CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

WSDOT Seeks Retraction of Waiver Excluding Non-Minority Woman-Owned Businesses from Participation Goals

September 28, 2017 — Lindsay K. Taft - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
If you are a regular reader of our blog, you will likely recognize that our firm has been actively involved and concerned with the results of Washington State Department of Transportation’s (“WSDOT”) Disparity Study, which impacts both Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (“DBE”) and general contractors who bid on federally-funded projects with DBE goals. On June 1, 2017, WSDOT implemented a “waiver”, which excluded Caucasian women-owned firms (“WBEs”) from qualifying for Condition of Award DBE Goals on federally-funded projects. This drastic action was the result of WSDOT’s highly criticized 2012 Disparity Study conducted by BBC Research & Consulting of Denver, Colorado, which concluded non-minority women-owned firms do not face “substantial disparities” in the federally-funded transportation contracting market. BBC’s study was criticized for a number of reasons, but most concerning was BBC’s flawed and unreliable statistical methodology that did not accurately represent true marketplace conditions. See Ahlers & Cressman letter of January 9, 2014 and Associated General Contractors of Washington article. For example, BBC’s results showed both decreasing WBE availability and availability vastly out of range with other states (e.g., the availability of women-owned construction firms in Washington was just 1.5% compared to 11.96% in Oregon). Nevertheless, based on this flawed BBC study and BBC’s assertion that women-owned firms did not face disparities, WSDOT sought and on June 1, 2017 was granted a waiver precluding general contractors from counting WBE firms towards their DBE goals on federally funded public works projects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lindsay Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Ms. Taft may be contacted at ltaft@ac-lawyers.com

---

Mississippi exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”

June 07, 2011 — CDCoverage.com

In Lafayete Ins. Co. v. Peerboom, No. 3:10cv336 (S.D. Miss. June 2, 2011), claimant homeowner Peerboom hired insured contractor Absolute to raise Peerboom’s house two feet to avoid future flooding. While Absolute was raising the house, it fell, resulting in physical injury to the home. Peerboom sued Absolute for negligence, breach of contract, and fraud, seeking damages for the destruction of the home. Absolute’s CGL insurer Lafayette defended under a reservation of rights and filed a declaratory judgment action.



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com

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

---

Arkansas: Avoiding the "Made Whole" Doctrine Through Dépeçage

April 09, 2014 — Robert M. Caplan – White and Williams LLP
In Arkansas, a workers’ compensation carrier’s subrogated recovery is subject to a determination of whether the injured worker—or, as the case may be, the worker’s surviving beneficiaries—has been “made whole” by the worker’s recovery against the third party tortfeasor. See, e.g., Yancey v. B & B Supply, 213 S.W.3d 657, 659 (Ark. App. 2005) (“An insured’s right to be made whole takes precedence over an insurer’s right to subrogation, and an insured must be fully compensated before the insurer's right to subrogation arises.”) [1] More often than not, a “made whole” determination will completely eradicate the carrier’s lien. But under the right circumstances, a workers’ compensation carrier may be able to avoid the harsh outcome of “made whole” by intervening in a pending third party action and subsequently filing a motion for dépeçage—i.e., the conflict of laws principle requiring the court to conduct a separate choice of law analysis for discrete issues in a given case. A motion for dépeçage, in this sense, would demand that the court conduct a choice of law analysis to determine what state’s workers’ compensation subrogation law will apply on reimbursing a carrier’s lien. We recently exploited this often underutilized tactic—to avoid Arkansas’ made whole doctrine—in a case involving a fatal plane crash in Louisiana. In that case, the deceased worker and his beneficiaries were residents of Louisiana; the accident took place in Louisiana; the worker was officially employed in Louisiana; and the workers’ compensation insurance policy was governed by, and benefits were paid under, Louisiana law. The only “contact” with Arkansas [2], meanwhile, was that Arkansas was the defendant’s domicile. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert M. Caplan, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com

---

$5 Million Construction Defect Lawsuit over Oregon Townhomes

January 06, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

A homeowners’ association in Lake Oswego, Oregon has filed a $5 million lawsuit against the developers of the luxury townhomes. The homeowners of Sunset Crossing are suing Centurion Homes and Aspen Townhomes over claims that construction defects have lead to water intrusion and structural damages. The townhomes were built in 2005.

Andy Burns, the lawyer for Phillip and Patricia Gentelmann, the owners of both Centurion Homes and Aspen Townhomes, said the Gentelmanns were “taking these allegations very seriously.” The suit says that the construction violated state and local building codes and that the firms did not repair damage caused by water intrusion.

Read the full story…

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

---

Condo Building Increasing in Washington D.C.

November 05, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Builder reported that in Washington D.C., "the condo pipeline has increased for the first time since 2005, according to Alexandria, Va.,-based research firm Delta Associates." Supply has grown with "3,100 units either being marketed or sold in around the nation's capital." Furthermore, "condo prices have jumped 12 percent year over year." “The size of the projects are smaller than they were in the last boom cycle,” William Rich, senior vice president and multifamily practice director at Delta, told Builder. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Did the Building Boom Lead to a Boom in Construction Defects?

May 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The height of the building boom is now almost a decade past but some are saying that the results of the rush to get housing built during the profitable market are still with us. The Wall Street Journal reports on the rise of construction defect lawsuits as these homes have aged, some not too gracefully. One couple thought they were hearing acorns falling on their roof. They were less happy to find that the source of the noises was their house slumping on one end, leading to cracks throughout the house. Their neighbors had similar problems and they are now part of a lawsuit against the builder. The expenses to repair the houses could total millions of dollars. Some have suggested that during the building boom both building and inspection standards were more lax in order to keep up with the pace of building. Criterium Engineers, a building-inspection firm, estimates that 17% of new homes built in 2006 had at least two significant defect, while only 15% of those built in 2003 fit these criteria. Meanwhile others attribute the rise in construction defect lawsuits to home inspector and construction defect attorneys looking for new territories to exploit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

An Additional Insured’s Reasonable Expectations may be Different from the Named Insured’s and Must be Considered to Determine whether the Additional Insured is Entitled to Defense from the Insurer of a Commercial Excess & Umbrella Liability Policy

June 12, 2014 — Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq. and Kacey R. Riccomini, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
The Second District Court of Appeal’s recent decision, Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216, immediately affects builders and contractors (collectively “builders”) who are often named as additional insureds (AIs) to contractors’ general liability policies. The decision is an important tool for builders’ counsel because the builder’s reasonable expectations can alter the interpretation of ambiguous terms in policies issued to subcontractors. Essentially, the builder’s intent is relevant to the interpretation of policy terms because the subcontractor’s intent in requesting additional coverage depends on the agreement it made with the builder. The salient aspects of the facts, the Appellate Court’s reasoning, and practical considerations are discussed below. Transport Insurance Company (Transport) issued a commercial excess and umbrella liability policy (Policy) to Vulcan Materials Company (Vulcan), naming R.R. Street & Co., Inc. (Street) as an AI for its distribution of a solvent. The Policy provided that Transport would indemnify and defend the insured for loss caused by property damage if (1) it was not covered by “underlying insurance” but was within the terms of coverage of the Policy, or (2) if the limits of liability of the “underlying insurance” were exhausted during the Policy period due to property damage. The Policy included a Schedule of Underlying Insurance (Schedule) that listed policies issued to Vulcan. Thereafter, Vulcan and Street were named as defendants in several environmental contamination actions (Underlying Actions). Transport brought a declaratory relief action against Vulcan regarding Transport’s duty to defend. (Legacy Vulcan Corp. v. Superior Court (Legacy Vulcan) (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 677). The trial court found the term “underlying insurance” ambiguous as it was not expressly defined to include only the policies on the Schedule and could be interpreted to include all primary policies in effect. Vulcan challenged the trial court’s decision by petition for writ of mandate, contending “underlying insurance” only included policies listed on the Schedule. The Court of Appeal found “underlying insurance” ambiguous because it was an expressly qualified term under other Policy provisions but not in the umbrella coverage provision and, thus, it was a generic term that was not limited to policies listed in the Schedule or inclusive of all primary insurance. Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys Richard H. Glucksman, Jon A. Turigliatto and Kacey R. Riccomini Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com; Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com, and Ms. Riccomini may be contacted at kriccomini@cgdrblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Private Statutory Cause of Action Under Florida’s Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act

July 11, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Florida’s Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act is set forth in Florida Statutes Chapter 556. Any owner or operator of underground infrastructure as well as contractors that perform underground excavation and demolition operations are familiar (or, need to be familiar) with this Act and the requirements it imposes on them. In a nutshell, this Act requires excavators to notify operators of underground facilities (e.g., pipelines, cables, sewers) through a notification system before excavating or demolishing an underground location. Then notification system gives the operator of the underground facility two days’ advance notice that an excavation will be taking place. After receiving this notice, the operator of the underground facility must mark the area where its infrastructure is located which could be affected by the underground excavation or demolition operations. The Act further imposes duties on excavators to use increased caution, supervise mechanized equipment, perform excavation and demolition operations in a careful an prudent manner, and to re-notify the notification system if the operator’s marking is no longer visible so the location of the operator’s underground facility can be re-marked. 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

---