Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Privette: The “Affirmative Contribution” Exception, How Far Does It Go?

August 10, 2020 — Courtney Arbucci, Peter A. Dubrawski & Austin F. Smith - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
In Horne v. Ahern Rentals, Inc. (No. B299605, filed 6/10/2020 ord. publ. 6/10/2020), Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death action against Defendant Ahern Rentals, Inc. (“Ahern”) arising out of the fatal incident involving Ruben Dickerson (“decedent”), while employed by independent contractor 24-Hour Tire Service, Inc. Decedent was ultimately crushed on Ahern Rentals, Inc.’s property when a forklift that was improperly placed on uneven ground collapsed as decedent laid under the raised forklift as he performed tire maintenance. Plaintiffs’ suit would normally be barred by the Privette line of decisions which arise out of the foundational principle that an independent contractor’s hirer presumptively delegates to the contractor its tort law duty to provide a safe workplace for the contractor’s employees. (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 (Privette).) The Privette rule is subject to a number of exceptions including the “peculiar risk” exception, the “nondelegable duty” exception and the “affirmative contribution” exception. (See Privette, supra.) Here, Plaintiffs’ claimed that their suit against Ahern arose out of the “affirmative contribution” exception to Privette as defined by Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198, 202 (Hooker). Hooker allows suits otherwise barred by Privette to go forward if the hirer of the independent contractor “exercised control over safety conditions at the worksite in a way that affirmatively contributed to the employee’s injuries.” Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys Courtney Arbucci, Peter A. Dubrawski and Austin F. Smith Ms. Arbucci may be contacted at carbucci@hbblaw.com Mr. Dubrawski may be contacted at pdubrawski@hbblaw.com Mr. Smith may be contacted at asmith@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Navigating Construction Contracts in the Energy Sector – Insights from Sheppard Mullin’s Webinar Series

October 01, 2024 — Cesar Pereira - Sheppard Mullin
Construction contracts in the energy sector involve unique challenges and risks, particularly with respect to bonds and mechanic’s liens. Understanding how to navigate these challenges is key to protecting your projects from disputes with general contractors, subcontractors and suppliers. In our recent webinar, “Construction Contracts: Bond and Mechanic’s Lien Primer for Energy Projects,” I was joined by my Sheppard Mullin colleagues Chris Kolosov and Emily Anderson to discuss navigating common contract pitfalls and negotiation strategies to protect your interests. Here are our key takeaways.

Know Local Mechanic’s Lien Laws: Mechanic’s liens are statutory and vary significantly from state to state. It is critical to understand the local laws and regulations at play in your project’s jurisdiction.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Cesar Pereira, Sheppard Mullin
Mr. Pereira may be contacted at cpereira@sheppardmullin.com

EPA Announces Decision to Retain Current Position on RCRA Regulation of Oil and Gas Production Wastes

June 03, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
After much study, EPA has decided against changing its current RCRA Subtitle D rules affecting the state regulation of oil and gas exploration & production waste. Since 1988, EPA has determined that most such wastes should be regulated as only non-hazardous wastes subject to RCRA Subtitle D, and not the more onerous hazardous waste provisions of RCRA Subtitle C. (See the Regulatory Determination of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Exploration, Development and Production Wastes, 53 FR 25,446 (July 6,1988).) As a result, under the Subtitle D rules, the primary regulators of such waste are state regulatory agencies, which follow the state plan non-hazardous waste guidelines developed by EPA. This regulatory disposition has proven to be fairly controversial, and it was recently challenged in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: Environmental Integrity Project, et al. v. McCarthy. To settle this lawsuit, EPA and the plaintiffs entered into a consent decree by which EPA was to make certain determinations about the future of the program after conducting an appropriate study. That study, Management of Exploration, Development and Production Wastes: Factors Informing a Decision on the Need for Regulatory Action, has been completed, and it concludes, after a fairly comprehensive review of these state regulatory programs, that “revisions to the federal regulations for the management of E&P wastes under Subtitle D of RCRA (40 CFR Part 257) are not necessary at this time.” In a statement released on April 23, 2019, EPA accepted these findings and promised that it would continue to work with states and other stakeholders to identify areas for improvement and to address emerging issues to ensure that exploration, development and production wastes “continue to be managed in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

The Impact of Nuclear Verdicts on Construction Businesses

October 28, 2024 — Craig Tappel - Construction Executive
A rush to build at a time when the U.S. housing supply continues to fall short may come with a cost to the construction industry. Particularly in hot markets—Sun Belt states and the Mountain West—the drive to finish fast, if not big, can lead to construction and design-defect litigation. Last fall, for example, $22 million in damages were awarded to 220 unhappy homeowners in a South Carolina subdivision northwest of Charleston, four years after their claim for defective work was filed against a major U.S. homebuilder and its subcontractors. Defective work is one of three areas where the construction industry is particularly vulnerable as class-action litigation and thermonuclear verdicts surge. Another is the risk of loss of life or permanent disability on a site, and not solely involving workers: Over $860 million was awarded in 2023 to the family of a woman who was killed in a 2019 crane collapse at a Dallas construction site. Reprinted courtesy of Craig Tappel, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Colorado homebuilders target low-income buyers with bogus "affordable housing" bill

March 05, 2015 — Jesse Howard Witt – Acerbic Witt
“Affordable housing” is the latest catchphrase for Colorado homebuilders seeking immunity from warranty claims and repair requests. In 2013, the homebuilders’ lobby said it was about public transportation. In 2014 they said it was about community building. Now it’s 2015, and the lobbyists are claiming that a lack of affordable housing is the reason why politicians should eliminate consumer protections for homebuyers. The Colorado Senate recently announced the introduction of SB 15-177. If passed, the bill will make it illegal for homeowner associations to hire construction experts or lawyers unless they can first satisfy a complicated disclosure and voting process. Although sponsors portray the bill as an innocuous measure that merely requires more community involvement, its provisions have actually been tailored to take advantage of recent court decisions that make it difficult for homeowner associations to vote on measures outside of a meeting or act quickly to resolve construction defect disputes. The intent is to make it nearly impossible for homeowners to retain construction experts or legal representation before the statute of limitations period expires, thereby making homebuilders immune from any potential claims. The bill will also eliminate the right to a jury trial in many cases, forcing any disputes that overcome the procedural hurdles into costly, private arbitration proceedings. The sponsors argue that these measures are necessary to encourage builders to erect more cheap condominiums. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, The Witt Law Firm
Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.acerbicwitt.com

Federal Court Holds that Demolition Exclusion Does Not Apply and Carrier Has Duty to Defend Additional Insureds

September 02, 2024 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
In the recent case of Travelers Indem. Co. v. Trisura Specialty Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101953 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2024), the court had occasion to consider the classic additional insured fact pattern of a construction accident. Travelers insured the general contractor and provided a defense to the general contractor as well as its wholly owned subsidiary. Trisura insured the subcontractor, who employed the injured worker. Travelers brought suit, alleging that Trisura is obligated to defend and indemnify the general contractor, its subsidiary, the owner of the building (The City of New York), and the tenant. Trisura denied any obligation to provide coverage due to the application of the “Demolition Exclusion” to the Trisura policy, which provides, in part, that there is no coverage for injury or damage arising out of the demolition of any building or structure which has original ground height in excess of three stories. The accident occurred during the interior demolition of the fifth floor of the building. The court held that the Demolition Exclusion applies only when there is a complete tearing down, razing, or destruction of an entire building. As the accident occurred during interior demolition, the exclusion did not apply. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

State Farm Too Quick To Deny Coverage, Court Rules

July 22, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

On July 13, 2011, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the US District Court issued a rule in the case of Travelers Cas. & Surety Co. of Am. v. Univ. Facilities, Inc. (E.D. La., 2011). In this case, Stanley Smith Drywall was contracted by Capstone Building Corporation to “perform undisclosed work at the facility believed to involve the installation of drywall.” The project involved the design and construction of student residences for the Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond, Louisiana. In May, 2009, University Facilities, Inc. (UFI) sued Capstone Development Corporation and Capstone On-Campus Management.

State Farm insured Stanley Smith Drywall and they sought a declaration that they have no duty: “(1) to insure Stanley Smith or CBC, or (2) to defend or indemnify any party against UFI's claims in the pending arbitration.” State Farm contends “(1) there is no "occurrence" to trigger coverage under the policy; (2) only breach of contract claims are asserted; (3) there is no property damage alleged; and (4) various coverage limitations and exclusions apply to prevent coverage.’

The court concluded that “whether State Farm has a duty to defend in the arbitration must be determined by considering the claims asserted in the arbitration.” However, the arbitration claims were not made part of the record. There, “, the Court cannot determine as a matter of law State Farm's duty to defend on the present record.” The same was true of State Farm’s duty to indemnify. “Stanley Smith and CBC assert that State Farm's motion for summary judgment was filed before any discovery was conducted in the arbitration proceeding or in this case. The Court finds that State Farm has failed to develop the record sufficiently to establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to its duty to indemnify Stanley Smith or CBC in the arbitration.’

The court denied State Farm’s motion for a summary judgment on its duty to defend and indemnify.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Construction Defects Lead to Demolition of Seattle’s 25-story McGuire Apartments Building

March 16, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

According to a story published last Thursday in Seattle PI: " The 25-story McGuire Apartments, at Second Avenue and Wall Street, would cost more to fix than the building is worth, according to its owners. Its most serious defect involves steel cables that are corroding inside of concrete slabs because the ends weren’t properly treated with a rust-proof coating and a pocket in the edge of the concrete that wasn’t properly sealed"

The report by Aubrey Cohen outlines the demolition plans which are expected to take between 12 and 18 months, and will utilize robotic Brokk Machines. The demolition plan calls for one story at a time to be demolished, with the debris to be trucked offsite. Demolition plans aim to minimize disruption to residents and businesses in the area by Limiting work 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturdays with "impact and percussive activities" limited to 8 a.m to 5 p.m weekdays.

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES