Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires

February 16, 2017 — Kirsten Lee Price & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Hensley v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., (No. D070259, filed 1/31/17), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that emotional distress damages are available on claims for trespass and nuisance as part of “annoyance and discomfort” damages. In Hensley, plaintiffs sustained fire damage to their home and property during the 2007 California wildfires. The Hensleys were forced to evacuate as the fires advanced. Although their home was not completely destroyed, it sustained significant damage and they were not able to return home permanently for nearly two months. Thereafter, the Hensleys filed suit against San Diego Gas and Electric Company (“SDG&E”) asserting causes of action for trespass and nuisance, among others. Mr. Hensley, who had suffered from Crohn’s disease since 1991, further claimed that as a result of the stress from the fire, he experienced a substantial increase in his symptoms and his treating physician opined that “beyond a measure of reasonable medical certainty... the stress created by the 2007 San Diego fires caused an increase of [Mr. Hensley’s] disease activity, necessitating frequent visits, numerous therapies, and at least two surgeries since the incident.” SDGE moved, in limine, to exclude evidence of Mr. Hensley’s asserted emotional distress damages arguing he was not legally entitled to recover them under theories of trespass and nuisance. The trial court agreed and excluded all evidence of such damages. Reprinted courtesy of Kirsten Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Expands on Scope of Coverage for Soft Cost Claims

February 14, 2023 — Caitlin N. Rabiyan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The California federal district court case of KB Home v. Illinois Union Insurance Co., No. 8:20-cv-00278-JLS-JDE, (C.D. Cal. August 23, 2022), provides much needed guidance for cases involving builder's risk insurance claims for soft cost coverage. The case stems from damage to several of KB Home’s residential building sites caused by a severe rainstorm in January 2017. Each home site was a smaller part of a large housing development project. The damage caused significant delay in the completion of some individual home sites, although there was limited evidence of delay to the overall housing development project. As a result, KB Home sought coverage under a builder’s risk policy purchased from Illinois Union for both hard costs and soft costs. “Hard costs” are the costs directly associated with repairing property damage to the sites. Conversely, “soft costs” are indirect expenses associated with project delays caused by such property damage and repair efforts. For example, hard costs would include labor and materials, whereas the soft costs claimed by KB Home included additional real estate taxes, construction loan interest, and advertising and promotional expenses incurred because of the delays. Illinois Union paid the claim for the hard costs, but denied the soft costs claim. KB Home filed suit and Illinois Union eventually filed a motion for summary judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Caitlin N. Rabiyan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Rabiyan may be contacted at CRabiyan@sdvlaw.com

Developer Boymelgreen Forced to Hand Over Financial Records for 15 Broad Street

September 24, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Manhattan Supreme Court “denied a last-ditch effort by Jeshayahu Boymelgreen to avoid handing over financial records as part of a state investigation into the development of 15 Broad Street in the Financial District,” according to The Real Deal. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman had ordered Boymelgreen to turn over the records. Futhermore, according to court records (as reported in The Real Deal), “the developer was also seeking to reduce the amount of money required to fund a $470,000 escrow account to make repairs at the condo — known as Downtown by Starck — which Boymelgreen jointly developed with Africa Israel.” “We’re glad to see that the courts are rejecting Boymelgreen’s arguments why he shouldn’t be required to maintain an escrow account as security for the sponsor to obtain a permanent certificate of occupancy for 15 Broad, as was set forth in the very offering he participated in with Africa Israel,” Steven Sladkus, attorney for unit owners at the condo, stated. “Accountability is one step closer to the light at the end of the tunnel.” Brian Itzkowitz, an attorney representing Boymelgreen, did not return The Real Deal’s calls or emails. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Seeking Better Peer Reviews After the FIU Bridge Collapse

September 16, 2019 — Engineering News-Record
On the surface, it seemed like an outrageous defensive move following a painful tragedy. Louis Berger Group has refused requests from the Dept. of Labor to hand over emails with FIGG Bridge Engineers about its peer review of the ill-fated Florida International University pedestrian bridge. The structure collapsed on March 15, 2018, killing six people and injuring several others. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

St Louis County Approves Settlement in Wrongful Death Suit

August 13, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the StarTribune, the St Louis County Board agreed to pay $100,000 to settle with the family of a teenager who had been killed in a car crash. The family purported that “an improperly placed road construction sign contributed to the accident that caused her death.” Defendants in the suit included the county, Benchmark Engineering, and Jola & Sopp Excavating. The county board settled, but denied liability. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Cracking down on Phony Qualifiers

July 23, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Garret Murai in his California Construction Law Blog stated that “California’s Senate Bill 862, and amended Business and Professions Code 7068.1” has given the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) “additional enforcement authority to crack down on phony qualifiers by allowing the CLSB to take disciplinary action against a qualifier and a licensee if the qualifier is not actively involved in the construction activities of the licensee’s business.” Murai explained that “[r]enting a qualifier means that you pay an individual who holds a California contractor’s license to act as the Responsible Managing Officer (RMO) or Responsible Managing Employee (RMO) of a construction company when they have no actual involvement in the day-to-day operations of the company.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

June 18, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
It’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim. I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act. In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date. 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

Ambitious Building Plans in Boston

November 18, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

Although most are unlikely to change the Boston skyline, there are several large projects on the drawing boards. The site BostInnovation covered ten of them in a recent post. Downtown Boston will be the site of several of these large projects, including three towers to be added to the Christian Science Plaza, a 404-unit residential tower in the Theater District, and perhaps the largest of these projects, a 47-story tower to be built over Copley Plaza, which will tower over the adjacent buildings. None of the planned buildings will challenge the Hancock Tower’s 60 stories.

Read the full story…

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

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES