Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

You Cannot Arbitrate Claims Not Covered By The Arbitration Agreement

March 16, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Regardless of the type of contract you are dealing with, “[a]rbitration provisions are contractual in nature, and therefore, construction of such provisions and the contracts in which they appear is a matter of contract interpretation.” Wiener v. Taylor Morrison Services, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D3012f (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). This means if you want to preserve your right to arbitrate claims you want to make sure your contract unambiguously expresses this right. Taking this one step further, if you want to make sure an arbitrator, and not the court, determines whether the claim is arbitrable if a dispute arises, you want to make sure that right is expressly contained in the arbitration provision. For example, in Wiener, a homeowner sued a home-builder for violation of the building code – a fairly common claim in a construction defect action. The homeowner’s claim dealt with a violation of building code as to exterior stucco deficiencies. The home-builder moved to compel the lawsuit to arbitration based on a structural warranty it provided to the homeowner that contained an arbitration provision. The structural warranty, however, was limited and did not apply to non-load-bearing elements which, per the warranty, were not deemed to have the potential for a major structural defect (e.g., a structural defect to load-bearing elements that would cause the home to be unsafe or inhabitable). The trial court compelled the dispute to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provision in the structural warranty. 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

London Shard Developer Wins Approval for Tower Nearby

November 05, 2014 — Neil Callanan - Bloomberg
Sellar Property Group, developer of the Shard in London, won local government approval to build a 26-story residential tower close to the skyscraper on the south bank of the River Thames. The council for the Southwark borough voted in favor of the 148-apartment project, which also includes a 16-story tower, at a meeting yesterday, Sellar spokesman Baron Phillips said by e-mail. The project, like the Shard, will be developed in a partnership with the state of Qatar. Developers plan to construct more than 25,000 luxury properties in London worth more than 60 billion pounds ($96 billion) over the next decade, EC Harris said in an Oct. 7 report. The homes approved yesterday at the Fielden House site are expected to sell for about 800,000 pounds each, according to a filing by the borough. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Neil Callanan, Bloomberg
Mr. Callanan may be contacted at ncallanan@bloomberg.net

“Positive Limiting Barriers” Are An Open and Obvious Condition, Relieving Owner of Duty to Warn

June 13, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On June 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decided the case of Potvin v. Speedway, Inc., a personal injury case subject to the laws of Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, environmental rules require the installation of “positive limiting barriers” at gasoline service stations to contain gasoline spills of up to 5 gallons. At a self-service station now owned by Speedway, Inc., the plaintiff, a passenger in a car being serviced, exited the car but tripped on these barriers and was injured. She sued Speedway in state court, and the case was removed to federal court. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Florida Lien Law and Substantial Compliance vs. Strict Compliance

April 20, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
There are literally some (or, perhaps, many!) disputes that will make you say “hmm!” The “hmm” is a euphemism for “what is a party thinking?!?” The case of Trump Endeavor 12 LLC v. Fernich, Inc., 42 Fla. L.Weekly D830a (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) is one of these cases because a party (the owner) is banking its defense on a technical “all-or-nothing” argument pertaining to whether a lienor (a supplier) substantially complied with Florida’s Lien Law because a supplier’s Notice to Owner identified the wrong general contractor. This is a challenging argument because the owner has to prove how they were adversely affected / prejudiced by the lack of substantial compliance, which is not an easy burden. This case concerns the Trump National Doral Miami project. The project consisted of a lodge project and a separate clubhouse project, both of which had different general contractors. On the lodge project, the general contractor hired a painter which, in turn, procured paint from a supplier (the lienor). The supplier visited the project and obtained the Notice of Commencement from the owner so that it could perfect its lien rights. The owner furnished the supplier the Notice of Commencement for the clubhouse project that had a different general contractor. Relying on this Notice of Commencement, the supplier served a Notice to Owner. The Notice to Owner was timely serviced however it identified the wrong contractor – it identified the general contractor for the clubhouse project instead of the lodge project. Although the supplier later learned there was a different general contractor on the lodge project, it did not remedy the issue by serving a Notice to Owner on the correct contractor. Indeed, the contractor for the lodge project learned of the Notice to Owner furnished by the supplier and that the supplier was furnishing paint to the painting subcontractor for purposes of that project. 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

New York Appellate Court Holds Insurers May Suffer Consequences of Delayed Payment of Energy Company Property and Business Interruption Claims

March 16, 2020 — Syed S. Ahmad & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Andrews Kurth
A New York appellate court recently held that renewable bio-diesel fuel manufacturer BioEnergy Development Group LLC may pursue tens of millions of dollars in damages from its insurers under two all-risk insurance policies, including amounts in excess of the policy limits, where the insurers refused to pay claims in a timely manner. BioEnergy purchased two all-risk property policies from Lloyd’s to provide coverage for its manufacturing plant in Memphis, Tennessee. A fire destroyed the Memphis plant in March 2016, eliminating BioEnergy’s production capacity and sole source of revenue. BioEnergy made claims under the policies and sought to rebuild its plant. The insurers acknowledged coverage and eventually made approximately $8 million in interim payments, but the parties disagreed over the value of the total property damage claim, which BioEnergy contended was in excess of $24 million. The disputed claim was submitted to appraisal, which resulted in the insurers agreeing to pay the full business interruption limit of $15.1 million. The insurers filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit, however, seeking to limit BioEnergy’s recovery to the policy limits of $15.1 million. BioEnergy alleged that the insurers failed to make interim payments in a timely manner after the fire and, as a result, the company suffered increased losses because it could not rebuild without the insurance proceeds. BioEnergy sought actual and consequential damages, plus attorneys’ fees, arising from the delayed payments, including payment of its business interruption losses in excess of the policy limits. Reprinted courtesy of Syed S. Ahmad, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Ahmad may be contacted at sahmad@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Analysis of the “owned property exclusion” under Panico v. State Farm

March 08, 2011 — Colorado Construction Litigation

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently concluded that the “owned property exclusion” applied to bar coverage for claims of property damage. See Panico v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2011 WL 322830 (10th Cir. 2011). In Panico, the plaintiffs sold property in Aspen, Colorado to the Taylors, who sued the Panicos upon discovering the property was not as represented. After refusing to defend, the Panicos sued State Farm for breach of contract. The district court concluded that the Taylors’ claims were not covered under the Panicos insurance policies and granted summary judgment in State Farm’s favor. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Mr. Panico built the house on the property as well as several additions to the house. As the Taylors lived in Florida, they primarily relied on their real estate agent and an inspector to ensure the property was acceptable. According to their complaint, the Taylors discovered that the house was “virtually uninhabitable due to serious design and construction defects, mold, rodents, and drainage problems.” Id. at *1. In their complaint, the Taylors asserted three claims for relief against the Panicos based upon misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment about the condition of the property.

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of Heather M. Anderson of Higgins, Hopkins, McClain & Roswell, LLP. Ms Anderson can be contacted at anderson@hhmrlaw.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Consider Short-Term Lease Workouts For Commercial Tenants

August 17, 2020 — Steven Ostrow, C. Jason Kim & Patrick Haggerty - White and Williams
The COVID-19 pandemic is adversely affecting commercial real estate as it continues to wreak havoc in industries throughout the economy. For many years, the primary declining CRE sector has been brick and mortar retail stores. However, the retail sector is no longer suffering alone, as the COVID-19 outbreak is hurting most other CRE sectors: office, hospitality, multifamily, restaurant, personal services, entertainment and construction. Federal, state and local governments have ordered business shutdowns and social and travel restrictions limiting most social and commercial activities. As a result, commercial tenants throughout the country are going out of business, temporarily closing, curtailing operations, laying off employees and suffering sharply declining revenues. Short-Term Leasing Workouts of Tenant Defaults Thousands of tenants are partially operating or temporarily closed and lack sufficient cash flow or access to additional working capital to pay some or all of their rent. How should a landlord address a distressed tenant's default and request for rent relief, taking into account the landlord's own responsibilities to pay maintenance costs, real estate taxes and debt service on the property? Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys Steven Ostrow, C. Jason Kim and Patrick Haggerty Mr. Ostrow may be contacted at ostrows@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Kim may be contacted at kimcj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Haggerty may be contacted at haggertyp@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Neither Designated Work Exclusion nor Pre-Existing Damage Exclusion Defeat Duty to Defend

March 12, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
A duty to defend existed for alleged construction defects despite the designated work exclusion and the pre-existing damage exclusion. Gemini Ins. Co. v. N. Am Capacity Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14836 (D. Nev. Feb. 6, 2015). Olsen Construction Company held three separate policies issued by Gemini from September 2002 to February 2005. North American issued a CGL policy to Olsen for the period February 2005 to February 2006. Olsen conducted repair work on decks at the location between 2002 and 2003. Olsen was sued for construction defects by the Homeowners' Association (HOA). Gemini defended and also tendered to North American. When North American refused the tender, Gemini sued for declaratory and equitable relief related to North American's duty to defend Olsen in the underlying case. North American moved for summary judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES