CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Employee or Independent Contractor? New Administrator’s Interpretation Issued by Department of Labor Provides Guidance

August 04, 2015 — Tanya Salgado – White and Williams LLP
The question of whether a worker should be classified as an independent contractor or an employee is fraught with confusion and misunderstanding for many businesses. Compounding the problem is the fact that there are a number of different tests used to determine employee status, which vary by jurisdiction and by the particular law in question. For example, the Internal Revenue Service uses the common law rules which focus on the degree of control and independence exercised by the worker. In contrast, the United States Department of Labor uses the “economic realities” test which focuses on whether the worker is economically dependent on the employer. In an effort to help combat the confusion over proper worker classification, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) has issued a new Administrator’s Interpretation that provides a detailed explanation of the test used by the DOL to determine if a worker has been misclassified as an independent contractor. The DOL enforces the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which mandates that employees (but not independent contractors) be paid minimum wage and overtime. When a business misclassifies non-exempt workers as independent contractors, and those workers are not paid the minimum hourly wage for their labor, or are not paid overtime when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek, this violates the FLSA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tanya Salgado, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Salgado may be contacted at salgadot@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Don’t Assume Your Insurance Covers A Newly Acquired Company

February 19, 2019 — Patrick M. McDermott & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision yesterday finding no coverage for fire damage to a building is a cautionary tale for companies acquiring other companies. Erie Ins. Exch. v. EPC MD 15, LLC, 2019 WL 238168 (Va. Jan. 17, 2019). In that case, Erie Insurance issued a property insurance policy to EPC. The policy covered EPC only and did not cover any subsidiaries of EPC. EPC then acquired the sole member interest in Cyrus Square, LLC. Following the acquisition, fire damaged a building that Cyrus Square owned. EPC sought coverage under its property insurance policy. Because the policy did not cover Cyrus Square, EPC argued that a provision extending coverage to “newly acquired buildings” applied, contending that EPC had newly acquired Cyrus Square’s building by virtue of becoming the sole member interest in the LLC. Based on the law relative to LLCs and its interpretation of the policy, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled against EPC. It found that although EPC had acquired Cyrus Square, it had not “newly acquired” the building and so the “newly acquired buildings” coverage extension did not apply. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Walkability Increases Real Estate Values

June 18, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
CNBC reported that environmentally-conscious Millennials are looking for homes that are within walking or biking distance to stores and work. The “areas that offer so-called walkability should see more home buyers and renters than those that don't.” "Cities that want to thrive in our new economic and demographic realities will need to find ways to create and support more of these dynamic, productive walkable districts that are in high demand," Geoff Anderson, CEO of Smart Growth America, told CNBC. Anderson, “in conjunction with George Washington University School of Business, released a new report ranking the walkability of the nation's 30 largest metropolitan areas.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Maui Wildfire Cleanup Could Cost $1B and Take One Year

September 18, 2023 — James Leggate - Engineering News-Record
Hawaii Gov. Josh Green and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) have estimated at $1 billion the cost of cleanup after the Maui wildfires—which started Aug. 8 and killed at least 115 people and destroyed more than 2,200 structures. Officials planning the rebuilding of the parts of West Maui devastated by the wildfires are emphasizing safety and residents’ wishes over speed. Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Joins the Majority of States in Modifying Its Survival Action Statute To Now Permit Recovery for Pain, Suffering And Disfigurement

January 03, 2022 — Krsto Mijanovic & Elizabeth D. Rhodes - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
On January 1, 2022, California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”)Section 377.30 et seq., as amended by Senate Bill 447, otherwise known as the “survival action” statute1, goes into effect. On that date, all plaintiffs filing new civil cases filed on or after January 1, 2022, and before January 1, 2026, and plaintiffs in any action or proceeding granted trial preference pursuant to CCP Section 36 before January 1, 2022, will be expressly allowed to recover damages for a decedent’s pain, suffering, or disfigurement in a survival action.2 This is a significant change in California law. In that regard, California is now the 46th state to permit this form of recovery. As reported in the Legislative Counsel’s Digest3, Consumer Attorneys of California and Consumer Federation of California, which co-sponsored Senate Bill 447, opined to the Legislature that the prior law provided a “death discount” to defendants which incentivized bad faith delays in resolution, and caused unnecessary congestion of the already overburdened court system. These argued issues will be vetted by the Legislature using the four-year reporting requirement that is also part of the amendment to the statute, requiring plaintiffs who recover this newly permitted category of damages to report the valuation and details of the case to the Judicial Council within 60 days of the judgment or other operative court document being entered in the court’s docket.4 The amendment will be evaluated by the Legislature for amendment or extension on or before January 1, 2026. Reprinted courtesy of Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and Elizabeth D. Rhodes, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com Ms. Rhodes may be contacted at erhodes@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence

August 17, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Miller v. Lankow that Mr. Miller was within his rights to remediate his home, even though doing so destroyed the evidence of water intrusion.



Linda Lankow built a home in 1992. In 2001 or 2002, Lankow discovered a stucco problem at the garage which she attributed to moisture intrusion. She asked the original contractor to fix the wall. In 2003, Lankow attempted to sell her home, but the home inspection revealed fungal growth in the basement. Lankow made further repairs, including alterations to the landscaping.



In 2004, Lankow put her house on the market once again and entered into an agreement with David Miller. Miller declined to have an independent inspection, as the home had been repaired by professional contractors.



In 2005, Miller put the house on the market. A prospective buyer requested a moisture inspection. The inspection firm, Private Eye, Inc. found “significant moisture intrusion problems.”



Miller hired an attorney who sent letters to the contractors and to Lankow and her husband. Lankow’s husband, Jim Betz, an attorney, represented his wife and sent a letter to Miller’s attorney that Miller had declined an opportunity to inspect the home.



In 2007, Miller’s new attorney sent letters to all parties that Miller had decided to begin remediation work on the house. All stucco was removed. Miller then filed a lawsuit against the prior owners, the builders, and the realtors.



Two of the contractors and the prior owners moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Miller had spoliated evidence by removing the stucco. They requested that Miller’s expert reports be excluded. The district court found for the defendants and imposed sanctions on Miller.



The Minnesota Supreme court found that “a custodial party’s duty to preserve evidence is not boundless,” stating that “it may be particularly import to allow remediation in cases such as the one before us.” Their reasoning was that “remediation of the moisture intrusion problem in the home may be necessary, even essential, to address immediate health concerns.”



Given that Miller needed to remediate the problem in order to continue living there, and that he had given the other parties a “full and fair opportunity to inspect,” the court found that he was within his rights. The court reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded it to them for review.

Read the court’s decision…

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

---

Fifth Circuit Holds Insurer Owes Duty to Defend Latent Condition Claim That Caused Fire Damage to Property Years After Construction Work

October 05, 2020 — Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
Most general liability policies only provide coverage for “property damage” that occurs during the policy period. Thus, when analyzing coverage for a construction defect claim, it is important to ascertain the date on which damage occurred. Of course, the plaintiffs’ bar crafts pleadings to be purposefully vague as to the date (or period) of damage to property. A recent Fifth Circuit decision applying Texas law addresses this coverage issue in the context of allegations of a condition created by an insured during the policy period that caused damage after the policy expired. In Gonzalez v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 969 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2020), Gilbert Gonzales (the insured) was a siding contractor. In 2013, the underlying plaintiff hired Gonzales to install new siding on his house. In 2016, the underlying plaintiff’s house was damaged in a fire. The underlying plaintiff sued Gilbert in Texas state court alleging that when Gonzalez installed the siding in 2013, he hammered nails through electrical wiring and created a dangerous condition that caused a fire three years later in 2016. At the time Gilbert performed construction work, he was insured by Mid-Continent Casualty Company. Mid-Continent disclaimed coverage to Gonzales on the basis that the complaint unequivocally alleged that property was damaged in 2016 and there were no allegations that property damage occurred prior to 2016 or was continuing in nature. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

---

A Court-Side Seat: May Brings Federal Appellate Courts Rulings and Executive Orders

June 29, 2020 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
Here are a few interesting new rulings from the federal appellate courts. COURT ORDERS Like a Good Neighbor …? — State of Maryland v. EPA On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit decided a Clean Air Act case involving the use of the “Good Neighbor Provision” of the Act, which is triggered when one state has a complaint about emissions generated in a neighboring upwind state that settle in the downwind state. Here, Maryland and Delaware filed petitions with EPA seeking relief from the impact of emissions from coal-fired power plants that allegedly affect their states’ air quality. EPA largely denied relief, and the court largely upheld the agency’s use and interpretation of the Good Neighbor Provision. The opinion is valuable because of its clear exposition of this complicated policy. A Volatile Underground Issue —Wayne Land and Mineral Group v. the Delaware River Basin Commission Also on May 19, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a ruling involving the Delaware River Basin Commission. Established in 1961, the Commission oversees and protects the water resources in the Basin. Not long ago, the Executive Director of the Commission, citing a rule of the Commission, imposed very strict limitations on fracking operations in the Basin. This decision has been very controversial with the Third Circuit opining that the Commission’s authority to regulate fracking operations—thought to be a province of state authority—was not clear-cut. In this case, three Pennsylvania state senators filed motions to intervene in the case, but the lower court rejected their request. The Third Circuit has directed the lower court to take another look at their standing to participate in this litigation. This is a volatile issue in Pennsylvania. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---