Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Contractor Disputes Report Amid Amazon Warehouse Collapse Lawsuit

May 02, 2022 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
A contractor facing a lawsuit related to the December partial collapse of an Amazon.com Inc. warehouse that was hit by a tornado is pushing back on claims in a fire marshal’s report that highlighted possible “significant structural issues” with the building. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Understanding Liability Insurer’s Two Duties: To Defend and to Indemnify

December 26, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A liability insurer has two duties that are the crux of a liability policy: the duty to defend the insured in legal actions and the duty to indemnify the insured from losses covered under the policy. Many times, policyholders (insureds) do not fully understand or appreciate these two important duties. They need to and this is why having private counsel assist with coverage-related considerations is an absolute must. An insurers’ duty to defend is separate from its duty to indemnify. A recent opinion out of the Middle District of Florida in Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Tate Transport Corp., 2022 WL 16963815 (M.D.Fla. 2022) clarifies the distinction between these duties with a focus on an insurer’s initial duty — the duty to defend. Please read below so you can have more of an appreciation of these duties. The court does a good job discussing Florida law with the emphasis on when an insurer’s initial duty to defend kicks-in: Duty to Defend Under Florida law, “an insurer’s duty to defend its insured against a legal action arises when the complaint alleges facts that fairly and potentially bring the suit within policy coverage.” The duty to defend is a broad one, broader than the duty to indemnify, and “[t]he merits of the underlying suit are irrelevant.” We determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend its insured based only on “the eight corners of the complaint and the policy,” and only as the complaint’s alleged facts are “fairly read[.]” The “facts” we consider in evaluating the duty to defend come solely from the complaint, regardless of the actual facts of the case and regardless of any later developed and contradictory factual record. “Any doubts regarding Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Colorado Court Holds No Coverage for Breach of Contract Claim

March 14, 2018 — Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
In its recent decision in Ctr. For Excellence in Higher Ed., Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25424 (D. Col. Feb. 16, 2018), the United States District Court for the District of Colorado had occasion to consider whether a breach of contract claim could qualify for coverage under a general liability policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP

CDJ’s #9 Topic of the Year: Nevada Supreme Court Denies Class Action Status in Construction Defect Case

December 31, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Sean Whaley of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “The Nevada Supreme Court has rejected a request for class action status for claims of damaged stucco from faulty construction by Del Webb Communities involving nearly 1,000 Sun City Summerlin residents.” However, “the court upheld the award of damages to 71 homeowners following a jury trial in Clark County District Court in 2008.” Whaley reported that this construction defect case was touted as the largest in Nevada history. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Supreme Court Adopts “Vertical Exhaustion” in the Long-Storied Montrose Environmental Coverage Litigation

June 08, 2020 — Gregory S. Capps & Michael E. DiFebbo - White and Williams LLP
On April 6, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued a decision that held a policyholder is entitled to access available excess coverage under any excess policy once it has exhausted directly underlying excess policies for the same policy period in Montrose Chemical Corporation v. the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Supreme Court of California, case number S244737. In its unanimous decision adopting this “vertical exhaustion” requirement, the court rejected the “horizontal exhaustion” rule urged by the policyholder’s excess insurers, under which the policyholder would have been able to access an excess policy only after it had exhausted other policies with lower attachment points from every policy period in which the environmental damage resulting in liability occurred. In 1990, Montrose sought coverage under primary policies and multiple layers of excess policies issued for periods from 1961 through 1985 for environmental damage liabilities arising from its production of insecticide in the Los Angeles area between 1947 and 1982. The ongoing dispute currently arises out of Montrose’s Fifth Amended Complaint which was filed in 2015 seeking declarations concerning exhaustion and the manner in which Montrose may allocate its liabilities across the policies. Each of the excess policies at issue contained a requirement of exhaustion of underlying coverage. The various policies described the applicable underlying coverage in four main ways: (1) some policies contained a schedule of underlying insurance listing all of the underlying policies in the same policy period by insurer name, policy number, and dollar amount; (2) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance in the same policy period and a schedule of underlying insurance on file with the insurer; (3) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance in the same policy period and identified one or more of the underlying insurers; and (4) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance that corresponds with the combined limits of the underlying policies in that policy period. The excess policies also provided, in various ways, that “other insurance” must be exhausted before the excess policy can be accessed. Reprinted courtesy of Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and Michael E. DiFebbo, White and Williams LLP Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. DiFebbo may be contacted at difebbom@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Affirmed: Nationwide Acted in Bad Faith by Failing to Settle Within Limits

July 19, 2017 — Bethany Barrese – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed that Nationwide acted in bad faith by refusing to settle a claim against its insured for the policy limits, exposing the policyholder to an excess verdict.1 The case arose out of a 2005 automobile accident where Seung Park, who was insured by Nationwide, struck and killed another driver, Stacey Camacho. Shortly after the accident, Ms. Camacho’s estate issued a time-limited demand for the full limits of the policy Nationwide issued to Mr. Park, $100,000, to settle the case. After the deadline to respond to the demand expired, Nationwide rejected the demand and made a counteroffer. A settlement could not be reached and a wrongful death suit was filed against Mr. Park, resulting in a massive jury verdict of $5.83 million. Following the jury verdict, Mr. Park assigned his rights against Nationwide to Ms. Camacho’s estate, which then filed claims for negligence and bad faith failure to settle against Nationwide. The case was tried to a jury, which found in favor of the estate. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bethany Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com

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

AB 685 and COVID-19 Workplace Exposure: New California Notice and Reporting Requirements of COVID Exposure Starting January 1, 2021

February 01, 2021 — Sewar K. Sunnaa & Nathan A. Cohen - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
SUMMARY Effective January 1, 2021, a new California law requires employers to notify employees about possible or known exposure to COVID-19 at the workplace. The law requires actual notification to employees within one day. In addition, the law requires notifications to local public health authorities of a COVID-19 outbreak. The law also gives Cal/OSHA a new emergency police power to issue Orders Prohibiting Use (“OPU”), permitting Cal/OSHA to close workplaces that constitute an imminent hazard to employees due to COVID-19. ANALYSIS AND GUIDANCE On January 1, 2021, a new California law took effect, which will enforce stringent new mandatory protocols governing notification of employees of COVID-19 exposures in the workplace. Until now, federal agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) and state agencies such as the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“Cal/OSHA”) have released guidance to help employers navigate employee training, workplace surveillance and temperature-taking, among many other issues, that have arisen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Beginning January 1st, the new law places mandatory notice requirements of COVID-19 contact on all public and private employers under Labor Code Section 6409.6, with two exceptions: (1) health facilities, as defined in Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code and (2) employees whose regular duties include COVID-19 testing or screening, or who provide patient care to individuals who are known or suspected to have COVID-19. Reprinted courtesy of Sewar K. Sunnaa, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Sunnaa may be contacted at ssunnaa@pecklaw.com Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES