Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Will On-Site Robotics Become Feasible in Construction?

April 13, 2017 — Aarni Heiskanen – AEC Business
Over the last few years we’ve seen concepts and pilot projects for construction site robotics. Peter Novikov, Enrico Dini, Wolf D. Prix, and others have shown what on-site robotics can already accomplish. There are still hurdles to overcome, but the convergence of several technologies is making the automated construction site look attainable. Construction robotics is not a fad. In his keynote at AEC Hackathon Munich in April 2017, Professor Thomas Bock showed examples of construction robotics beginning in the early 1970s. The first construction robots were designed in Japan for manufacturing prefabricated modular homes. Already in the late 1970s, plans were made for extensive use of on-site construction robots. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aarni@aepartners.fi

Part II: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts

July 21, 2018 — David R. Cook - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
In Part I of this article, published in late April, we discussed the performance risk and time risk involved with construction and design contracts, and in Part II, we will cover cost risk and political risk. Cost Risk School budgets are limited for many reasons, and the construction budget is no exception. As a result, contracts should guard against unwarranted cost increases and claims. In the absence of a written change order signed by the appropriate officer, the contract should absolutely prohibit additional compensation for changes in the work. It should forbid claims for all events except those within the school authority’s sole control. Even for permitted claims, the contractor must provide written notice so that the authority might alleviate the problem and control its costs. To encourage the contractor to limit costs and claims, the contract could include a shared-savings clause, which grants an incentive payment for completion within the budget. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Practical Advice: Indemnification and Additional Insured Issues Revisited

September 08, 2016 — John P. Ahlers – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC Construction Blog
Lawyers love writing about indemnification. There are seventeen blog articles on our website alone that deal with the subject. Before you click out of this email in disgust that we are rehashing a stale topic, this post contains some practical advice for contractors and subcontractors dealing with the perplexing issues of indemnification and additional insured provisions. The concept of indemnity is based on a contractual agreement made between two parties, in which one party agrees to pay for the potential losses or damages caused by the other party. To indemnify someone means to protect that person or entity by promising to pay the cost of possible future damage, loss, or injury. When signing a contract, you should identify the indemnity obligations that could cost your business money. Finding the words “hold harmless” or “indemnify” in a proposed contract is not enough. The terms “hold harmless,” “save harmless,” or “indemnify” are a big part of the indemnification obligation. Although insurance requirements (“additional insured” clauses) accomplish virtually the same thing as very broad, unfair, or unlimited indemnity terms do, they result in an “end run” around the effort to limit the indemnification obligation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

Show Me the Money: The Good Faith Dispute Exception to Prompt Payment Penalties

March 13, 2023 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
California has a number of prompt payment penalty statutes on the books. Among them is Civil Code section 8800 which requires project owners on private works projects to pay progress payments to direct contractors within 30 days after demand for payment pursuant to contract or be subject to prompt payment penalties of two percent (2%) per month on the amount wrongfully withheld. Like California’s other prompt payment penalty statutes, however, there is an important carve out: If there is a good faith dispute between the project owner and the direct contractor the project owner may withhold up to 150% of the dispute amount and not be subject to prompt payment penalties. And that, my friends, is a higher-tiered party’s “get out of jail free” card. In a case of first impression, the 1st District Court of Appeals, in Vought Construction Inc. v. Stock (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 622, examined whether a project owner’s claim for liquidated damages constitutes a good faith dispute under Civil Code section 8800. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Massachusetts High Court to Decide if Insurers Can Recoup Defense Costs

February 07, 2018 — Craig O'Neill - Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) is set to hear argument on February 6 in a case that will decide whether insurers can recoup defense costs if it is later determined that they owed no duty to defend an underlying claim. At issue in Holyoke Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vibram USA, Inc., No SJC-12401, is Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig O'Neill, White and Williams, LLP
Mr. O'Neill may be contacted at oneillc@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

Wilke Fleury Attorneys Awarded Sacramento Business Journal’s Best of the Bar

September 30, 2019 — Dan Egan, Steve Williamson & David Frenznick - Wilke Fleury
Wilke Fleury congratulates attorneys Dan Egan, Steve Williamson and David Frenznick on their inclusion in the Sacramento Business Journal 2019 Best of the Bar! The Sacramento Business Journal annually honors the region’s top attorneys after a rigorous process of selection. To be awarded the Best of the Bar, attorneys are nominated by fellow attorneys and then vetted by a panel of peers. Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury attorneys Dan Egan, Steven J. Williamson and David A. Frenznick Mr. Egan may be contacted at degan@wilkefleury.com Mr. Williamson may be contacted at swilliamson@wilkefleury.com Mr. Frenznick may be contacted at dfrenznick@wilkefleury.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Intricacies of Business Interruption Claim Considered

January 07, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Reaching into the weeds to analyze a business interruption claim, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals determined the cost of ordinary payroll could be included in the calculation of net profit or loss in determining business loss income when business is resumed quickly after a fire. Verrill Farms, LLC v. Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 Mass. App. LEXIS 145 (Mass. App. Ct. Nov. 4, 2014). The insured suffered a fire loss at its farm store. Within two days, the business was reopened at alternate locations at reduced capacity. Within a month, the business had resumed nearly full capacity in temporary locations. No employees were laid off. This allowed the insured to maintain its business and generate income. The insured submitted a claim for loss of business income, based on its loss of net income in the year after the fire. The insurer paid a sum considerably less than the claim based upon its interpretation of what expenses could be included in a calculation of net profit or loss in order to determine loss of business income. The trial court held that the insurer did not have to pay the cost of ordinary payroll beyond the sixty-day limit, and granted summary judgment in the insurer's favor. 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

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES