Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Significant Issues Test Applies to Fraudulent Claims to Determine Attorney’s Fees

January 13, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Construction lienors need to appreciate on the frontend that recovering statutory attorney’s fees in a construction lien action is NOT automatic—far from it. This is because the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees in a construction lien action is determined by the “significant issues test,” a subjective test with no bright line standards based on who the trial court finds prevailed on the significant issues in the case. If you want to talk about the subjective and convoluted nature of recovering attorney’s fees in a construction lien action under the significant issues test, a recent opinion by the Fourth District Court of Appeal is unfortunately another nail in the coffin. In Newman v. Guerra, 2017 WL 33702 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), a contractor recorded a construction lien on a residential renovation project and filed a lien foreclosure lawsuit. The homeowner countersued the contractor and asserted a fraudulent lien claim pursuant to Florida Statute s. 713.31. An evidentiary hearing was held on whether the lien was a fraudulent lien and the trial court held that the lien was fraudulent (therefore unenforceable) because it included amounts that were not lienable under the law. The remaining claims including both parties’ breach of contract claims proceeded to trial. There was no attorney’s fees provision in the contract. At the conclusion of the trial, the court found that the contractor was entitled a monetary judgment on its breach of contract claim. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

Insurer Must Defend General Contractor

April 03, 2023 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
Interpreting Massachusetts law, the federal district court determined consequential damage resulting from the insured's faulty work triggered a duty to defend. Capitol Spec. Ins. Corp. v. Dello Russo Enter. LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11627 (D. Mass. Jan. 24, 2023). Peta-Gay and Michael Print sued the insured, Dello Russo, who they hired as the general contractor for extensive remodelling and renovation of their building. During the demolition work, certain structural load-bearing walls were removed, including a portion of an exterior bricked masonry wall. Shoring of other parts of the building was inadequate and removal of the masonry wall reduced the structural integrity of the building. Cracks began to appear in the remaining portion of the masonry wall and increased over the next few days. Soon thereafter, the City of Boston determined the building was dangerous and that salvage of the undamaged portions was not feasible. Therefore, the building was demolished. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, filed suit against Dello Russo as subrogee of the Prinns. Dello Russo tendered the complaint to its insurer, Capitol Specialty Insurance Corporation, who defended under a reservation of rights,. Capitol then filed a suit seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or to indemnify. The parties cross-claimed for summary judgment. 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

Claims for Negligence? Duty to Defend Triggered

July 09, 2019 — Michael S. Levine & Adriana A. Perez - Hunton Andrews Kurth
On June 17, 2019, the First Circuit held that an insurer’s duty to defend was triggered because the underlying complaint set forth claims that required a showing of intent as well as claims that sought recovery for conduct that “fits comfortably within the definition of an ‘accident.’” In Zurich American Ins. Co v. Electricity Maine, LLC, Zurich sought declaratory judgment that, under a D&O policy, it had no duty to defend the insured, Electricity Maine, an electrical utility company being sued in the underlying class action. Zurich argued it had no duty to defend because the underlying complaint failed to allege that Electricity Maine engaged in conduct that qualified as an “occurrence” or that caused “bodily injury” under the terms of the policy. The First Circuit disagreed. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Perez may be contacted at aperez@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Colorado Court of Appeals Finds Damages to Non-Defective Property Arising From Defective Construction Covered Under Commercial General Liability Policy

December 20, 2012 — HEIDI GASSMAN, HIGGINS, HOPKINS, MCLAIN & ROSWELL
The recently decided case of Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company (Colo. Ct. App. 10CA2638, October 25, 2012), confirms that absent specific exclusions in the policy, a commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy covers damages to non-defective property arising from a builder’s own defective workmanship. Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. (“Colorado Pool”) was hired as a subcontractor to install a swimming pool at Founders Village Pool and Community Center (“Founders Village”) in Castle Rock, Colorado. After the concrete shell of the pool was placed, some of the rebar frame was found to be too close to the surface. Founders Village demanded that Colorado Pool remove and replace the pool, and Colorado Pool contacted its insurance carrier, Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”), with which Colorado Pool held a CGL policy. After inspecting the pool, Scottsdale’s claims adjuster stated that the insurance policy would cover losses associated with removing and replacing the pool. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heidi Gassman, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.
Ms. Gassman can be contacted at gassman@hhmrlaw.com

The Goldilocks Rule: Panel Rejects Proposed Insurer-Specific MDL Proceedings for Four Large Insurers, but Establishes MDL Proceeding for the Smallest

November 16, 2020 — Eric B. Hermanson & Konrad R. Krebs - White and Williams
It is an outcome few people expected. Back in August, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Panel) refused plaintiffs’ requests to set up a single industry-wide multi-district litigation, which would have consolidated — in a single massive proceeding — all federal lawsuits seeking COVID-related business interruption coverage from insurers. The Panel acknowledged common legal issues, and potential benefits of coordinated management, but it balanced those benefits against the numerous factual differences between policies, carriers, and insureds, and noted that “[t]hese differences will overwhelm any common factual questions.” Then, after lengthy argument, the Panel ordered further briefing as to whether separate, company-specific MDL proceedings might be appropriate against five specific insurance carriers: specifically, the five carriers against whom the largest numbers of federal claims were pending. By choosing these five carriers and not others for further argument, the Panel seemed to be suggesting a formula: the larger the carrier, and the greater the number of claims against it, the greater the potential benefit from coordinated management, and the stronger the plaintiffs’ case for pre-trial consolidation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric Hermanson, White and Williams
Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com

School Board Settles Construction Defect Suit

October 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Lafayette Parish School Board has settled a claim that water intrusion was caused by faulty design and construction. The board initially sued the contractor and the design firms, but under Louisiana law, the suit came too late to sue the contractor, so Ratcliff Construction was dropped from the suit. The two design firms, Corne-Lemaire Group, which did the architectural design for the school, and Beaullieu & Associates, which did the engineering, also sought to be removed from the suit due to the statute of limitations, but an appeals court concluded that the law at the time of construction did not allow this. Details of the settlement were not released. Tim Basden, the attorney for the school board acknowledged that “the principal problems were related to construction, but the lawsuit wasn’t filed timely.” According to Basden neither design firm conceded “liability or malpractice of any kind.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

As Florence Eyes East Coast, Are You Looking At Your Insurance?

October 02, 2018 — Michael S. Levine & Andrea DeField - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
Hurricane Florence will affect the U.S. east coast later this week with significant damage to property and resulting business disruption. Businesses far-removed from the impact zone also will be affected as manufacturing, retail, travel and supply chains, among other industries, are disrupted by the physical damage. For those in the impact zone, knowing the fundamentals about your property insurance is critical. For those in remote locations, now is a good time to refresh yourself as well, since post-storm disruptions and losses require prompt notice to insurers and fast action to help mitigate any resulting loss. A failure on either front could jeopardize coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Delaware State Court Holds that Defective Workmanship Claims do not Trigger Coverage by a Builder’s Commercial General Liability Policy

April 15, 2015 — Marc S. Casarino – White and Williams LLP
Guided by federal case law, on March 31, 2015 a Delaware state court held for the first time in Westfield Ins. Co. v. Miranda & Hardt Contracting and Building Services LLC that a builder’s poor workmanship is not an occurrence for which the builder’s insurance policy affords coverage. In the underlying case giving rise to the coverage dispute, a homeowner alleged that a builder deviated from approved building plans, used inadequate materials, improperly installed materials, violated building codes, and fraudulently represented that a home was properly constructed. The homeowner sued the builder under theories of negligence, negligence per se, and fraud. The insurer denied the builder’s request for defense and indemnification for the homeowner’s claims, citing in part that the allegations of defective workmanship did not qualify as an “occurrence” as defined by the builder’s insurance policy. The builder did not dispute that the underlying complaint alleged defective workmanship. However, the builder asserted that because it had not yet been proven that its work was defective, the insurer had prematurely denied coverage. The court properly rejected the builder’s argument, and reiterated that under Delaware law the court must compare the allegations of the complaint to the insurance policy terms to make a coverage determination. Whether the complaint’s allegations are ultimately meritorious is irrelevant to the initial coverage determination according to the court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Marc S. Casarino, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES