in its dealings. The government has created financial incentives for members of the public to report your company’s violations as part of a qui tam action. When you consider the number of potential whistleblowers in the bidding process and the contracting chain, a qui tam action would seem more likely than not. Add to that the sanctions contractors might face for even innocent errors either by their own companies or their downstream subs, and government contracting begins to sound increasingly like the Temple of Doom. Oh, and in case you were only focused on affirmative claims, beware the “reverse false claim” which is concealing information that would rightfully entitle the government to a credit… Reprinted courtesy of Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLP and Jennifer M. Kanady, FAC Services, LLC Ms. Downs may be contacted at mdowns@lauriebrennan.com Ms. Kanady may be contacted at JKanady@facfin.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California’s One-Action Rule May Apply to Federal Lenders

June 09, 2016 — Anthony J. Carucci – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
California’s one-action rule provides that “[t]here can be but one form of action for the recovery of any debt or the enforcement of any right secured by mortgage upon real property or an estate for years therein . . . .” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 726(a). In other words, the one-action rule prescribes that the only process for recovery of a debt secured by a mortgage or deed of trust is to foreclose on the lien. The rule aims to prevent a multiplicity of actions and vexatious litigation, and to force a beneficiary to look to all of the security as the primary fund for payment of a debt before looking to the trustor’s other assets. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony J. Carucci, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Carucci may be contacted at acarucci@swlaw.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES