CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Vincent Alexander Named to Florida Trend’s Legal Elite

August 10, 2020 — Vincent Alexander - Lewis Brisbois
Fort Lauderdale Partner Vincent F. Alexander has been named to Florida Trend’s Legal Elite as both a Legal Leader and an Up & Comer. In receiving this recognition, Mr. Alexander joins the less than 2% of active Florida Bar members who appear on this exclusive list. In addition, as a Legal Elite Up & Comer, Mr. Alexander is among only 112 attorneys who received the most votes in a special category for attorneys under the age of 40 who have exhibited leadership in the law and in their community. Florida Trend’s Legal Elite, now in its 17th year, presents the state’s top licensed and practicing attorneys selected by their peers. In composing its 2020 edition of Legal Elite, Florida Trend invited all in-state Florida Bar members to name attorneys who they hold in high regard or who they would recommend to others. The publication also asked voters to name three up and coming attorneys. Nominated attorneys were then scored based on the number of votes that they received, with more weight assigned to votes from outside of their own firms. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Vincent Alexander, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Alexander may be contacted at Vincent.Alexander@lewisbrisbois.com

---

Third Circuit Court of Appeals Concludes “Soup to Nuts” Policy Does Not Include Faulty Workmanship Coverage

December 11, 2018 — Timothy Carroll - White and Williams LLP
Earlier this month, in Frederick Mutual Insurance Company v. Hall, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit concluded that coverage for faulty workmanship claims is “simply not the kind of coverage insurance agents and insurance companies expect to provide” to construction industry professionals “unless the insured explicitly requests such coverage.” 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31666, at *9 (3d Cir. Nov. 8, 2018). In Hall, a stone masonry contractor was sued by its customer for causing over $350,000 in property damage resulting from “substandard and defective work” performed on the customer’s residence. The insurer sought a declaration that it owed neither a defense nor indemnity for those damages because, under Pennsylvania law, the policy did not cover property damage caused by faulty workmanship. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

July 18, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Claims for breach of contract are numerous in the construction law world. Without these claims we construction attorneys would have a hard time keeping the doors open. A 2021 case examined a different sort of claim that could arise (though, “spoiler alert” did not in this case) during the course of a construction project. That type of claim is one for tortious interference with business expectancy. In Clark Nexsen, Inc. et. al v. Rebkee, the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia gave a great explanation of the law of this type of claim in analyzing the following basic facts: In 2018, Clark Nexsen, Inc. (“Clark”) and MEB General Contractors, Inc. (“MEB”) responded to Henrico County’s (“Henrico”) Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the design and construction of a sport and convocation center (the “Project”). Henrico initially shortlisted Clark and MEB as a “design-build” team for the Project, but later restarted the search, issuing a second RFP. Clark and MEB submitted a second “design-build” proposal, but Henrico selected Rebkee Co. (“Rebkee”) for certain development aspects of the Project. MEB also submitted proposals to Rebkee, and Rebkee selected MEB as the design-builder for the Project. MEB, at Rebkee’s request, solicited proposals from three design firms and ultimately selected Clark as its design partner. From December 2019 to May 2020, Clark and MEB served as the design-build team to assist Rebkee in developing the Project. In connection therewith, Clark developed proprietary designs, technical drawings, and, with MEB, several cost estimates. In February 2020, MEB submitted a $294,334.50 Pay Application to Rebkee for engineering, design, and Project development work. Rebkee never paid MEB. Henrico paid MEB $50,000.00 as partial payment for MEB’s and Clark’s work. MEB then learned that Rebkee was using Clark’s drawings to solicit design and construction proposals from other companies. On July 23, 2020, Rebkee told MEB that Henrico directed it to cancel the design-build arrangement with MEB and Clark and pursue a different planning method. MEB and Clark sued and Rebkee for, among other claims, tortious interference with a business expectancy. Rebkee moved to dismiss the tortious interference claim. 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

---

Note on First-Party and Third-Party Spoliation of Evidence Claims

October 30, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In an earlier posting, I talked about spoliation of evidence. This posting discussed first-party spoliation of evidence which is where a party in a lawsuit has destroyed or lost potentially important documents or evidence. This type of spoliation of evidence does not give rise to an affirmative claim, but could be addressed by the trial court imposing sanctions or giving the devastating adverse inference jury instruction. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Executive Insights 2024: Leaders in Construction Law

August 05, 2024 — Construction Executive
The key risks that should always be taken into account when a contract is signed are risks associated with uncompensated delays and cost increases. Provisions relating to the scope of work deserve significant attention to help minimize these risks. Defining the scope of work is often put on the backburner while parties focus on negotiating the rest of the terms and conditions of the contract. And when these scopes are inserted, they are often not closely reviewed by attorneys who tend to defer to project personnel on scope. These situations can lead to costly disputes. Instead, make sure: (1) the correct plans and specifications have been referenced in the contract; (2) an attorney or his/her business counterpart is familiar with relevant specifications; (3) the exhibit containing the assumptions and clarifications is clearly written, has been coordinated with language in the body of the contract and can be clearly understood by attorneys and business people beyond the preconstruction personnel who drafted them; and (4) the contract addresses the order of precedence in the event of a conflict between or among contract provisions (including exhibits). With regard to specifications referenced above, an attorney review is advised because many specification sections, including submittal sections, change order sections, payment provisions and construction progress documentation sections, regularly vary from the negotiated sections of the actual contract. Contractors also unwittingly accept design risk through performance specifications, and the accompanying obligations and risks are underestimated by those tasked with the initial review of those documents. In sum, a clear scope is as important as clear terms and conditions. Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insurer’s Discovery Requests Ruled to be Overbroad in Construction Defect Suit

October 28, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The US District Court has ruled in the case of D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co. Inc. v. American Safety Indemnity, Co. D.R. Horton was involved in a real estate development project. Its subcontractor, Ebensteiner Co., was insured by ASIC and named D.R. Horton as an additional insured and third-party beneficiary. D.R. Horton, in response to legal complaints and cross-complaints, filed for coverage from ASIC under the Ebensteiner policy. This was refused by ASIC. ASIC claimed that “there is no potential coverage for Ebensteiner as a Named Insurer and/or D.R. Horton as an Additional Insured.” They stated that “the requirements for coverage are not satisfied.”

The case same to trial with the deadline for discovery set at March 1, 2011. ASIC stated they were seeking the developer’s “job file” for the Canyon Gate project. D.R. Horton claimed that ASIC’s discovery request was overbroad and that it would be “unduly burdensome for it to produce all documents responsive to the overbroad requests.”

D.R. Horton did agree to produce several categories of documents, which included:

“(1) final building inspection sign-offs for the homes that are the subject of the underlying litigation;(2) an updated homeowner matrix for the underlying actions; (3) the concrete subcontractor files; (4) the daily field logs for D.R. Horton’s on-site employee during Ebensteiner’s work; (5) documents relating to concrete work, including documents for concrete suppliers; (6) documents relating to compacting testing; (7) documents relating to grading; and (8) D.R. Horton’s request for proposal for grading”

The court found that the requests from ASIC were overbroad, noting that the language of the ASIC Request for Production of Documents (RFP) 3-5 would include “subcontractor files for plumbing, electric, flooring, etc. - none of these being at issue in the case.” The court denied the ASIC’s motion to compel further documents.

The court also found fault with ASIC’s RFPs 6 and 7. Here, D.R. Horton claimed the language was written so broadly it would require the production of sales information and, again, subcontractors not relevant to the case.

Further, the court found that RFPs 8, 10, 11, and 13 were also overbroad. RFP 8 covered all subcontractors. D.R. Horton replied that they had earlier complied with the documents covered in RFPs 10 and 11. The court concurred. RFP 13 was denied as it went beyond the scope of admissible evidence, even including attorney-client communication.

The court denied all of ASIC’s attempts to compel further discovery.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Cause Still Unclear in March Retaining Wall Collapse on $900M NJ Interchange

June 07, 2021 — Stephanie Loder - Engineering News-Record
A probe continues by construction engineer Hardesty and Hanover LLC into what caused the late March collapse of a retaining wall that is part of one of New Jersey's largest roadbuilding projects—the already late-running effort called Direct Connection, which aims to untangle the convoluted interchange of north-south I-295 and east-west Route 42 in Camden County. Reprinted courtesy of Stephanie Loder, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New-Home Sales in U.S. Unexpectedly Fall to Four-Month Low

January 07, 2015 — Victoria Stilwell – Bloomberg
Purchases of new U.S. homes unexpectedly declined in November to a four-month low, underscoring a lack of momentum this year in residential real estate. Sales dropped 1.6 percent to a 438,000 annualized pace last month following a 445,000 rate in October that was weaker than previously estimated, Commerce Department figures showed today in Washington. The median estimate of 73 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 460,000 pace in November. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Victoria Stilwell, Bloomberg
Ms. Stilwell may be contacted at vstilwell1@bloomberg.net

---