CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Construction Law Firm Welin, O'Shaughnessy + Scheaf Merging with McDonald Hopkins LLC

February 05, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to a press release on PR Newswire, Columbus, Ohio law firm McDonalds Hopkins LLC is merging with firm Welin, O’Shaughnessy + Scheaf. McDonalds Hopkins LLC is “a business advisory and advocacy law firm with a more than 80-year history.” They are looking to expand their “Columbus presence” by the merger with “the boutique firm” that specializes in construction law, complex business litigation and oil and gas litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

An Occurrence Under Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy Is Based on the Language in the Policy

April 03, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Builder’s risk insurance coverage is a vital property insurance coverage during the course of construction. Builder’s risk insurance is not a one-size-fits-all product so please make sure you are working with your insurance broker to procure this product that factors in and covers risk associated with the project. Builder’s risk insurance is typically an occurrence-based policy. No different than other occurrence-based policies (such as commercial general liability), a dispute may arise as to the occurrence. This could be due to the triggering of the actual policy during the coverage period or it could be due deductible obligations, as in the case discussed below. When dealing with a builder’s risk insurance policy–again, no different than any policy–the language in the policy matters. Definitions used in the policy to define specific terms matter and, in numerous cases, the ordinary dictionary meanings of terms matter. But it all starts with the policy language. In KT State & Lemon, LLP v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co., 2023 WL 2456499 (M.D.Fla. 2023), a builder’s risk policy provided coverage from April 2018 through the end of November 2019. There was a $50,000 per occurrence deductible for loss caused by or from water damage. An extension to the builder’s risk policy was negotiated through the end of January 2020 that increased this water damage deductible to $250,000 per occurrence. During construction and the testing of the fire suppression (sprinkler) system, leaks started to occur resulting in water damage. Two leaks occurred in September 2019, one leak in October 2019, one leak in November 2019, and two leaks in December 2019 (during the extension and higher water damage deductible period). 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

---

Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia

January 05, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
One of the many items of construction law that has always been about as clear as mud has been the interaction between a contractual pay if paid clause and payment bond claims either under the Federal Miller Act or Virginia’s “Little Miller Act.” While properly drafted contractual “pay if paid” clauses are enforceable by their terms in Virginia, what has always been less clear is whether a bonding company can take advantage of such a clause when defending a payment bond claim. As always, these questions are very fact specific both under the Federal Act and the state statute. I wish that this post would answer this question, but alas, it will not. A recent case from the City of Roanoke, Virginia looked at the interaction between a payment bond and a “condition precedent” pay if paid clause as it relates to a private project that is not subject to the Little Miller Act. In the case of IES Commercial, Inc v The Hanover Insurance Company, the Court examined a contractual clause between Thor Construction and IES Commercial in tandem with the bond language between Hanover Insurance Company and Thor as it related to a surprisingly familiar scenario. The general facts are these: IES performed, Thor demanded payment from the owner for the work that IES performed and the owner, for reasons that are left unstated in the opinion, refused to pay. IES sues Hanover pursuant to the payment bond and Hanover moves to dismiss the suit because Thor hadn’t been paid by the owner and therefore Hanover could take advantage of the pay if paid language. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Insurers in New Jersey Secure a Victory on Water Damage Claims, But How Big a Victory Likely Remains to be Seen

April 03, 2019 — Kevin Sullivan - TLSS Insurance Law Blog
Property insurance policies commonly cover water damage caused by an accidental discharge or leakage of water from an on-site plumbing system and commonly exclude water damage caused by a sewer backup. So it’s not surprising that the cause of water damage is a common battleground between policyholders and insurers. In Salil v. Ohio Security Insurance Co., 2018 WL 6272930 (N.J. App. Div. Dec. 3, 2018), insurers scored a victory when the court held that the release of water and sewage into a restaurant was subject to a $25,000 sublimit for water damage caused by a sewer backup. But claims adjusters and policyholders confronted with water damage claims in New Jersey will no doubt continue to do battle over whether the Salil decision was a decisive victory for insurers or a limited one. In Salil, the insured landlord leased its building to a restaurant operator. After the insured’s tenant reported water and odor at the restaurant, the insured contacted a plumber, who informed the insured that a clog in the restaurant’s toilet caused Category 3 water to flow into the restaurant. The insured allegedly sustained approximately $160,000 in restoration costs and loss of business income. The plumber used a snake to clear the sewer line to remedy the issue. The restoration company confirmed the cause of the loss was a sewer back up. On this basis, the insurer determined that the cause of loss was a sewer backup. The policy excluded coverage for water damage caused by a sewer back-up, but an endorsement restored that coverage, subject to a $25,000 sub-limit for “direct physical loss or damaged caused by water… which backs up into a building or structure through sewers or drains which are directly connected to a sanitary sewer or septic system.” Pursuant to this endorsement, the insurer paid its $25,000 sublimit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at ksullivan@tlsslaw.com

---

New York’s Lawsky Proposes Changes to Reduce Home Foreclosures

May 20, 2015 — Jesse Westbrook – Bloomberg
New York’s banking regulator proposed changes to the foreclosure process to try to help borrowers in the state keep their homes. One reason New York has a high rate of foreclosures is that mandatory settlement meetings between borrowers and mortgage servicers typically don’t take place for months after a bank initiates a foreclosure, Benjamin Lawsky, superintendent of New York’s Department of Financial Services said in prepared remarks Tuesday. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Westbrook, Bloomberg

---

Voluntary Payments Affirmative Defense Does Not Apply in Contract Cases

July 16, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In certain matters, there is an affirmative defense referred to as the “voluntary payments” defense. This defense states, “where one makes a payment of any sum under a claim of right with knowledge of the facts such a payment is voluntary and cannot be recovered.” Avatar Properties, Inc. v. Gundel, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D1272c (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) quoting City of Miami v. Keton, 115 So.2d 547, 551 (Fla. 1959). This voluntary payments defense could be construed as a “gotcha” defense, right? Unfair! You voluntarily made the payment with knowledge of the facts; therefore, you are s**t out of luck when it comes to recovering the potentially wrongful payment. Well, guess what? This voluntary payments affirmative defense does NOT apply in contract disputes. This is codified by Florida Statute s. 725.04 which states: “When a suit is instituted by a party to a contract to recover a payment made pursuant to the contract and by the terms of the contract there was no enforceable obligation to make the payment or the making of the payment was excused, the defense of voluntary payment may not be interposed by the person receiving payment to defeat recovery of the payment.” Fla.Stat. s. 725.04. See also Avatar Properties, supra (explaining voluntary payment defense does not apply in contract cases and even in non-contract cases it doesn’t apply if payment made under coercion or compulsion). 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

---

Spotting Problem Projects

October 26, 2017 — David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Perhaps more than any other specialty contractor, electrical contractors bear the brunt of the “problem project.” Long after most other trades have completed their work and scattered in the wind, electrical contractors remain on site until the owner’s last inspection. And when the project is a “problem project,” the owner or prime contractor tend to liberally share their losses and liquidated damages among those specialty contractors remaining on site at the end. So what is an electrical contractor to do when the project starts coming off the rails? What is a Problem Project? First, it helps to identify the attributes of a problem project. While there are many negative qualities of a bad job, a problem project is one that busts budgets – whether labor, material, or time. Most commonly, the problem project will significantly exceed the labor budget. Because an electrical contractor’s most important (and understandably expensive) resource is its people, the labor budget is critical to the success of a job. When a project suffers delays or is ineptly managed, the labor costs soar, turning a potentially profitable job into a disaster. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

---

Builders Can’t Rely on SB800

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
In coming to their ruling on SB800, the California Court of Appeals looked to the legislative intent behind the law. Valentine Hoy, Timothy Hutter, and Erin Sedloff of Allen Matkins, in an article on the ruling, note that SB800 was written in response to Aas v. Superior Court, in which the court found that there was no remedy for construction defects that had not resulted in property damage. In the latest ruling, Liberty Mutual v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC, the court concluded that SB800 was passed to give homeowners a way to address defects that had not lead to damage. However, the court also concluded that the legislature did not intend for SB800 to be the only remedy. In Liberty Mutual, the insurance company sought reimbursement for claims it had paid on a homeowner’s claim after a fire sprinkler pipe burst. Liberty Mutual had insured the homeowner and sought repayment from the builder. Escrow had closed on the home in 2004, the pipe burst in 2008, and Liberty Mutual filed their claim in 2011, seven years after the close of escrow. But for plumbing issues, SB800 has a four-year statute of limitations. The writers describe California as “a hotbed for construction defect litigation.” Due to the Liberty Mutual ruling, developers now “cannot rely on the statutes of limitation set forth in SB800.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---