CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Is Your Contract “Mission Essential?” Recovering Costs for Performing During a Force Majeure Event Under Federal Regulations

May 10, 2022 — Joneis M. Phan & Sarah K. Bloom - ConsensusDocs
Federal contractors have faced unprecedented challenges performing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional costs have included delays and inefficiencies, site closures, quarantines, unavailability of supplies and materials, and full shutdowns of subcontractor operations. For contractors performing under fixed price contracts, the cost impact of COVID-19 was likely severe. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) recognizes “epidemics” as a force majeure event that may excuse non-performance. Many federal contracts include some version of the Default clause, which prevents the government from terminating a contractor for default due to impacts of force majeure events that are beyond a contractor’s control, such as an epidemic. See, e.g., FAR 52.249-10. See also Pernix Serka Joint Venture v. Dep’t of State, CBCA No. 5683 (Apr. 20. 2020). The Default clause, however, operates as a shield from liability, not a sword authorizing recovery. Contractors are now left wondering whether any avenue exists to recover additional costs incurred after performing in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to a likely influx of claims and requests for equitable adjustment due to COVID-19 impacts, the federal government largely took the position that contractors were entitled to extensions of time, but not to additional costs. This article explores the avenues that may be available for contractors to recover costs for performing during a force majeure event that would otherwise be non-compensable. Reprinted courtesy of Joneis M. Phan, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs and Sarah K. Bloom, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs). Mr. Phan may be contacted at jphan@watttieder.com Ms. Bloom may be contacted at sbloom@watttieder.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Home Building Likely to Stick to Slow Pace

November 13, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The National Association of Realtors is predicting that home builders will continue to be cautious in the number of homes they build, leading to a continued shortage and higher prices for those that are built. “The inventory shortage will not go away,” said Lawrence Yun, the chief economist for the National Association of Realtors. According to Mr. Yun, the inventory is the lowest it has been in 13 years. As a result of many factors, including rising home prices and rising interest rates, the group is predicting that new home sales will remain flat next year, offering little incentive to builders. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

In Florida, Component Parts of an Improvement to Real Property are Subject to the Statute of Repose for Products Liability Claims

December 02, 2015 — Michael L. DeBona – White and Williams LLP
In Dominguez v. Hayward Industries, Inc., Certified Gunite Company d/b/a Custom Pools, and John M. Pieklo, — So.3d —-, 2015 WL 5438782 (3d DCA Sept. 16, 2015), the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, discussed whether products liability claims related to a pool filter, a component part of a pool system, were subject to Florida’s twelve-year products liability statute of repose, section 95.031, Florida Statutes. The court held that a pool filter does not constitute an improvement to real property and, thus, the plaintiffs’ claims were subject to the statute of repose. Background Facts Ryan and Jessica Dominguez had a pool installed at their house; the delivery and installation of the pool and its filter were completed on December 20, 1999. Over twelve years later – on November 17, 2012 – the pool filter exploded, causing Mr. Dominguez a severe head injury. Mr. Dominguez and his wife brought a products liability action against, among others, the pool filter manufacturer and distributor, Hayward Industries, Inc., and the installer of the pool and intermediate distributor of the pool filter, Certified Gunite Company. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLP
Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

---

With an Eye Already in the Sky, Crane Camera Goes Big Data

February 02, 2017 — Jeff Rubenstone - Engineering News-Record
It started simple enough: a wireless camera mounted on the hook block of a tower crane, allowing the operator in the cab to see the rigger on the ground and the area around the hook. But just a few years later, Netarus’ HoistCam is part of a method to generate point-cloud images of jobsites from the highest perch around. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Rubenstone, ENR
Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com

---

HVAC System Collapses Over Pool at Gaylord Rockies Resort Colorado

June 12, 2023 — Jennifer Seward - Engineering News-Record
The collapse May 6 of the HVAC system above an indoor pool at the Gaylord Rockies Resort near Denver sent six people to local hospitals, two with life-threatening injuries. An estimated 50 to 100 people were in the water or on the pool deck as pieces of the system fell into the pool and hot tub. Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Seward, Engineering News-Record Ms. Seward may be contacted at sewardj@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court finds subcontractor responsible for defending claim

May 18, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

In an unpublished decision, the California Fourth Appellate District Court has reversed the judgment of Judge Linda B. Quinn of the Superior Court of San Diego. In the case Inland California, Inc. v. G.A. Abell, Inland, a general contractor had subcontracted with Apache Construction and Precision Electric Company (G.A. Abell).



Apache alleged that extra demolition and drywall work was needed due to Precision’s electrical work. Inland tendered a defense of Apache’s claims. However, Precision did not provide any defense. Inland withheld payment from Precision.



At trial, Inland “conceded Precision earned the $98,000 in progress payments Inland withheld.” They were obligated to additionally pay Precision’s costs and attorney fees.



The Fourth Appellate District court has overturned this and remanded the case back to the lower court. The judges determined that Precision was obligated to defend itself against the claims raised by Apache and therefore vacated the judgment against Inland.



Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Differences in Types of Damages Matter

June 22, 2016 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Over the last 7 and a half years (yes I have been doing this for that long), I have often “mused” on various contractual provisions and their application. Why? Because the contract matters and will be enforced. Provisions like “no damages for delay” and “pay if paid” litter construction contracts and will be enforced if properly drafted. These types of clauses affect whether and what types of damages you as a construction company can collect. Of course, these clauses have their limitations. For instance, and as pointed out by my pal Matt DeVries at his great Best Practices Construction Law blog, not all damages that a subcontractor or general contractor may attribute to coordination or other scheduling related issues are “delay damages” to which a “no damages for delay” clause may apply. 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

---

Alarm Cries Wolf in California Case Involving Privette Doctrine

May 06, 2019 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s one of the most quoted phrases in legal history: “Shouting fire in a [crowded] theater.” It comes from the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1919 decision in Schenck v. U.S. and has come to stand for the proposition that not all speech, in particular dangerous speech, is protected by the First Amendment. The next case also involves a false alarm. But not of the First Amendment kind. In Johnson v. The Raytheon Company, Inc., California Court of Appeal for the Second District, Case No. B281411 (March 8, 2019), a false alarm investigated by maintenance engineering staff led to a Privette Doctrine claim against a property owner when a ladder on which the maintenance staff was standing slipped on wet flooring. Johnson v. Raytheon Lawrence Johnson worked as a maintenance engineer for ABM Facilities Services, Inc. ABM was hired by Raytheon Company, Inc. to staff the control room at one of Raytheon’s facilities in Southern California. Among other things, control room staff monitored water cooling towers owned by Raytheon to ensure that the water in the cooling towers were maintained at minimum levels. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---