CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

California Precludes Surety from Asserting Pay-When-Paid Provision as Defense to Payment Bond Claim

December 21, 2020 — Nicholas Korst - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In a recent case in California, the Court of Appeals held that a surety who had issued a public works payment bond cannot rely on the “Pay-When-Paid” provision in the subcontract as a defense against the subcontractor’s claim against the payment bond.[1] The case was a public works project in Kern County, CA where the North Edwards Water District (the “District”) hired Clark Bros., Inc. (“Clark”) as the general contractor to build an arsenic removal water treatment plant. Clark hired subcontractor Crosno Construction (“Crosno”) to build and coat two steel reservoir tanks. The subcontract included the following “pay-when-paid” provision, which provided a definition of “reasonable time”: If the Owner or other responsible party delays in making any payment to the Contractor from which payment to Subcontractor is made, Contractor and its sureties shall have a reasonable time to make payment. “Reasonable time” shall be determined according to the relevant circumstances, but in no event shall be less than the time Contractor and Subcontractor require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against the Owner or other responsible party to obtain payment, including (but not limited to) mechanics lien remedies. (emphasis added). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nick Korst, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Korst may be contacted at nicholas.korst@acslawyers.com

---

Navigating Complex Preliminary Notice Requirements

March 30, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome back a good friend, Scott Wolfe. Scott is the founder of zlien, a cloud-based platform that gives construction industry participants control over their financial risk and payment processes. The zlien platform manages the mechanics lien compliance process for all parties in the contracting chain, automating and optimizing the exchange of preliminary notices, monitoring lien rights and exposure, and exchanging lien waivers. zlien empowers over 10,000 companies to optimize their credit and financial risk management, and works to promote a fair and transparent construction payment process, improve B2B relationships, facilitate faster payments, and reduce legal and financial risk. Sending preliminary notice is the most important step in mechanics lien compliance. A majority of states require preliminary notice (sometimes called a pre-lien notice or notice to owner) from contractors, material suppliers, and other construction parties. Even if preliminary notice is not required, however, it is best practice to send this document on all projects for a variety of reasons. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Foreman in Fatal NYC Trench Collapse Gets Jail Sentence

December 21, 2016 — Mary B. Powers – Engineering News-Record
Wilmer Cueva, a construction foreman for Queens, N.Y.-based excavation subcontractor Sky Materials, was sentenced on Dec. 15 to up to three years in prison for causing the death of 22-year-old worker Carlos Moncayo, and endangering other workers at a lower Manhattan retail project site. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said the workers were in an unprotected 13-ft trench that collapsed in 2015. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

---

New York Construction Practice Team Obtains Summary Judgment and Dismissal of Labor Law Claims

October 01, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
New York, N.Y. (August 23, 2024) – In Trujillo-Cruz v. City of New York, et al., New York Partner Inderjit Dhami, a member of New York Partner Meghan A. Cavalieri’s Construction Practice Team, recently obtained summary judgment and dismissal of the plaintiff's Labor Law §240(1), §241(6) and §200 claims dismissing the entire case against national developer and construction company clients. The plaintiff alleged to have sustained injuries as the result of a construction site accident occurring on July 11, 2018, while in the scope of his employment as a laborer in connection with the construction/renovation of a residential apartment building in Brooklyn, New York. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that he was injured when he was coming down from a ladder and fell on a 2”x 4”, causing him disabling injuries. The plaintiffs’ counsel articulated a $3 million settlement demand. Labor Law §240(1) imposes absolute liability on a defendant where an injured worker engaged in the performance of covered construction work establishes that a safety device proved inadequate to shield him from elevation-related harm, and that the defendant’s failure to provide an adequate safety device proximately caused the injuries alleged. The plaintiff first testified that he stepped on the 2” x 4” after he came down off of the ladder, but his counsel then prompted him to recalibrate his testimony by asking whether the accident arose when he was coming down the ladder or after he had come down off of the ladder. The plaintiff changed his testimony, alleging that the accident arose as he was coming down the ladder and that he remained partially on the ladder when he stepped on the piece of formwork and fell. Inderjit argued that the plaintiff’s reframing of his deposition testimony was immaterial for purposes of the Labor Law § 240 (1) analysis. Irrespective of whether the plaintiff was on solid ground or had one foot on the ladder at the time of the occurrence, his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was unavailing in that the accident did not arise as a result of the type of extraordinary elevation-related peril protected by Labor Law § 240 (1). Justice Maslow agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Safeguarding History: Fire Risks in Renovating Historic Buildings

January 28, 2025 — Birgitte Messerschmidt - Construction Executive
The renovation of historic and unique buildings is both a labor of love and a huge responsibility. Rich in stories and architectural beauty, these structures link communities to their past. However, giving new life to these iconic buildings through renovation projects can place them in jeopardy, as fire-related risks remain a significant challenge. This is evidenced by the number of devasting fire tragedies that have happened during work on these structures, including at the Glasgow School of Art in 2014 and 2018 and the Notre-Dame Cathedral in 2019, showcasing how vulnerable these buildings are amid the status quo of renovation protocols. Preventing these types of fire-related incidents during future historic building renovations, maintaining compliance with codes and standards such as NFPA 241, Standard for Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demolition Operations, and NFPA 914, Code for the Protection of Historic Structures, must be a top priority for all workers on site. These resources provide workers with the proper tools and guidelines to address the intricate challenges that come with these operations. Reprinted courtesy of Birgitte Messerschmidt, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Temporary Obstructions Are a Permanent Problem Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

March 12, 2015 — Max W. Gavron and Keith M. Rozanski – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Boxes, ladders, furniture or other objects commonly placed in aisles, walkways or paths may not be temporary obstructions and may be actionable under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) according to a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc. DBA Pier 1 Imports #1132, No. 12-16857 (filed March 5, 2015). Many property and business owners have long operated under the assumption that they are not violating ADA regulations requiring minimum clear widths for accessible routes (“[t]he minimum clear width of an accessible route shall be 36 in[ches]” (28 C.F.R. pg. 36, app. A, § 4.3.3)) when they place objects that can easily be removed in aisles or pathways such as trash cans, ladders, plants, signs and the like because temporary obstructions are not considered violations of the ADA (28 C.F.R. § 36.211(b)). Reprinted courtesy of Max W. Gavron, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Keith M. Rozanski, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Gavron may be contacted at mgavron@hbblaw.com Mr. Rozanski may be contacted at krozanski@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Subcontractor’s Claim against City Barred by City’s Compliance with Georgia Payment Bond Statute

March 29, 2017 — Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
In a recent Georgia Court of Appeals case, the Court was tasked with determining whether the City of Atlanta’s compliance with the Georgia Payment Bond Statutes barred a subcontractor from recovery against it after the general contractor failed to pay and the surety became insolvent. Squared Plumbing Co., LLC (J. Squared), was a subcontractor on a project to clean up sewage spills in approximately 100 dwellings for the City of Atlanta. As required by the contract executed with the City, the general contractor, Scott and Sons Holdings, LLC (Scott and Sons), obtained a $200,000 payment bond from its surety, First Seaford Surety, Inc. (First Seaford). J. Squared sought to collect on the payment bond when Scott and Sons failed to pay J. Squared for the work it performed on the project. However, First Seaford became insolvent. J. Squared subsequently filed a claim against Scott and Sons and the City to recover $140,000 for its work on the project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

---

Contractual “Pay if Paid” and “Pay when Paid” Clauses? What is a California Construction Subcontractor to Do?

November 29, 2021 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
The Situation California Construction Subcontractors Face in Obtaining Payment: California construction subcontractors find themselves faced with a significant payment issue every time they are asked to sign a subcontract on a major project. Invariably, the subcontract the prime contractor presents to the subcontractor for signature will contain a clause by which the prime contractor imposes a condition on payment from the prime contractor to the subcontractor. The condition will be either one or the other of two general types. Either the prime contractor will specify that it never has to pay the subcontractor if the prime contractor itself is not paid by the owner (a “pay-if-paid” clause), or the prime contractor will pay the subcontractor only after the prime contractor has first exhausted all its efforts to obtain payment from the owner through litigation, arbitration or otherwise, possibly delaying payment to subcontractors by months or even years (a “pay-when-paid” clause). Goal of the Article: The goal of this article is to draw a distinction between the pay-if-paid and pay-when-paid clauses, discuss the legality of these clauses in California, the problems these clauses create for subcontractors, advise the reader of helpful recent legal developments in this area of law, address the possibility of a further legislative remedy to address the issue, and discuss what the subcontractor might do to protect itself while awaiting a legislative remedy that may or may not ever arrive. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---