CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Direct Contractors In California Should Take Steps Now To Reduce Exposure For Unpaid Wages By Subcontractors

February 07, 2018 — Nora Stilestein, Candace Matson , and Mercedes Cook - Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
As of January 1, 2018, direct contractors in California who make or take a contract “for the erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other private work” are jointly and severally liable with their subcontractors for any unpaid wages, fringe benefits and other benefit payments or contributions owed to wage claimants. Governor Brown approved AB 1701 on October 14, 2017. The new law puts the onus on direct contractors to not only monitor their own payroll practices, but to ensure that their subcontractors and lower tier subcontractors are engaging in proper payroll practices. Reprinted courtesy of Sheppard Mullin attorneys Nora Stilestein, Candace Matson and Mercedes Cook Ms. Stilestein may be contacted at nstilestein@sheppardmullin.com Ms. Matson may be contacted at cmatson@sheppardmullin.com Ms. Cook may be contacted at mcook@sheppardmullin.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Colorado Legislature Considering Making it Easier to Prevail on CCPA Claims

April 03, 2023 — Rachael Bandeira - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
House Bill 23-1192 (“HB 23-1192”) is one of the proposed bills making its way through the Colorado legislative session this year. It purports to create additional protections in the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”), but instead threatens to put construction professionals at an increased risk during litigation. Under the scope of the proposed bill, many construction contracts, as drafted, could automatically add up to $250,000 to any claim by lowering the standard for what constitutes an “unfair or deceptive trade practice.” Further, it would remove elements of a CCPA claim currently required by law to prove that an unfair or deceptive trade practice “constitutes a significant impact to the public.” This bill still has a way to go before becoming law, but given its progress thus far, we believe it is highly probable that it will be enacted unless there is substantial pushback. For the reasons discussed below, we urge all construction professionals to take necessary action to obstruct this bill, and particularly Section 1 of the bill, from becoming enacted. The most concerning proposed amendments to the CCPA, through Section 1 of the bill, do the following:

• Remove the knowingly or recklessly mental state from the general unfair or deceptive trade practice provision concerning an unfair, unconscionable, deceptive, knowingly false, or fraudulent act or practice;

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Rachael Bandeira, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Bandeira may be contacted at bandeira@hhmrlaw.com

---

California Assembly Passes Expedited Dam Safety for Silicon Valley Act

June 22, 2020 — Tim Newcomb - Engineering News-Record
In an effort to move forward a $576 million Anderson Dam Seismic Retrofit Project, the California State Assembly passed AB 3005 on June 8, the Expedited Dam Safety for Silicon Valley Act, facilitating the construction of the project. Tim Newcomb, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Appellate Court Confirms: Additional Insureds Are First-Class Citizens

May 04, 2020 — Scott S. Thomas - Payne & Fears
Many businesses shift risk by requiring others with whom they do business – e.g., vendors, subcontractors, suppliers, and others – to procure insurance on their behalf by making the business an “additional insured” under the other person’s liability insurance policy. Unfortunately, insurance companies sometimes treat these additional insureds as second-class citizens, refusing to acknowledge that the additional insured has the same rights as the policyholder, who paid the premium. In Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. SMG Holdings, a California appellate court removes any doubt whether these additional insureds are third-party beneficiaries entitled to the same rights – and bound by the same duties – as the entity that bought the policy. While the dispute at issue in SMG Holdings was a narrow one – i.e., whether the additional insured was bound by the policy’s arbitration clause – the implications of its holding are far ranging in ways that, in some instances, may benefit the additional insured. For example, because the additional insured is an intended beneficiary under the policy, neither the insurer nor the policyholder may do anything to impair the additional insured’s rights under the policy; if they do, they may be liable for tortiously interfering with the additional insured’s contract rights. This means that (again, by way of example) if the insurer attempts to rescind, or cancel, or amend the policy in a way that impairs the additional insured’s rights, the additional insured may have recourse. It also means that if the policyholder does something untoward that jeopardizes the additional insured’s rights under the policy, the policyholder may be liable to the additional insured for any resulting harm. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com

---

All Risk Policy Only Covers Repair to Portion of Dock That Sustains Damage

January 06, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

A portion of a dock on Lack Michigan operated by the Ports of Indiana suffered visible damage. See Ports of Indiana v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130979 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 14, 2011). Lexington Insurance Company insured the port. Lexington agreed that a portion of the dock was damaged and paid $1.2 million for repairs. A dispute arose, however, over whether additional sections of the dock were damaged and whether the damage was the result of more than one "occurrence."

An expert report opined that a significant drop creating record lows in the water level of Lake Michigan in 2007 caused damage to the dock. Lexington maintained that only 128 feet of the dock was damaged; other portions of the dock did not sustain "direct physical loss or damage."

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

---

The Legal 500 U.S. 2024 Guide Names Peckar & Abramson a Top Tier Firm in Construction Law and Recognizes Nine Attorneys

July 15, 2024 — Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (P&A) is pleased to announce The Legal 500 United States has once again ranked P&A as a Tier One firm in construction law. The publication also recognized nine P&A construction lawyers in its directory for their contributions in the United States:

• Levi W. Barrett – Recommended Lawyers
• Michael A. Branca – Leading Lawyers
• Steven M. Charney – Recommended Lawyers
• Gregory H. Chertoff – Recommended Lawyers
• Adam P. Handfinger – Next Generation Partners
• Timothy D. Matheny – Key Lawyers
• Paul Monte – Leading Lawyers
• Gerard J. Onorata – Key Lawyers
• Robert S. Peckar – Hall of Fame

P&A is proud to be recognized each year by several legal ratings services, including our Tier 1 ratings by Chambers both nationally and in a number of jurisdictions around the country. Steven M. Charney commented, “Receiving this prestigious recognition by Legal 500 signifies the exceptional caliber of our team, their unwavering commitment to delivering unparalleled legal solutions, and their ability to navigate complex challenges. We are dedicated to providing our clients with the highest level of service and are proud to be recognized as leaders in the field of construction law.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C.

---

Ninth Circuit Resolves Federal-State Court Split Regarding Whether 'Latent' Defects Discovered After Duration of Warranty Period are Actionable under California's Lemon Law Statute

December 17, 2015 — Laura C. Williams & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Daniel v. Ford Motor Company (filed 12/02/15), the Ninth Circuit resolved a federal and state court split on the issue of whether consumers can sustain a breach of implied warranty claim under California’s Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (aka the “lemon law” statute) for “latent” defects discovered after the warranty period has expired. Answering this question in the affirmative, the Ninth Circuit followed the holding in the California state appellate decision of Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co. 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 285 (2009), which definitively determined there is nothing in California’s lemon law that requires a consumer to discover a latent defect during the duration of the warranty. The underlying class action lawsuit was brought in federal district court by purchasers of Ford Focus vehicles. The plaintiffs alleged Ford was aware of, but failed to disclose, a rear suspension defect in the Focus that resulted in premature tire wear which can cause decreased vehicle control, catastrophic tire failure and drifting on wet or snowy roads. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims including violations of California’s Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. Ford successfully moved for summary judgment on all claims prompting an appeal. Reprinted courtesy of Laura C. Williams, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Appellate Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test

June 29, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The significant issues test to determine the prevailing party in construction lien actions (which, by the way, also applies to breach of contract actions) applies to appellate attorney’s fees too! Under this test, the trial court has discretion to determine which party prevailed on the significant issues of the case for purposes of attorney’s fees. The trial court also has discretion to determine that neither party was the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees. In a recent decision, Bauer v. Ready Windows Sales & Service Corp., 42 Fla. L. Weekly D1417a (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), there were competing motions for appellate attorney’s fees. Both parties believed they should be deemed the prevailing party under Florida Statute s. 713.29 (statute that authorizes prevailing party attorney’s fees under Florida’s Construction Lien Law). The appellate court held that neither party was the prevailing party under the significant issues test: “[W]e conclude that each party lost on their appeal, while each party successfully defended that part of the judgment in their favor on the other party’s cross-appeal. Because both parties prevailed on significant issues, this Court finds that appellate fees are not warranted for either party.” Bauer, supra. 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

---