Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

A Look at Business and Professions Code Section 7031

July 09, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Garret Murai, on his California Construction Law Blog, stated that California’s Business and Professions Code Section 7031 has often been described as draconian, harsh, and unjust—but still enforceable. The section does two things: first, it “prohibits unlicensed or improperly licensed contractors from suing to recover compensation for construction work requiring a license,” and second, it “permits property owners to sue such contractors for disgorgement of all compensation paid for such work.” According to Murai, the “strict enforcement of Section 7031” is thought to ensure “that contractors meet the minimum qualifications necessary for licensure.” Murai analyzed the case E. J. Franks Construction, Inc. v Sahota, which “carved out a limited exception to Section 7031 for contractors who form business entities and transfer their existing contractor’s license to such entities.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Appraisal Panel Can Determine Causation of Loss under Ohio Law

February 19, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court granted the insured's motion to compel an appraisal that would include a determination of causation of the loss. Eagle Highland Owners Association v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220937 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 12, 2023). Plaintiff argued its property suffered wind and hail damage from a storm on June 18, 2021. A claim was submitted to State Farm. State Farm's investigation determined the loss to be $0.00. Plaintiff's investigator determined the loss to be $586,647.08 in repair costs. State Farm opposed appraisal because, in its view, the damage arose from a loss in 2019, not from the June 18, 2021 storm. Plaintiff submitted a loss claim in 2019 for damage that State Farm alleged was exactly the same as the damage alleged in the loss claim for the June 18, 2021 storm. Therefore, State Farm did not view the matter as a dispute over an amount of loss, but rather over whether a loss even occurred on June 18, 2021. 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

Federal Arbitration Act Preempts Pennsylvania Payment Act

June 15, 2020 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
I am back. It feels like an entirety since I last posted. But a hellacious trial schedule got me off the blogosphere for some time. Plus, there was nothing to write about. But I am back with a bang thanks to a decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania concerning the interplay of a forum selection clause appearing in an arbitration clause in a construction contract and the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act. In Bauguess Electrical Services, Inc. v. Hospitality Builders, Inc., the federal court (Judge Joyner) ruled that the federal arbitration act preempted the Payment Act’s prohibition on forum selection clauses and held that an arbitration must proceed in South Dakota even though the construction project were the work was performed was located in Pennsylvania. The Payment Act applies to all commercial construction projects performed in Pennsylvania. As some you might know, Section 514 of the Payment Act, 73 P.S. 514, prohibits choice of law and forum selection clauses. It states “[m]aking a contract subject to the laws of another state or requiring that any litigation, arbitration or other dispute resolution process on the contract occur in another state, shall be unenforceable.” Therefore, if a construction contract is for a project located in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania law must apply and all disputes must be adjudicated in Pennsylvania. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Mississippi Sues Over Public Health Lab Defects

October 29, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The state of Mississippi “is suing architects and designers of a new Public Health Lab, saying the $28 million lab wasn't up to containing deadly diseases, biohazards and chemicals,” reported The Clarion-Ledger. Dale Partners Architects, Earl Walls Associates, Eldridge and Associates, and Environmental Management Plus have been named as defendants. "The estimated damages are $3 million," attorney Dorsey Carson told The Clarion-Ledger. "This building is where they test tuberculosis, or where they would test anthrax or any other (biohazards). You don't have a choice – it has to meet rigorous standards." Charlie Alexander, a partner with Dale Partners, stated that “any allegations of design defects by his company and its team ‘are unfounded,’” reported The Clarion-Ledger. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

New York Court Finds Insurers Cannot Recover Defense Costs Where No Duty to Indemnify

March 01, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
In a case of first impression, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, found the insurer had no right to reimbursement of defense costs paid to defend the insured. Am. W. Home Ins. Co. v. Gjoaj Realty & Mgt. Co., 2020 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8286 (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 30, 2020). Gjonaj Realty was sued by Viktor Gecaj when he fell from a ladder at the premises managed by Gjonaj Realty. The matter was not tendered to American Western Home Insurance Company until four years after the accident and after a judgment of $900,000 had been entered against Gjonaj Realty after its default. American denied coverage after late notice was given. Thereafter, the Supreme Court in the underling action vacated the default judgment. American then agreed to defend under a reservation of rights. The Appellate Division reversed the vacatur of the default judgment and reinstated the default against the insured. American then advised Gjonaj Realty that it was denying coverage and reserving its right to recover any fees and costs incurred in defending the underlying action. 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

Disappearing Data: Avoid Losing Electronic Information to Avoid Losing the Case

February 01, 2022 — Daniel C. Wennogle & Jennifer Knight Lang - Construction Executive
It happens: A contractor on a delayed project ends up in litigation over liquidated damages, but the key communications regarding delays and approvals were sent and received by the project manager on a mobile device using text messages and personal email accounts. Unfortunately, the project manager left the company a year ago on bad terms and has changed phones. The information that would serve to mitigate the contractor’s liability has disappeared. With better awareness and policies for capturing and managing electronic information, this is avoidable. Proactive and effective management of electronically stored information on construction projects can not only reduce costs and discovery disputes should litigation arise but can also provide critical evidence in reducing liability exposure in such disputes. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (as well as most state rules, which often mirror federal rules), provide for sanctions if a party fails to preserve electronically stored information (ESI) that should have been preserved in anticipation of litigation but is lost due to the failure to take reasonable steps to preserve it. Even in arbitration, where discovery and disclosure obligations are often more limited than in the court setting, preservation of ESI can help strengthen claims and defenses, avoiding accusations of spoliation that can derail a case. Arbitrators can also fashion appropriate sanctions for destruction of relevant evidence, not to mention the impact that apparent spoliation can have on a party’s credibility. Reprinted courtesy of Daniel C. Wennogle & Jennifer Knight Lang, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Ms. Lang may be contacted at jennifer.lang@moyewhite.com Mr. Wennogle may be contacted at daniel.wennogle@moyewhite.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Brookfield Wins Disputed Bid to Manage Manhattan Marina

January 28, 2015 — Martin Z Braun – Bloomberg
(Bloomberg) -- Brookfield Property Partners won a bid to run a marina in New York’s Battery Park City neighborhood over the objections of residents backing a local businessman who operated the facility and a popular sailing club and school. The state’s Battery Park City Authority voted Thursday to approve a 10-year agreement with Brookfield, which owns an adjacent 8 million-square-foot office and retail complex. Brookfield is bringing in billionaire real estate investor Andrew Farkas’s Island Global Yachting to manage the North Cove Marina. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Martin Z Braun, Bloomberg
Mr. Braun may be contacted at mbraun6@bloomberg.net

When Are General Conditions and General Requirements Covered by Builder's Risk

December 18, 2022 — Michael V. Pepe & Grace V. Hebbel - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
General conditions and general requirements are terms of art in the construction industry that describe the indirect costs necessary to complete a construction project. After physical loss or damage to a project, the following question often arises: Are “general conditions” and “general requirements” covered under a builder’s risk policy? General Conditions vs. General Requirements General conditions are usually described as the cost of managing a construction project. Examples include salaries for personnel like project managers, supervisors, engineers, field office staff, as well as the cost of field trailers, office equipment and supplies, and anything necessary to support the staff. General requirements are the non-management indirect costs of executing the project, including items such as pre-development costs, permits, security, dumpsters, fences, temporary lighting, worker amenities, and clean-up costs. Reprinted courtesy of Michael V. Pepe, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and Grace V. Hebbel, Saxe Doernberger & Vita Mr. Pepe may be contacted at MPepe@sdvlaw.com Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at GHebbel@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES