Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Port Authority Reaches Deal on Silverstein 3 World Trade

June 26, 2014 — David M. Levitt – Bloomberg
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey approved a financing agreement for Larry Silverstein’s 3 World Trade Center that allows him to use $159 million of insurance proceeds to expedite construction. The agreement, which alters a 2010 deal on the project, follows about a year of negotiations and provides Silverstein with far less than the $1.2 billion of loan guarantees he sought under a previous plan that had been opposed by some board members. Silverstein plans to seek private financing to complete construction on the tower, which is stalled at eight floors. The Port Authority, which owns the Trade Center site, unanimously approved the alterations to the agreement at a meeting today. The new deal meets the criteria of not creating additional debt for the agency, said Commissioner Kenneth Lipper, who led opposition to the loan guarantee, viewing it as too risky and a threat to the authority’s credit rating. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. Levitt, Bloomberg
Mr. Levitt may be contacted at dlevitt@bloomberg.net

Multiple Occurrences Found For Claims Against Supplier of Asbestos Products

May 07, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court found that various claims for bodily injury against a supplier of asbestos products arose from multiple occurrences, increasing indemnity amounts available under the policy. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45437 (N.D. Ohio April 7, 2015). Mahoning Valley Supply Company (MVS) was sued by numerous claimants who alleged that they had been injured by asbestos-containing products manufactured by third parties, but supplied by MVS. The claimants alleged exposure to asbestos fibers at a variety of job sites, on numerous dates, and under a variety of conditions. Two insurers shared defense and indemnity costs. In 2013, Continental informed MVS that the three policies issued to MVS were nearly exhausted. Therefore, the parties disputed whether MVS' asbestos claims arose out of a single "occurrence" rather than multiple occurrences. The policies defined "occurrence" as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured." 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

OPINION: Stop Requiring Exhibit Lists!

September 18, 2023 — Todd Heffner - The Dispute Resolver
You are conducting the final hearing of a high-dollar construction arbitration. Opposing counsel hands you the next document that counsel plans to use in questioning the witness on the stand. You notice that the document is bates stamped but has no exhibit number. So, you quickly consult opposing counsel’s exhibit list and – gasp – you find that the document is not on the list. What do you do? Do you object? Assuming this is not your first construction arbitration hearing, you do not object. Why? Because your objection would be futile. Construction arbitrators simply do not exclude evidence on the basis that it does not appear on an exhibit list. (Evidence not produced in discovery or otherwise previously provided might be a different case.) In an informal poll of a dozen construction lawyers conducted by this author, not one reported evidence being excluded solely because it did not appear on an exhibit list. This remained true even when the applicable case management order purported to prohibit the introduction of evidence not on an exhibit list. Thus, to be used in an arbitration hearing, documents must appear on an exhibit list, unless they don’t, in which case you can use them anyway. So far, so pointless. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Todd Heffner, Troutman Pepper
Mr. Heffner may be contacted at todd.heffner@troutman.com

New York High Court: “Issued or Delivered” Includes Policies Insuring Risks in New York

December 20, 2017 — Bethany Barrese & Samantha Martino - Case Alert Blog
On November 20th, the New York Court of Appeals reinstated a case seeking more than six million dollars in damages against the insurers for DHL Worldwide Express Inc. (“DHL”), originating from a fatal head-on car crash between Claudia Carlson and a truck owned by MVP Delivery and Logistics Inc. (“MVP”), a DHL contractor. The truck, which bore DHL’s logo, was owned by MVP and driven by an MVP employee. The MVP employee was running an errand unrelated to his job at the time of the accident. Mrs. Carlson’s husband sued the employee, DHL, and MVP. The jury award of $20 million was reduced to $7.3 million by the Appellate Division. MVP’s insurer paid Mr. Carlson just over $1 million, and the employee assigned his rights to any other insurance coverage to Mr. Carlson Mr. Carlson sued DHL and its insurers, seeking the balance of the outstanding judgment pursuant to New York Insurance Law § 3420. The defendants successfully moved to dismiss Mr. Carlson’s claims, which dismissal was affirmed by the Appellate Division on the basis that § 3420 did not apply since the policies in question were not “issued or delivered” in New York; they had been issued in New Jersey and delivered in Washington and Florida. The Court of Appeals was subsequently presented with two questions: (1) whether the DHL policies fell within the purview of Insurance Law § 3420 as policies “issued or delivered” in New York; and (2) whether MVP was an “insured” pursuant to the “hired auto” provisions of DHL’s policies. Reprinted courtesy of Bethany Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Samantha Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Barrese may be contacted at blb@sdvlaw.com Ms. Martino may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Motion to Dismiss Insurer's Counterclaim for Construction Defects Is Granted

June 29, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court granted the insured's motion to dismiss the insurer's counterclaim arising out of construction defects. Centrex Homes v. Zurich Specialties London Limited, et al., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77212 (D. Nev. May 19, 2017). Centrex, the general contractor, was sued by homeowners in a residential development known as Liberty Hill Estates. The suit alleged that defective work had been performed by Centrex's subcontractors, one of which was Valley Concrete Company, Inc. The insurer had issued a policy to Valley and Centrex was an additional insured. The insurer agreed to defend, but only paid a portion of the defense fees and costs because the policy only covered Centrex as to liability arising from Valley's work. The insurer refused to pay defense costs incurred prior to March 28, 2012 the date of notice of claims arising from Valley's work. Centrex then filed suit against the insurer alleging breach of contract and bad faith. The insurer filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend. The insurer claimed that Centrex failed to cooperate by unilaterally switching counsel without prior notification to the insurer. This deprived the insurer of the right to control the defense and discharged the insurer's obligations under the policy. Centrex moved to dismiss the counterclaim. 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

Georgia Supreme Court Addresses Anti-Indemnity Statute

October 21, 2019 — David R. Cook - AHC Construction and Procurement Blog
In prior blog posts, we addressed Georgia’s anti-indemnity statute. One of the posts addressed the statute in the context of an electric utility easement near an airport. That case made its way to the Supreme Court Georgia, which provided some additional clarity to the statute. Milliken & Co. v. Georgia Power Co., — Ga. –, 829 S.E.2d 111 (2019). When a plane crashed and several passengers and crew died or were injured, their representatives sued several defendants, including a nearby plant owner, Milliken & Company (“Milliken”), based on claims that transmission lines on Milliken’s property were too close to the runways, were too high, and encroached on the airport easements. Milliken cross claimed against Georgia Power Company (“GPC”). Milliken’s claim was based on an easement it granted to GPC, which required GPC to indemnify it for any claims arising out of GPC’s construction or maintenance of the transmission lines. On appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether the clause was unenforceable under O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2(b). In general, “a party may contract away liability to the other party for the consequences of his own negligence without contravening public policy, except when such agreement it prohibited by statute.” Id. at 113 citing Lanier at McEver v. Planners & Eng’rs Collaborative, 284 Ga. 204, 205 (2008). As one such statute, O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2(b) applies when an indemnification provision (i) “relates in some way to a contract for construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of certain property” and (ii) “promises to indemnify a party for damages arising from that own party’s sole negligence.” Id. at 114 (internal punctuation omitted). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com

Las Vegas HOA Conspiracy & Fraud Case Delayed Again

September 17, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “[T]he federal trial of former construction company boss Leon Benzer and five others in a massive scheme to take over Las Vegas-area homeowners associations” has been delayed to February 2015 by U.S. District Judge James Mahan. Defense attorneys “argued they needed more time to review thousands of pages of new documents provided by prosecutors.” The prosecutors did not object to the delay. Benzer and the other defendants face conspiracy and fraud charges in an HOA takeover scheme that allegedly occurred between 2003 and 2009. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Close Call?”

August 05, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
Not really, said a Florida state appellate court when a public construction project owner sued a defaulted general contractor after recovering from the general contractor’s surety. The general contractor, Close Construction, entered into a contract for a lift station rehabilitation construction project with the City of Riviera Beach in Florida. During the course of the work the public owner terminated the contract, whereupon the GC and the owner brought claims against each other in court. A jury ultimately held against the general contractor and in favor of the public owner in the amount of approximately $1.9 million. The general contractor appealed. On appeal, the general contractor noted that the public works surety which it was required by the contract to obtain for the project had hired another company to complete the work when the general contractor was terminated and had otherwise “settled with the District under its bond for $1,000,000.” Based on that settlement, the general contractor had moved, unsuccessfully, in the trial court for a post-trial setoff because the “settlement covered the same damages that the jury assessed” against the GC, and because the surety was “jointly and severally liable” with the GC – pursuant to the terms of the bond – for those damages. In essence, the general contractor sought to avoid having the public owner “obtain a double recovery.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES