Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

White and Williams LLP Secures Affirmation of Denial to Change Trial Settings Based on Plaintiffs’ Failure to Meet the Texas Causation Standard for Asbestos Cases

July 06, 2020 — Christian Singewald & Rochelle Gumapac - White and Williams LLP
The Delaware Supreme Court, in a rare split opinion, affirmed the trial court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Request to Change Trial Settings in favor of all defendants, including a major automotive manufacturer represented by White and Williams LLP, in a mesothelioma case with a young decedent who had an alleged economic loss claim exceeding $9,000,000, in Shaw v. American Friction, Inc. et al., No. 86, 2019. This decision operates to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims based on their failure to meet Delaware’s strict expert deadlines and establish a prima facie case under Texas law. Plaintiffs’ Complaint invoked the application of Texas substantive law and alleged that multiple manufacturers were negligent and strictly liable for failing to warn the decedent of the alleged dangers posed by the use of asbestos-containing products. Plaintiffs’ alleged asbestos exposures from defendants’ products caused Mr. Shaw’s disease and subsequent death. In 2007, Texas instituted its now well-known causation requirement, which requires the “dose” of asbestos exposure from each defendant’s products to be quantified by an expert. Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, 232 S.W.3d 765, 773 (Tex. 2007). Prior to decedent’s death, Plaintiffs’ counsel deposed decedent and his father for product identification purposes. During the depositions, Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to obtain the necessary factual information from his clients for an expert to be able to opine as to alleged exposure doses from any defendant’s product. Despite lacking the requisite information for a prima facie case under Texas law, Plaintiffs sought and were given placement in an expedited trial setting, which had strict, defined deadlines. Reprinted courtesy of Christian Singewald, White and Williams LLP and Rochelle Gumapac, White and Williams LLP Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Gumapac may be contacted at gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

No Occurrence Found for Damage to Home Caused by Settling

October 22, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Nebraska Supreme Court found the insurer properly denied coverage to the general contractor for damage to a home caused by settlement. Cizek Homes, Inc. v. Columbia Nat. Ins. Co., 2014 Neb. LEXIS 152 (Neb. Sept. 9, 2014). The general contractor built and then sold the residence. Subsequently, the homeowners complained that the soil beneath their residence was settling and causing damage to their home. The homeowners presented a draft complaint to the general contractor, alleging that negligence and faulty workmanship had caused damage to the home. The general contractor notified its carrier, Columbia. Coverage was denied. 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

Mortgage Interest Rates Increase on Newly Built Homes

April 30, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) Eye on Housing, while the Federal Housing Financing Agency (FHFA) reported a decrease in mortgage interest rates for existing homes, there was an increase in mortgage rates on newly built homes: “The average contract interest rate on conventional mortgages used to purchase newly built homes actually increased in March, from 3.91 to 4.21 percent, reversing an anomalous drop to under 4 percent that occurred in February.” “The average price and loan size on conventional mortgages used to purchase newly built homes also reversed previous month declines in March,” reported Eye on Housing. “The average price increased 5.4 percent to $427,200—the second highest number on record.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Data Is Critical for the Future of Construction

April 19, 2022 — Raghi Iyengar - Construction Executive
According to a recent study, real-time visibility and access to critical data and insights are vital for rapid construction decision-making. Notably, inaccurate and missing data cost the industry almost $2 trillion in 2020. Even more surprising, construction companies often don’t know if they’ve made or lost money until the job is complete or if they’re on schedule until they start falling behind. These findings portray an important reality for the industry: Construction needs to establish and optimize data strategies to ensure it has the visibility control, and transparency needed to improve efficiency and productivity on projects. Luckily, while historically slow to change, the construction industry has begun to adopt technologies that help firms improve efficiency and productivity on projects. With this technology, contractors can establish and optimize data strategies to ensure they have visibility, control and transparency. Embracing data is a game changer as the industry continues to expand. In fact, the report from Autodesk and FMI cited above found that the construction companies using data technologies and strategies saw fewer project delays, less rework and fewer change orders. Reprinted courtesy of Raghi Iyengar, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

NYC Developer Embraces Religion in Search for Condo Sites

October 15, 2014 — Oshrat Carmiel – Bloomberg
Extell Development Co., the New York builder that set off a luxury residential construction boom with its One57 project, is expanding its reach on Manhattan’s west side with a pending purchase of a synagogue and a plan to redevelop a Baptist church. Extell is in advanced talks to buy the Congregation Habonim synagogue at 44 W. 66th St. in a deal valued at $75 million, with plans to build condominiums on the site, according to documents the synagogue filed in New York State Supreme Court seeking permission for a sale. Extell also is negotiating with Calvary Baptist Church for a potential project at its 123 W. 57th St. site, on the same block as One57, the church’s 2014 annual report shows. Religious institutions across New York are pursuing real estate sales as land prices escalate. Manhattan development sites sold for an average of $657 a square foot in the third quarter, up 29 percent from a year earlier and a record for the period, Massey Knakal Realty Services said this month. Three purchases completed in the quarter were for more than $1,000 a square foot, the firm’s data show. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg
Ms. Carmiel may be contacted at ocarmiel1@bloomberg.net

Energy Company Covered for Business Interruption Losses Caused by Fire and Resulting in Town-Ordered Shutdown

February 15, 2021 — David G. Jordan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In the case of NextSun Energy Littleton, LLC v. Acadia Ins. Co., the United States District Court of Massachusetts held that once direct physical damage from a covered peril causes a covered business interruption loss, any increase in the duration of such business interruption, due to the enforcement of an ordinance or law, extends the coverage period provided for lost income. The Court further held that a policy exclusion for business interruption due to the enforcement of any ordinance or law not in force at the time of the loss only applies when the ordinance or law itself, not the enforcement action that it authorizes, was not in force at the time of the loss. The case involved a solar panel company, NextSun Energy Littleton (NextSun), that operated solar panel arrays providing electricity to the town of Littleton, Massachusetts. Due to a fire, 88 of the solar panels were damaged, and the Town immediately issued a “red-tag” order halting all energy-generating activity pending a safety inspection. The plaintiff purchased insurance for its panels along with “Energy Generating Income” (EGI) coverage, from the defendant, Acadia Ins. Co. (Acadia). The EGI policy covered “direct physical loss or damage” to “renewable energy generating equipment” and also covered the actual loss of surplus power income incurred during the interruption period. However, it excluded interruption of energy-generating income “caused by the enforcement of any ordinance, law, or decree … not in force at the time of loss.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com

Construction Contract Basics: Indemnity

October 30, 2023 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I’m back after a welcome change of offices from a Regus location to a separate and more customer-friendly local shared office space location. I thought I’d jump back into posting with a series of construction contract-related posts, the first of which relates to indemnification clauses. An indemnification clause in a contract obligates one party (the Indemnitor) to take on liability (read pay for) any damages to another party (the Indemnitee) under certain circumstances. In a construction context, this type of arrangement can arise in a bonding context with a general indemnity obligation to the surety among other contexts outside of the four corners of any prime or subcontract. I will not be discussing those other contexts and will focus on the typical indemnity clause found in most if not all, construction contracts. These clauses most often state that the “downstream” party is to indemnify all of the upstream parties for any and all damages incurred by the indemnitees due to any action of the downstream party, its employees, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, etc. The clauses are often not limited in scope and generally include attorney fee provisions and generally require indemnity for breaches of contract by their terms. 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

Does the Miller Act Trump Subcontract Dispute Provisions?

May 16, 2018 — Christopher M. Horton - Smith Currie
All general contractors performing public building or public works contracts with the federal government must be familiar with the Miller Act. It is a requirement for doing business with the federal government. Pursuant to the Miller Act, a general contractor entering into a public building or public works contract with the federal government must furnish a payment bond in an amount equal to the contract price, unless the contracting officer determines that it is impractical to obtain a bond in that amount and specifies an alternative bond amount. Miller Act payment bonds guarantee payment to certain subcontractors and suppliers supplying labor and materials to contractors or subcontractors engaged in the construction. As a result, subcontractors have an avenue of relief should they not get paid for work done on the project. Specifically, subcontractors have a right to bring an action against the surety within 90-days after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material for which the claim is made. Any such action must be brought no later than one year after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material. 40 United States Code § 3133. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher M. Horton, Smith Currie
Mr. Horton may be contacted at cmhorton@smithcurrie.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES