Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers

August 03, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai has been recognized as a 2022 Northern California Super Lawyers honoree in the area of Construction Litigation. This is the ninth consecutive year that he has been recognized by Super Lawyers. Super Lawyers, an annual listing of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and personal achievement, is limited to no more than five percent (5%) of lawyers in a state who are selected through a multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, independent research evaluation and peer reviews by practice area. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Google, Environmentalists and University Push Methane-Leak Detection

December 21, 2016 — Mary B. Powers – Engineering News-Record
National Grid, which serves New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, is set to be the second U.S. natural-gas utility to use technology advanced by Google Earth, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Colorado State University to boost large-scale methane-leak detection. It is launching a $3-billion effort to replace gas pipelines in New York. The technology uses cutting-edge spatial analytics methods and methane sensors, specially fitted to Google Street View cars, to identify leaks and accurately measure the amount of methane escaping. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com

AB 1701 – General Contractor Liability for Subcontractors’ Unpaid Wages

December 01, 2017 — Alex Baghdassarian, Eric M. Gruzen, & Kerri Sakaue – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Contractors will soon find themselves on the frontline of wage disputes on projects if laborers working on behalf of their subcontractors or vendors are unpaid. On October 14, 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 1701, which will allow laborers to seek direct compensation from the general contractors on private projects, if their wages remain unpaid. The legislative mandate requires direct contractors—defined as contractors who have a direct contractual relationship with an owner—to assume liability for any debt incurred by a subcontractor, at any tier, for a wage claimant’s performance of labor included in the subject of the original contract between the general contractor and the owner. The California bill will apply to all private construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2018. Previously, all laborers could maintain a mechanic’s lien claim against private property, without needing to serve a 20-day preliminary notice, but there was no statutory obligation on the “direct contractors” to reimburse the laborers their unpaid wages. Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C. attorneys Alex Baghdassarian, Eric M. Gruzen and Kerri Sakaue Mr. Baghdassarian may be contacted at abaghdassarian@pecklaw.com Mr. Gruzen may be contacted at egruzen@pecklaw.com Ms. Sakaue may be contacted at ksakaue@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Homeowner Has No Grounds to Avoid Mechanics Lien

September 01, 2011 — CDJ STAFF

The California Court of Appeals has rejected a motion by a homeowner in a dispute with the contractor who built an extension to his home. In McCracken v. Pirvulete, Mr. McCracken filed a mechanics lien after Mr. Pirvulete failed to complete payment. The matter went to trial with a series of exhibits that showed “the contractual relationship was strained and the parties disagreed over performance and payment.” As a result of the trial, the court awarded Mr. McCracken, the contractor, $1,922.22.

Mr. Pirvulete appealed, contending that the court had not allowed his daughter to act as a translator, that the court had failed to give him sufficient time to present his case, that the mechanics lien should have been dismissed, and several other claims, all before a formal judgment was issued. After the court formalized its judgment and rejected the appeal, Mr. Pirvulete appealed again.

The appeals court found that Mr. Pirvulete did not provide an adequate record for review. The court dismissed Mr. Pirvulete’s claims. The court notes that Mr. Pirvulete claimed that a request for a discovery period was denied, however, he has provided neither the request nor the denial. The trial court has no record of either.

Nor was there a record of a request that Mr. Pirvulete’s daughter provide translation. The court notes, “so far as we can glean from the record provided, the Register of Actions states, ‘Trial to proceed without Romanian Interpreter for Defendant; Daughter present to interpret if needed.’” Additionally, the court found that “there has been no showing that his facility with the English language is or was impaired in any way or that there was any portion of any proceeding, which he did not understand.”

Further, the appeals court found there were no grounds for a new trial, despite Mr. Pirvulete’s filings. The court concluded, “The owner has failed to provide a record adequate for review of most, if not all, of the claims of error. Some issues are not cognizable because they relate to entirely separate proceedings, and not the trial below. To the limited extent that the claims are examinable, the owner has made no showing of error.” The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court against Mr. Pirvulete.

Read the court’s decision…

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

Understanding Indiana’s New Home Construction Warranty Act

April 30, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Marisa L. Saber on the Subrogation & Recovery Law Blog, discussed Indiana’s New Home Construction Warranty Act, and how it can benefit both builders and plaintiffs in construction defect cases. Saber stated that the “Indiana New Home Construction Warranty Act (the “Act”) (see Indiana Code §32-27-2-1 et. seq.) allows a builder to provide specific warranties and disclaim all implied warranties if the text of the statute is followed.” Furthermore, the warranties must be backed by an insurance policy. Saber answers the question as to why a builder would choose to provide express warranties: “The likely answer is that it allows the builder to have control over its liability if a construction defect occurs.” For instance, “[i]f a builder provides express warranties via the Act, it is assured that any warranty liability will be covered by insurance.” This benefits a plaintiff working in a subrogation case, “as there will be guaranteed insurance for the construction defect if the builder complies with the Act.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

In Supreme Court Showdown, California Appeals Courts Choose Sides Regarding Whether Right to Repair Act is Exclusive Remedy for Homeowners

August 10, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Earlier, we wrote about an appellate court split concerning the Right to Repair Act (Civil Code sections 895 et seq.) which applies to construction defects in newly constructed residential properties including single-family homes and condominiums (but not condominium conversions) sold after January 1, 2003. The California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, in Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, held that the Right to Repair Act does not provide the exclusive remedy when pursing claims for construction defects involving “actual” property damage (e.g., a defectively constructed roof causing actual physical damage due to water intrusion as opposed to a defectively constructed roof that while constructed improperly does not cause actual physical damage). However, the California Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, in McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, which is currently pending before the California Supreme Court, held that the Right to Repair Act does in fact provide the exclusive remedy when pursuing claims for construction defects whether they involve “actual” property damage or merely “economic” damages. For homeowners, they would prefer the option of pursuing remedies under either or both the Right to Repair Act (which includes detailed pre-litigation procedures and statutory construction standards) or under common law claims such as negligence (which do not include pre-litigation procedures and have more flexible standards of care). The California Court of Appeals for the Third District has now thrown its hat into the ring . . . on the side of McMillan. 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

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

The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation

February 25, 2011 — Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith, and Helen Lauderdale

This article is the first in a series summarizing construction law developments for 2010

1. Centex Homes v. Financial Pacific Life Insurance Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1995 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

After settling numerous homeowners’ construction defect claims — and more than ten years after the homes were substantially completed — a home developer brought suit against one of the concrete fabrication subcontractors for the development seeking indemnity for amounts paid to the homeowners, as well as for damages for breach of the subcontractor’s duties to procure specific insurance and to defend the developer against the homeowners’ claims. The subcontractor brought a motion for summary adjudication on the ground the developer’s claims were barred by the ten year statute of repose contained in Code of Civil Procedure Section 337.15.

The District Court agreed the developer’s claim for indemnity was barred by Section 337.15. And it held that because the damages recoverable for breach of the subcontractor’s duty to purchase insurance are identical to the damages recoverable through the developer’s indemnity claim, the breach of duty to procure insurance claim also was time-barred. The District Court, however, allowed the claim for breach of the duty to defend to proceed. The categories of losses associated with such a claim (attorneys’ fees and other defense costs) are distinct from the damages recoverable through claims governed by Section 337.15 (latent deficiency in the design and construction of the homes and injury to property arising out of the latent deficiencies).

2. UDC — Universal Development v. CH2M Hill, 181 Cal. App. 4th 10 (6th Dist. Jan. 2010)

Indemnification clauses in construction agreements often state that one party to the agreement — the “indemnitor” — will defend and indemnify the other party from particular types of claims. Of course, having a contract right to a defense is not the same as actually receiving a defense. Any indemnitor attempting to avoid paying for defense costs can simply deny the tender of defense with the hope that when the underlying claim is resolved the defense obligations will be forgotten. In the past, when parties entitled to a defense — the “indemnitees” — had long memories and pressed to recover defense costs, indemnitors attempted to justify denying the tender by claiming their defense obligations coincided with their indemnity obligations and neither arose until a final determination was made that the underlying claim was one for which indemnity was owed.

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith, and Helen Lauderdale, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Ms. Matson can be contacted at cmatson@sheppardmullin.com, Mr. Hamersmith can be contacted at hhamersmith@sheppardmullin.com, and Ms. Lauderdale can be contacted at hlauderdale@sheppardmullin.com.