Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Unpredictable Opinion Regarding Construction Lien (Reinstatement??)

January 17, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Here comes the discussion of an appeal I was intimately involved in dealing with a construction lien. See Suntech Plumbing and Mechanical Corp. v. Bella Isla, LLC, 2022 WL 14672765 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). Unfortunately, it was a losing result on my end but not a losing result to the issue at-hand. You should ask what in the world does this mean. I will tell you. Here is the fact pattern. A subcontractor files a construction lien foreclosure lawsuit against an owner for unpaid contract balance. In the same lawsuit, the subcontractor sues the general contractor for breach of contract and unjust enrichment associated with an approximate three-year delay on a construction project. The project was scheduled to be completed in 2019. It was not. The project was pushed into COVID and into 2022. (The subcontractor did not sue the general contractor for amounts subject to the lien foreclosure claim.) The general contractor, assuming the defense of the owner, moved to stay the lawsuit pending the outcome of arbitration based on an arbitration provision in the subcontract. The subcontractor did not dispute the arbitration provision, but argued that arbitration provision should not extend to the owner that was (a) not bound by the subcontract, (b) would not be a party to the arbitration, and (c) the amounts pled against the general contractor did not include the amounts subject of the lien foreclosure lawsuit. At a minimum, the lawsuit should be stayed, not dismissed. Nevertheless, the trial court dismissed the entire lawsuit in an order that states that it is a final order with language that the lien may be “reinstated” after the outcome of the arbitration (that the owner is not a party to). 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

Arbitration—No Opportunity for Appeal

October 22, 2014 — Craig Martin – Construction Contractor Advisor
Last week I presented to the Great Plains Chapter of the American Society of Professional Estimators on arbitration and litigation. Some of the questions related to the difficulty of appealing an arbitrator’s decision. A Florida appellate court recently confirmed this difficulty. In Village at Dolphin Commerce Center, LLC v. Construction Service Solutions, LLC, a contractor filed an arbitration claim against the owner to get paid for its work. The owner claimed that the contractor could not maintain the claim to get paid because the contractor was not licensed. Apparently, there is a law in Florida that a contractor unlicensed at the time of the contract cannot maintain an action in Florida for unpaid work. 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

New Home for the Aged Suffers Construction Defects

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Although it’s only about a year old, there are already complaints about construction defects at Lubertha Johnson Estates, a property for low-income seniors in Southern Nevada. The 112-unit project is currently the subject of a construction defect lawsuit, with residents complaining about roof leaks, defective gates, and other problems. Jane Ann Morrison, writing in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, also notes that when the director of public housing operations presented resident complaints to the board of the Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority, a few defects seemed to have crept into their complaints, errors that weren’t in the one residents supplied to the reporter. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Negligence Claim Not Barred by Gist of the Action Doctrine

February 18, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the insureds' negligence claim survived because it was not based upon breach of a duty created by the policy, but upon the alleged breach of a duty imposed by tort law. Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co,, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3319 (Dec. 15, 2014). After purchasing their home, the insureds obtained a homeowner's policy from Erie. A separate endorsement covered loss to the property caused by "fungi," which was included as any form of mold. The endorsement obligated Erie to pay up to $5,000 for loss caused by mold. The policy required Erie to pay the cost of testing the air to confirm the absence or presence of mold. If mold was present, Erie was to pay for the cost of removal, including the cost of tearing out any part of the property needed to gain access to the mold. While renovating the basement, the insureds discovered two areas of black mold in close proximity to leaking water pipes. Erie was notified and sent an adjuster to view the mold. The adjuster took no action, but returned a couple of days later with an engineer. The adjuster and engineer informed the insureds that the mold was harmless and that health problems associated with mold were a media frenzy and overblown. 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

Pipeline Safety Violations Cause of Explosion that Killed 8

April 02, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Bloomberg Business Week reported that “PG&E Corp. (PCG:US), owner of California’s largest utility, was charged with 12 pipeline safety violations by the U.S. government for a 2010 natural gas explosion that killed eight people and left a crater the size of a house.” PG&E was charged “with knowingly and willfully violating the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act by failing to test and assess unstable pipelines to determine whether they could fail.” Furthermore, “Federal investigators are studying whether a leaking gas main operated by Consolidated Edison Inc. (ED:US) contributed to an explosion in New York City last month that also claimed eight lives.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

In Florida, Component Parts of an Improvement to Real Property are Subject to the Statute of Repose for Products Liability Claims

December 02, 2015 — Michael L. DeBona – White and Williams LLP
In Dominguez v. Hayward Industries, Inc., Certified Gunite Company d/b/a Custom Pools, and John M. Pieklo, — So.3d —-, 2015 WL 5438782 (3d DCA Sept. 16, 2015), the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, discussed whether products liability claims related to a pool filter, a component part of a pool system, were subject to Florida’s twelve-year products liability statute of repose, section 95.031, Florida Statutes. The court held that a pool filter does not constitute an improvement to real property and, thus, the plaintiffs’ claims were subject to the statute of repose. Background Facts Ryan and Jessica Dominguez had a pool installed at their house; the delivery and installation of the pool and its filter were completed on December 20, 1999. Over twelve years later – on November 17, 2012 – the pool filter exploded, causing Mr. Dominguez a severe head injury. Mr. Dominguez and his wife brought a products liability action against, among others, the pool filter manufacturer and distributor, Hayward Industries, Inc., and the installer of the pool and intermediate distributor of the pool filter, Certified Gunite Company. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLP
Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

California Joins the Majority of States in Modifying Its Survival Action Statute To Now Permit Recovery for Pain, Suffering And Disfigurement

January 03, 2022 — Krsto Mijanovic & Elizabeth D. Rhodes - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
On January 1, 2022, California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”)Section 377.30 et seq., as amended by Senate Bill 447, otherwise known as the “survival action” statute1, goes into effect. On that date, all plaintiffs filing new civil cases filed on or after January 1, 2022, and before January 1, 2026, and plaintiffs in any action or proceeding granted trial preference pursuant to CCP Section 36 before January 1, 2022, will be expressly allowed to recover damages for a decedent’s pain, suffering, or disfigurement in a survival action.2 This is a significant change in California law. In that regard, California is now the 46th state to permit this form of recovery. As reported in the Legislative Counsel’s Digest3, Consumer Attorneys of California and Consumer Federation of California, which co-sponsored Senate Bill 447, opined to the Legislature that the prior law provided a “death discount” to defendants which incentivized bad faith delays in resolution, and caused unnecessary congestion of the already overburdened court system. These argued issues will be vetted by the Legislature using the four-year reporting requirement that is also part of the amendment to the statute, requiring plaintiffs who recover this newly permitted category of damages to report the valuation and details of the case to the Judicial Council within 60 days of the judgment or other operative court document being entered in the court’s docket.4 The amendment will be evaluated by the Legislature for amendment or extension on or before January 1, 2026. Reprinted courtesy of Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Elizabeth D. Rhodes, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Rhodes may be contacted at erhodes@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Economic Damages and the Right to Repair Act: You Can’t Have it Both Ways

March 16, 2017 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
In 2002, the California State Legislature passed Senate Bill 800 also known as the Right to Repair Act (Civil Code Sections 895 et seq.) in an effort to stem a then rising tide in residential construction defect litigation. SB 800, which applies to newly constructed residential units including single-family homes and condominiums (but not condominium conversions) sold after January 1, 2003, was intended to curb residential construction defect lawsuits by giving developers and others in the construction chain an opportunity to repair construction defects before being sued in court. SB 800 also provides minimum construction standards and limits the time in which a homeowner can bring a claim for construction defects. In Acqua Vista Homeowners Association v. MWI, Case No. D068406 (January 26, 2017), the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District examined the circumstances in which homeowners can sue a material supplier under the Right to Repair Act. 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

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES