Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaffirms Validity of Statutory Employer Defense

March 31, 2014 — Michelle Coburn and Michael Jervis – White and Williams LLP
In Patton v. Worthington Associates, Inc., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reaffirmed the continuing validity of the longstanding statutory employer doctrine and related five-part test of McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co. In doing so, the court overruled the Superior Court and held that Worthington was immune from tort liability as the statutory employer of plaintiff Earl Patton. Worthington was the general contractor for a project to construct an addition to a church. Worthington subcontracted with Patton Construction, Inc. to perform carpentry work. Earl Patton was an employee and the sole owner of Patton Construction, Inc. He was injured in a scissor lift accident while performing work on the church. Patton sued Worthington alleging failure to maintain safe conditions at the worksite. After a trial, a jury awarded Patton and his wife a little more than $1.5 million in damages. Before trial, Worthington had moved for summary judgment arguing that it was Patton’s statutory employer and thus immune from tort liability under Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act. Under that law, general contractors are secondarily liable for payment of workers’ compensation benefits to employees of subcontractors. Like traditional employers, statutory employers are immune from tort liability for work-related injuries in situations where they are secondarily liable for workers’ compensation payments. Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Coburn, White and Williams LLP and Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP Ms. Coburn may be contacted at coburnm@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Hold the Pickles, Hold the Lettuce?”

October 02, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce? You can even hold the service… or at least proof of it! In a dispute over the construction of a Burger King restaurant in Tupelo, Mississippi, a state court suit by the owner against its general contractor and architect was removed to federal court by one of the defendant parties, on the basis of the diversity of citizenship of the defendant parties from the plaintiff, per 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). For its part, plaintiff, upon achieving service of its state court complaint against the various defendants, filed a proof of service as to the party which sought to remove the case, but not as to the other defendants (even though the other defendants were served). Once the case was removed to federal court and after the deadline for removal has passed, plaintiff sought to have the matter remanded based on the lack of the consent of the entirety of the defendant group to the removal, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (“When a civil action is removed solely under section 1441(a), all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action.”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

American Council of Engineering Companies of California Selects New Director

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Brad Diede has been selected as the new executive director of the American Council of Engineering Companies of California, according to GlobeSt.com. “ACEC California is dedicated to strengthening the engineering and surveying professions, protecting the general public and promoting the use of the private sector in building a better California.” Paul Meyer is retiring after 32 years as the executive director. Diede brings over ten years’ experience as executive director of the California Professional Association of Specialty Contractors. He will begin work at ACEC California January 27th. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

In Real Life the Bad Guy Sometimes Gets Away: Adding Judgment Debtors to a Judgment

January 05, 2017 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
As most litigators will tell you a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit needs to be able to prove both liability and damages to win a case. That is, you need to show both that the defendant is liable under the law and that you have suffered damages as a result. Proving one but not the other and you’ll lose the case. But there’s one other consideration that is just as important, albeit often elusive, and that is, collectability. Even if you win the case, if you can’t collect on the judgment, you might as well have lost. The following case, Wolf Metals, Inc. v. Rand Pacific Sales, Inc., California Court of Appeals for the Second District, Case No. B264002 (October 25, 2016), describes some of the remedies available, procedures to follow, and difficulties confronted when obtaining a default judgment against a judgment-proof defendant. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Ohio: Are Construction Defects Covered in Insurance Policies?

January 09, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Amanda M. Leffler of Brouse McDowell analyzed Ohio’s 2012 Supreme Court case Westfield Ins. Co. v. Custom Agri Sys., Inc., which ruled that “’[c]laims of defective construction or workmanship brought by a property owner are not claims for ‘property damage’ caused by an ‘occurrence’ under a commercial general liability policy.’” Leffler stated that the Ohio Supreme Court decision wasn’t as “sweeping” as it might at first appear: “Rather, the Ohio Supreme Court adopted the rule that construction defects are covered ‘occurrences’ within the meaning of commercial general liability (‘CGL’) policies, but only to the extent that property other than the policyholder’s own work is damaged.“ Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Important Insurance Alert for Out-of-State Contractors Assisting in Florida Recovery Efforts!

November 01, 2022 — Richard W. Brown & Stephanie A. Giagnorio - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Significant portions of Florida suffered extensive damage from Hurricane Ian. Many out-of-state contractors have sent their workers to Florida to help with the cleanup and rebuilding process. SDV is sending out this important notice for all out-of-state contractors to contact their workers’ compensation brokers and insurers to ensure their out-of-state workers’ compensation policy will cover workers in Florida. The state of Florida does not recognize the “All States Endorsement” on workers’ compensation policies, and in some instances could potentially result in out-of-state contractors being without coverage in the State of Florida. As per the Florida Division of Workers’ Compensation: “Out of State Employers must notify their insurance carrier that they are working in Florida. If there is no insurance, the out-of-state employer is required to obtain a Florida Workers’ Compensation Insurance policy with a Florida approved insurance carrier which meets the requirements of Florida law and the Florida Insurance Code. This means that ‘Florida’ must be specifically listed in Section 3A of the policy (on the Information Page).” Reprinted courtesy of Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Stephanie A. Giagnorio, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com Ms. Giagnorio may be contacted at SGiagnorio@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insured's Experts Excluded, But Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment Denied

October 26, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Despite barring the insured's expert witnesses from testifying as to the cause of the loss, lay witnesses were still available, making the district court's award of summary judgment to the insurer improper. Greater Hall Temple Church of God v. Southern Mut. Church Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 21934 (11th Cir. July 15, 2020). Hurricane Matthew damaged the Greater Hall Temple Church of God's (Church) roof. Leaks occurred, causing water damage to the Church's interior. A claim was submitted to Southern Mutual. The policy did not cover loss caused by water. Nor did it cover loss to the interior of buildings unless the rain entered through openings made by a specified peril. An independent adjuster found that the damage was caused not by wind, but by pre-exisiting structural issues. Southern Mutual denied the claim. The Church filed suit. Southern Mutual moved for summary judgment and also moved to strike three of the Church's expert witnesses. The district court agreed that none of the witnesses could qualify as experts. Two of the witnesses did not have the requisite experience nor had they used a sufficiently reliable methodology formulating their opinions. A third expert was barred because his expert opinion had not been timely disclosed. Thereafter, Southern Mutual's motion for summary judgment was granted because the Church had not provided admissible evidence that damage to the Church's roof was caused by Hurricane Matthew. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Anatomy of an Indemnity Provision

January 28, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Indemnity clauses are one of the most negotiated (and litigated) provisions in a construction contract. They are also one of the most least understood. But we’re here to dissect it for you, so to speak. What is an indemnity clause? An indemnity clause is simply a risk transfer provision that seeks to transfer risk from one party to another party. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES