Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

New Survey Reveals Present-Day Risks of Asbestos Exposure in America - 38% in High-Risk Jobs, 47% Vulnerable through Second-Hand Exposure

April 08, 2024 — The Law Offices of Justinian C. Lane, Esq. - PLLC
AUSTIN, April 04, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A recent nationwide survey conducted on the risks of asbestos in America revealed that 38% of respondents have worked in high-risk industries where asbestos was present, while 47% have experienced indirect exposure through family members employed in these high-risk environments. The survey results reflect the fact that, despite the EPA's recent ban on ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, the threat of exposure still looms large in the US, underscoring the urgent need for continued vigilance and action to safeguard public health. Compounding the concern is the revelation that only 8% of Americans undergo regular testing. These findings, released today, underscore the urgent necessity for Asbestos Cancer Risk Awareness and routine testing. They emphasize the crucial importance of proactive measures to mitigate the pervasive risks associated with asbestos exposure in the United States. The study was conducted by Researchscape on behalf of The Law Offices of Justinian C. Lane, Esq. - PLLC, a leading firm advocating for testing and compensation for individuals exposed to asbestos on the job and their families who are at risk due to second-hand exposure. According to the survey, 86% of respondents have never undergone any testing for asbestos exposure, while a mere 8% are tested regularly. The lack of testing is particularly concerning among the Gen X demographic who could be at risk due to secondhand exposure from a family member who worked with asbestos when it was still prevalent, with 92% reporting no testing, highlighting the potential risks associated with secondhand exposure. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pennsylvania: Searching Questions Ahead of Oral Argument in Domtar

October 08, 2014 — Robert Caplan – White and Williams LLP
If you have been following our coverage of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Domtar Paper Co., you will recall that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided on May 29, 2014 to hear the subrogated insurer’s appeal,1 despite the Superior Court’s holding against the subrogated insurer—based primarily on its own defective case law2 —and its denial of reargument, presumably due to the insurer’s briefing follies.3 The parties in Domtar, as well as numerous amici curiae (friends of the court),4 have submitted their respective briefs over the last few months, and the Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument to take place on October 8, 2014 in Pittsburgh, Pa. The Court has framed the issue as: “Does Section 319 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 671, allow the employer/insurer to step into the shoes of the insured employee to subrogate against the tortfeasor?”5 There are three possible outcomes in Domtar. The first (and easiest) possible outcome for the Supreme Court would be to punt to the Pennsylvania General Assembly for a decision on the issue. Workers’ compensation legislation, perhaps more than any other type of legislation, “creates a highly structured balancing of competing interests.”6 It is basic civics that the legislature has a “superior ability to examine social policy issues and determine legal standards so as to balance competing concerns.”7 Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert Caplan, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com

Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose in June at a Slower Pace

August 27, 2014 — Lorraine Woellert – Bloomberg
Home prices in 20 U.S. cities rose at a slower pace in the year ended in June as declining affordability and weak wage gains kept appreciation in check. The S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values increased 8.1 percent from June 2013, the smallest 12-month gain since January 2013, the group reported today in New York. Price gains are slowing as more houses are coming up for sale and investors retreat to the sidelines. That, combined with an improving job market, could put homeownership within reach of more Americans grappling with disappointing wage growth and strict lending rules. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lorraine Woellert, Bloomberg
Ms. Woellert may be contacted at lwoellert@bloomberg.net

No Duty to Defend Suit That Is Threatened Under Strict Liability Statute

July 09, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Washington Court of Appeals found there was no duty to defend the insured under a strict liability statute for alleged contamination when no action was threatened by the agency. Gull Indus., Inc. v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1338 (Wa. Ct. App. June 2, 2014). Gull leased a gas station to the Johnsons from 1972 to 1980. In 2005, Gull notified the Department of Ecology (DOE) that there had be a release of petroleum product at the station. DOE sent a letter acknowledging Gull's notice of suspected contamination. In 2009, Gull tendered its defense to its insurer, Transamerica Insurance Group. Gull also tendered its claims as an additional insured to the Johnson's insurer, State Farm. Neither insurer accepted the tenders. Gull then sued the insurers, arguing they had a duty to defend. Gull contended that because the state statute imposed strict liability, the duty to defend arose whether or not an agency had sent any communications about the statute or cleanup obligations. The insurers moved for partial summary judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of the insurers. 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

Attorneys’ Fees Are Available in Arizona Eviction Actions

December 19, 2018 — Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
The Arizona Court of Appeals recently held that any successful plaintiff in a forcible detainer action (i.e., an eviction action) may recover an award of its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred at trial under A.R.S. § 12-1178(A). See Bank of New York v. Dodev, 1 CA-CV 17-0652 (Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2018). Prior to this decision, caselaw held that fees were only awardable in actions arising out of the termination of a residential lease. RREEF Mgmt. Co. v. Camex Prods., Inc., 190 Ariz. 75, 945 P.2d 386 (Ct. App. 1997). Changes to the statute, however, rendered the prior caselaw obsolete. Although the holding in Dodev is important, the facts of the case are truly astonishing…and somewhat depressing. The Facts In Dodev, Ivaylo Dodev (Dodev) defaulted on his home loan in 2008. He nevertheless “succeeded in remaining on the [p]roperty by filing numerous legal actions that delayed the foreclosure and subsequent trustee’s sale” at least through the date of the opinion—a ten (10) year period. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com

What is Toxic Mold Litigation?

April 11, 2018 — Vik Nagpal – Bremer Whyte Blog
To understand what Toxic Mold Litigation is, it is important to first identify and understand what toxic mold is. Mold is a fungus which is essentially everywhere, and certain types of mold, known as toxic mold, may cause severe personal injuries and/or property damage. Toxic mold refers to those molds capable of producing mycotoxins which are organic compounds capable of initiating a toxic response in vertebrates. Toxic mold generally occurs because of water intrusion, from sources such as plumbing problems, floods, or roof leaks. It is this ageless life form that has spawned a new species of toxic tort claims and has had legal and medical experts debating the complex health implications that follow. Here is some information as to what toxic mold litigation is and when you should hire a lawyer for toxic mold. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Vik Nagpal
Mr. Nagpal may be contacted at vnagpal@bremerwhyte.com

Texas School District Accepts Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case

October 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Pine Tree ISD Board of Trustees “voted to accept a mediated settlement agreement to end litigation concerning the District’s middle school and its construction issues,” according to KETK News. Pine Tree ISD, located in Longview, Texas, “sued a number of defendant companies for construction and design defects at that campus.” The school district “will receive the total sum of $820,500,” which “will cover the District’s costs in remediating the campus to repair the construction problems, as well as implementing new systems designed to prevent future issues, both of which came out of the District’s general fund.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurer Must Indemnify Additional Insured After Settlement

October 21, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined that Target was an additional insured under its supplier's policy and the insurer had a duty to indemnify Target after it settled the underlying suit. Selective Ins. Co. v. Target Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123230 (E.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2015). Angela Brown sued Target when she was allegedly injured by a door to a fitting room that came unhinged and fell on her head. Harbor Industries, Inc. supplied Target with its fitting rooms. Pursuant to the "Supplier Qualification Agreement" (SQA), Harbor named Target as an additional insured under its policy with Selective Insurance Company. The SQA became effective and was to remain in effect until terminated by either party. A second agreement, the "Program Agreement," set forth the terms under which Harbor sold the fitting rooms to Target. The Program Agreement went into effect on April 23, 2009, and expired on July 1, 2010. Brown's injury occurred on December 17, 2011, while the SQA and the policy were in effect, but after the Program Agreement expired. After Brown's injury, Target tendered to Selective, who denied coverage, contending Target was not an additional insured. The policy's endorsement expanded insureds to any additional insured whom Harbor agreed in a written contract to add as an additional insured. Selective filed suit and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. 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