Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Back to Basics: What is a Changes Clause?

July 18, 2018 — J. Cole Phillips – Smith Currie
The Changes Clause is one of the most important, perhaps the most important, provision in any construction contract. Project designs are rarely perfect. A Changes Clause provides a mechanism for dealing with such imperfections as well as allowing project owners the flexibility to update a project’s design as the project progresses. A good Changes Clause specifies when an owner can change the original scope of the contract, how the parties should resolve the value of the changed scope and when payment should be made to the contractor or a credit given to the owner. A good Changes Clause will also provide a mechanism for the contractor to notify the owner when it believes a change order is due and specify the time within which such notice must be given. For the contractor, failure to pay attention to the requirements of the Changes Clause can lead to forfeiture of the right to seek an adjustment to the contract value or contract completion date. For an Owner, failure to pay attention to and enforce the requirements of the Changes Clause can result in unnecessary payments to the Contractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of J. Cole Phillips, Smith Currie
Mr. Phillips may be contacted at jcphillips@smithcurrie.com

The Case For Designers Shouldering More Legal Responsibility

November 21, 2018 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
Ujjval Vyas is dignified, articulate and persistent. In past years he earned a law degree and a PhD where his thesis concerned Philip Johnson and architectural modernism. He is a founder of a hydrogen energy company. He is also leading a crusade, largely by himself, advocating that designers should be held to a "clients come first" approach applied to other professionals—an idea that would burden engineers and architects with the weight of vastly increased legal liability. The reactions to his ideas in the past have ranged from scornful to sympathetic. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, ENR
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

Pending Sales of U.S. Existing Homes Increase 0.8% in November

January 07, 2015 — Michelle Jamrisko – Bloomberg
Contracts to purchase previously owned homes rose in November as employment gains and low borrowing costs helped bring potential buyers into the market. The pending home sales index advanced 0.8 percent after a revised 1.2 percent decrease in October, the National Association of Realtors said today in Washington. The median projection in a Bloomberg survey of economists called for the index to rise 0.5 percent, with estimates ranging from a decline of 1.5 percent to an advance of 3.5 percent. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michelle Jamrisko, Bloomberg
Ms. Jamrisko may be contacted at mjamrisko@bloomberg.net

Fourth Circuit Issues New Ruling on Point Sources Under the CWA

October 02, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
The Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes citizen suits to enforce the provisions of the law which requires a permit to discharge a pollutant from a point source into navigable waters. Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, held that discharges into groundwater, not surface water, could also trigger the regulatory authority of the CWA if there was a hydrological connection between the groundwater and the navigable, surface, waters. In its a closely-watched case, Sierra Club v. Virginia Electric & Power Company (“VEPCO”), which also involved discharges into groundwater, the Fourth Circuit was bound by this this new and controversial precedent (a Supreme Court review is very likely), but the plaintiffs in the VEPCO case could not establish that the landfill and the settling ponds used by VEPCO were “point sources”—another important element that must be established. 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

Learning from Production Homes of the Past

August 13, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Big Builder recaps production homes by decade, beginning with Sears Catalog Homes of the 1920s. They cover major events, original prices, intended buyers, geographic areas, designer/developers, styles/floor plans, and how they broke ground. Big Builder chose to highlight Greenbelt Row Houses for the 1930s, Levittown Tract Homes for the 1940s, as well as additional home builders for each decade through 2010. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy

March 28, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The Duphuys of Baton Rouge Louisiana found themselves needing to argue both sides of an issue, according to the judge in Duphuy v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company. The Duphuys alleged that the drywall in their home “emits odorous gases that cause damage to air-condition and refrigerator coils, copper tubing, electrical wiring, computer wiring, and other household items.” Additionally, they reported damage to “their home’s insulation, trimwork, floors, cabinets, carpets, and other items” which they maintained were “covered under the ‘ensuing loss’ portion of their policy.”

Their insurer declined coverage, stating that the damages were not a “direct, physical loss,” and even if they were “four different exclusions independently exclude coverage, even if such loss occurred.” The policy excludes defective building materials, latent defects, pollutants, and corrosion damage. The court noted that “ambiguities in policy exclusions are construed to afford coverage to the insured.”

The court did determine that the Duphuys were not in “a situation where the plaintiffs caused the risk for which they now seek coverage.” The judge cited an earlier case, In re Chinese Drywall, “a case with substantially similar facts and construing the same policy” and in that case, “property damage” was determined to “include the loss of use of tangible property.” The court’s conclusion was that the Duphuys “suffered a direct, physical loss triggering coverage under their policy.”

Unfortunately for the Duphuys, at this point the judge noted that while they had a “direct, physical loss,” the exclusions put them “in the tough predicament of claiming the drywall is neither defective nor its off-gassing corrosive or a pollutant, but nonetheless damage-causing.”

In the earlier Chinese Drywall case, the judge found that “faulty and defective materials” “constitutes a physical thing tainted by imperfection or impairment.” The case “found the drywall served its intended purpose as a room divider and insulator but nonetheless qualified under the exclusion, analogizing the drywall to building components containing asbestos that courts have previously determined fit under the same exclusion.” In the current case, the judge concluded that the drywall was “outside the realm of coverage under the policy.”

The court also found that it had to apply the corrosion exclusion, noting that the plaintiffs tried to evade this by stating, “simplistically and somewhat disingenuously, that the damage is not caused by corrosion but by the drywall itself.” The plaintiffs are, however, parties to another Chinese drywall case, Payton v. Knauf Gips KG, in which “they directly alleged that ‘sulfides and other noxious gases, such as those emitted from [Chinese] drywall, cause corrosion and damage to personal property.’” As the court pointed out, the Duphuys could not claim in one case that the corrosion was caused by gases emitted by the drywall and in another claim it was the drywall itself. “They hope their more ambiguous allegations will be resolved in their favor and unlock the doors to discovery.”

The court quickly noted that “the remaining damage allegations are too vague and conclusory to construe” and permitted “exploration of the latent defect and pollution exclusions.”

The judge concluded that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient facts to establish coverage under the ensuing loss provision, stating that the “plaintiffs must allege, at the very least, how the drywall causes damage to the trimwork, carpet, etc., not simply that it does so.” Given the court’s determinations in the case, the plaintiffs’ motion was dismissed.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Tender the Defense of a Lawsuit to your Liability Carrier

January 19, 2017 — David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal Updates
Sometimes you come across a head scratcher. This would be a decision that does not seem to make a whole lot of sense. For instance, if you are sued and you maintain liability insurance that would potentially provide you a defense and indemnification, not notifying your insurance carrier is a head scratcher. You pay substantial dollars towards the premium of that policy. So, not then notifying your carrier about a lawsuit is a head scratcher, and I mean a head scratcher!! If you are sued, not only should the carrier be notified, but the defense of that lawsuit should be tendered to your liability carrier. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dadelstein@gmail.com

New Jersey Court Upholds Registration Requirement for Joint Ventures Bidding on Public Works Contracts

December 16, 2023 — Nicholas J. Zaita & Brian Glicos - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Introduction In a matter of “first impression,” on November 30, 2023, the Appellate Division affirmed the New Jersey Superior Court decision in Ernest Bock & Sons-Dobco Pennsauken Joint Venture v. Township of Pennsauken and Terminal Construction Corp., finding that the New Jersey Public Works Contractor Registration Act, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56.48 to -56.57 (“PWCRA” or the “Act”), applies to a joint venture formed for the sole purpose of bidding on a public works contract. Therefore, the Court held that the PWCRA requires any joint venture bidding on public works projects in New Jersey to be registered under the Act at the time of bid submission. Accordingly, the Township of Pennsauken acted within its authority and properly rejected the bid submission of the Ernest Bock & Sons-Dobco Joint Venture which was not registered under the Act in the name of the joint venture at the time of its bid submission, despite the individual members of the joint venture being registered. Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas J. Zaita, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Brian Glicos, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Zaita may be contacted at nzaita@pecklaw.com Mr. Glicos may be contacted at bglicos@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES