Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

You’re Only as Good as Those with Whom You Contract

April 17, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have been beating the drum of the need to have a solid construction contract as the basis for your construction project and contractor/subcontractor/supplier relationships. I have also emphasized that communication early and often is one of the best ways to assure a smooth project. However, the sad truth is that even with the best contract drafted with the assistance of an experienced construction attorney, if the other party to the contract simply decides not to perform, whether that is through unjustified non-payment or simple refusal to complete a scope of work without reason, it will be an expensive proposition to force compliance or be compensated for the monetary damage caused by such actions. It is this often unmentioned truth relating to any contract, including those that construction professionals in Virginia deal with on a daily basis, that makes having a good knowledge of those with whom you plan to contract is key to a successful (read profitable) construction project. Of course be sure that any contractor or subcontractor you contract with has the basics of propoer insurance, the right experience and of course a contractor’s license with the proper specialty or specialties. These basics will get you most of the way to assuring that those that contract with you at least are responsible in business. Another key component, if you can find this information out, is the financial wherwithall of the other party. For a General Contractor, this means both sides of the equation: Owner and Subcontractors. For a Subcontractor, the key is the Contractor, but any other information you can get on the Owner is helpful (though this can be difficult) particularly in the face of a “pay if paid” clause. 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

California Court of Appeal Affirms Trial Court’s Denial of anti-SLAPP Motion in Dispute Over Construction of Church Facilities

March 27, 2023 — Garrett A. Smee & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On February 28, 2023, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, issued an opinion in Billauer v. Escobar-Eck (D079835), affirming the trial court’s denial of an anti-SLAPP motion stemming from a public debate over a Church construction project. The Appellant (Billauer) ran several social media sites as a “neighborhood activist.” The Respondent (Escobar-Eck) ran a land use and strategic planning firm in San Diego. The “All People’s Church” had hired Escobar-Eck’s company in 2019 to obtain City approval for a Church campus. During a Zoom presentation by Escobar-Eck to a Church planning group on November 11, 2020, Billauer, as a participant in the meeting sent a chat to Escobar-Eck stating: “I’m going to make sure you get sent back to where you came from.” Over the span of the next six months, from November 11, 2020 to April 8, 2021, Billauer continued the onslaught through a series of five posts on Instagram and Facebook, attacking Escobar-Eck. On December 10, 2020, Escobar-Eck fired back with a Twitter post to Billauer’s employer, Wells Fargo, labeling Billauer as a cyberbullying racist. Reprinted courtesy of Garrett A. Smee, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Smee may be contacted at gsmee@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Whose Employee is it Anyway?: Federal Court Finds No Coverage for Injured Subcontractor's Claim Based on Modified Employer's Liability Exclusion

September 28, 2020 — Jeffrey J. Vita & Kerianne E. Kane - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
In Nagog Real Estate Consulting Corp. v. Nautilus Insurance Co.,1 the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that an insurer had no duty to defend its insureds against claims brought by an injured subcontractor, based on an overbroad employer’s liability exclusion in the policy. Nautilus Insurance Company issued a commercial general liability policy to developer Nagog Homes LLC and its related construction company, Nagog Real Estate. The policy was endorsed with an Employer’s Liability Exclusion (the L205 Endorsement) that expanded the scope of the standard exclusion in the coverage form to include bodily injury claims of employees of “any” insured and their contractors or subcontractors, as opposed to simply the employees of the named insured. Nagog Homes was the developer, and Nagog Real Estate was the general contractor for a residential construction project. An employee of the framing subcontractor hired by Nagog Real Estate was injured while working on the project and sued both Nagog entities for his injuries. Nautilus, relying on the modified employer’s liability exclusion, denied coverage for the lawsuit based on allegations that the Nagog entities hired the framing subcontractor to perform work, which effectively made the plaintiff an employee of one or both of the Nagog entities. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita , Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com Ms. Kane may be contacted at kek@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Defect Lawsuit May Affect Home Financing

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Homeowners in the Burlingame Ranch I Condominium Association already say they have problems with the siding on their units. The Aspen Business Journal says that their next problem might be with lenders. According to the homeowners’ attorney, Chris Brody, the association attempted to work things out, but this was not successful. Mr. Brody was unaware of any issues with sales or refinancing, but the article notes that “at least one homeowner was told he could not refinance with a Fannie Mae backed loan if there’s pending litigation.” Last year, Fannie Mae did adopt a guideline that made homes involved in construction defect lawsuits ineligible for home loans. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Damage Caused Not by Superstorm Sandy, But by Faulty Workmanship, Not Covered

December 10, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court adopted the Report and Recommendations (R&R) of the magistrate judge, finding there was no coverage for faulty workmanship in replacing a roof for an apartment complex. Burlington Ins. Co. v. PCGNY Corp., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167814 (S.D. N. Y. Sept. 16, 2024). Skyline Restoration was hired by the apartment complex to replace the apartments' roofs. Skyline subcontracted with PCGNY Corporation. The roofs were later damaged during Superstorm Sandy. Defendant Affiliated FM Insurance Company ("Affilliated"), a subrogee of the owner of the apartment complex, sued Skyline for defective, faulty and unworkmanlike removal and replacement of the roofs. Skyline filed a Third-Party Complaint against PCGNY. Plaintiff Burlington Insurance Company filed this coverage action against Skyline, Affiliated, PCGNY and others seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend and/or indemnify PCGNY and/or Skyline, and that it was permitted to withdraw from the defense of PCGNY. Burlington filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion was referred to the magistrate judge who recommended that Burlington be granted a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify PCGNY or Skyline and that it be allowed to withdraw from the defense of PCGNY in the underlying case. 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

Alleging and Proving a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) Claim

December 13, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to construction disputes, a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (known by its acronym “FDUTPA”) claim is not commonly asserted. A FDUTPA claim is a statutory claim under Florida Statute s. 501.201 en seq. This claim is NOT easy to prove, particularly in the construction context. Sometimes, a party will assert a FDUTPA claim to create a basis for attorney’s fees; however, that basis cuts BOTH ways, i.e., you can be liable for fees if you fail to prove the FDUTPA claim. In a construction dispute, a FDUTPA claim is one that really should be pled with caution after a party understands and fully considers what it MUST prove including the all-important consideration of how actual damages are determined under FDUTPA, which requires an actual loss. Nevertheless, it is good to know what you need to prove to support a FDUTPA claim in case you believe you have facts that can support a FDUTPA claim and actual damages under FDUTPA (known as benefit-of-the-bargain damages). Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A. Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Board of Directors Guidance When Addressing Emergency Circumstances Occasioned by the COVID-19 Pandemic

May 11, 2020 — Marc Casarino, Lori Smith & Gwenn Barney - White and Williams LLP
The COVID-19 pandemic has sent massive shockwaves throughout the global economy. This crises requires business leaders to confront a host of deleterious effects on an emergency basis – the likes of which many companies have never experienced. Boards of directors must remain cognizant of their oversight responsibilities in these trying times. This post offers guidance to directors of Delaware companies for addressing emergency circumstances occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic. Board Oversight – Lessons from Marchand V. Barnhill Directors should consider the lessons learned from the recent Delaware Supreme Court case Marchand v. Barnhill, a ruling we addressed in a previous blog post, when considering board oversight during the COVID-19 pandemic. Marchand centered on a lawsuit brought by shareholders in an ice cream manufacturing company against the company’s board of directors. The shareholders claimed that the directors violated their duty of loyalty[1] to the company when they failed to provide sufficient oversight and compliance-monitoring during a listeria outbreak that led the company to recall all products, temporarily cease product production at all plants and lay off more than one-third of the company’s workforce. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Marc Casarino, Lori Smith and Gwenn Barney Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Barney may be contacted at Barneyg@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Accident/Occurrence Requirement Does not Preclude Coverage for Vicarious Liability or Negligent Supervision

June 06, 2018 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
In Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Inc. (No. S236765, filed 6/4/18) (L&M), the California Supreme Court ruled that the liability insurance requirement that injury be caused by an “occurrence,” defined as an “accident,” does not preclude coverage of an employer’s independent tort liability for injury deliberately caused by its employee. In L&M, Liberty insured a construction company that contracted to manage a construction project at a middle school in San Bernardino, California. A 13-year-old student subsequently sued the company in state court, alleging that she had been sexually molested by a company employee, Hecht. Among others, she alleged a cause of action for negligent hiring, retention and supervision of the employee. The construction company tendered to Liberty, which defended the employer under a reservation of rights while seeking declaratory relief in federal court. The district court granted summary judgment for Liberty, ruling that the injury was not caused by an “occurrence.” On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals certified the question to the California Supreme Court as a matter of state law. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES