Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Housing Bill Threatened by Rift on Help for Disadvantaged

April 09, 2014 — Cheyenne Hopkins and Clea Benson - Bloomberg
Efforts to overhaul the U.S. housing-finance system could hinge on how far Congress is willing to go to ensure that young, low-income and minority homebuyers can get mortgages. A bipartisan bill drafted by Senate Banking Committee leaders Tim Johnson and Mike Crapo relies on incentives to persuade financiers to lend to groups with higher risk profiles. Consumer and civil-rights organizations are pushing instead for a mandate that those groups must be served, a concept that has become a political flash point since the housing bubble burst. Key Democrats on the banking panel whose support is needed to pass the measure may vote against a bill that doesn’t include a mandate, especially as mortgage borrowing has dropped among blacks, Latinos and first-time buyers. Ms. Hopkins may be contacted at chopkins19@bloomberg.net; Ms. Benson may be contacted at cbenson20@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Cheyenne Hopkins and Clea Benson, Bloomberg

Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dispose of Hail Damage Claim Fails

November 25, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the insured's complaint requesting coverage for hail damage and a claim for bad faith. Rodriquez v. State Farm Lloyds, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160007 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 2024). Mr. Rodriquez sought coverage under his homeowners policy after a hail and wind storm damaged his roof. After inspection, State Farm agreed that some minimal loss caused by hail was covered, but determined that the covered loss was less than the amount of the deductible. State Farm further determined that any hail damage to the roof was excluded by an endorsement, Exclusion of Cosmetic Loss to Metal Roof Coverings Caused by Hail. State Farm also determined that some damage was caused by previous faulty workmanship or wear and tear, both of which were excluded from coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

The Right to Repair Act (Civ.C §895 et seq.) Applies and is the Exclusive Remedy for a Homeowner Alleging Construction Defects

February 07, 2018 — Craig Wallace – Smith Currie
McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (01.18.18) ____ Cal.4th _____ (2018 WL 456728) The California Supreme Court confirmed that the Right to Repair Act (CA Civil Code § 895, et seq. and often referred to by its legislative nomenclature as “SB800”) applies broadly to any action by a residential owner seeking recovery of damages for construction defects, regardless of whether such defects caused property damages or only economic losses. This includes the right in the Act of the builder to attempt repairs prior to the owner filing a lawsuit. Background Homeowners sued builder for construction defects. Included in their causes of action was a cause of action for violation of the Right To Repair Act. The Act requires that before filing litigation, a homeowner must give the builder notice and engage in a nonadversarial prelitigation process which gives the builder a right to repair the defects. The builder asked the court to stay the homeowners’ action so the prelitigaiton process could be undertaken. Rather than give the builder the repair right, the homeowners dismissed the particular cause of action from their case, leaving only other so-called common law and warranty causes of action. The common law claims sought recovery for property damage caused by the defects. The builder nonetheless asked to the Court to stay the action so it could exercise its right to repair. The trial court, relying on Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, denied builder’s request to stay the action. The Liberty Mutual Court concluded that certain common law construction defect claims fell outside the purview of the Act. Builder appealed. The Court of Appeal disagreed with Liberty Mutual, so did not follow it, granted the builder’s request for a stay, and directed that the homeowners afford the builder the right to repair the claimed defects as provided under the Act. The California Supreme Court affirmed, disapproving Liberty Mutual and the subsequent cases relying on it. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Wallace, Smith Currie
Mr. Wallace may be contacted at swwallace@smithcurrie.com

Commercial Construction Lenders Rejoice: The Pennsylvania Legislature Provides a Statutory fix for the “Kessler” Decision

July 16, 2014 — Thomas C. Rogers – White and Williams LLP
In May 2012, the Pennsylvania Superior Court rendered its now infamous “Kessler” decision. The Kessler decision resulted in fundamental changes in the operation of the Pennsylvania Mechanics Lien Act as it applied to construction loans where the visible commencement of work on the project commenced before the recordation of the construction loan’s open-end mortgage. Essentially, the Kessler decision held that if the visible commence of work on the project began prior to the recording of the open-end mortgage and any loan advances were made other than for what are commonly considered “hard construction” costs, then any unpaid contractors and subcontractors who later filed mechanics’ liens would have their liens take priority over the lien of all of the construction loan advances. Subsequent to the Kessler decision, both the lending and title insurance communities in Pennsylvania have struggled mightily to structure deals around the problems created by Kessler and to provide lenders with title insurance coverage for construction loans when work commenced before the recordation of the open-end mortgage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Thomas C. Rogers, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Rogers may be contacted at rogerst@whiteandwilliams.com

Understand the Dispute Resolution Provision You Are Agreeing To

September 20, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When negotiating a contract, do not overlook the dispute resolution provision. It is one of the more important provisions in your construction contract. This provision will come into play and have ramifications if there is a dispute, which is certainly not uncommon on a construction project. In dispute resolution provisions in subcontracts on federal projects, it is not unusual for that provision to include language that requires the subcontractor to STAY any dispute that concerns actions or inactions of the owner pending the resolution of any dispute between the owner and prime contractor relating to that action or inaction. A provision to this effect should be included for the benefit of the prime contractor. For instance, the provision may say the subcontractor agrees to stay any such claim against the prime contractor or prime contractor’s surety pending the outcome of any pass-through claim (or otherwise) submitted under the Contract Disputes Act. 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

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

Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Insurer Must Defend Oil Company Against Entire Lawsuit

October 07, 2019 — Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine & Alexander D. Russo - Hunton Andrews Kurth
The Georgia Court of Appeals recently affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of Mountain Express Oil Company on its breach of contract claim against liability insurer, Southern Trust Insurance Company. Empire Petroleum brought claims against Mountain Express for breach of contract, injunctive relief, and libel or slander, among others. Mountain Express sought a defense to that lawsuit under its insurance policy with Southern Trust. Southern Trust contended that the insurance policy did not cover Empire’s non-libel/slander claims, and therefore reimbursed Mountain Express for only a portion of its attorneys’ fees. After the Empire lawsuit settled, Mountain Express sued Southern Trust for breach of contract and bad faith for failing to pay the remaining defense costs, contending that Southern Trust had a duty to defend the entire lawsuit. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Mountain Express on its breach of contract claim. Citing policy language stating that “[the insurer] will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any ‘suit’ seeking those damages,” the court held that Southern Trust was obligated to defend the entire lawsuit. Specifically, in reaching that conclusion, the court noted that by agreeing to defend any “suit,” not any “claim,” Southern Trust obligated itself to defend the entire lawsuit if any claim could be covered under the policy. Accordingly, Southern Trust breached the policy when it only agreed to defend some of the claims against its insured. Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Alexander D. Russo, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pool Contractor’s Assets Frozen over Construction Claims

October 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The State of Florida has frozen the assets of Nationwide Pools over claims of deceptive practices. Nationwide will be allowed to engage in pool construction during the lawsuit. The Florida Attorney General’s office alleges that Nationwide Pools failed to pay subcontractors, misrepresented warranties, and left customers with unfinished pools. The State of Florida is seeking restitution to consumers who did business with Nationwide Pools. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES