CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Court Calls Lease-Leaseback Project What it is: A Design-Bid-Build Project

August 19, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
First there was “Prince.” Then there was “The Artist Formerly Known as Prince.” Then there was “The Artist Formerly Known as Prince (Because he Changed His Name to a Symbol), But Then Realized That No One Could Pronounce the Symbol (and What Good is a Symbol if Everyone Has to Wave Their Hands Wildly at You to Get Your Attention or Scream ‘Hey You!’), and So Changed His Name Back to Prince Again.” Whatever name (or symbol) he was going by, everyone knew him as the guy who told us to party like it was 1999 (when 1999 still seemed like the distant future), who sang about a girl with a “pocket full of horses” (which totally flew past my junior high school brain at the time), and gave us such great metaphors as “if the elevator tries to bring you down, go crazy, punch a higher floor!” Like Prince or his symbol, sometimes it doesn’t matter what label you put on something when everyone knows what that something is. In law, we call it looking at the “substance” rather than its “form.” And, in the next case, Davis v. Fresno Unified School District, the California Court of Appeals for the Fifth District made quick work of a purported “lease-leaseback” project – a project delivery method available to school districts whereby a school district leases property it owns to a developer for a minimum of $1, who in turns builds a school facility on the site and leases the facility and the site back to the school district, who in turn takes ownership of the facility and site at the end of the lease – and called it for what it was: a run-of-the-mill “design-bid-build” project. 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

---

Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law

November 13, 2023 — Yaron Shaham - Kahana Feld
In order for a plaintiff to prove a defendant is negligent, the plaintiff must prove the defendant (1) owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) breached that duty, (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the resulting monetary damage. However, for both plaintiffs and defendants it is not an all or nothing game in California. This is because California is a pure Comparative Negligence state. California’s Comparative Negligence law provides that even if a plaintiff is deemed 99% at fault, the plaintiff can still recover 1% in damages from a defendant. Thus, even if a plaintiff is deemed to be more than 50% (or even 99%) at fault for the incident, the plaintiff could still recover some monetary amount, or the defendant will still have to pay plaintiff, depending on how you see it. In most instances, a jury decides what percentage of fault to assign to each party. Just as a plaintiff must prove he/she/its negligence case against a defendant, if the defendant claims plaintiff was partially responsible for the incident, the defendant must prove plaintiff was also negligent and said negligence contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. The total amount of monetary responsibility distributed among all defendants and plaintiffs must equal 100%. As crazy as it may sound, a plaintiff found to be 99.9% at fault, is still entitled to recover 0.01% from a defendant in California. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Yaron Shaham, Kahana Feld
Mr. Shaham may be contacted at yshaham@kahanafeld.com

---

Los Angeles Seeks Speedier Way to Build New Affordable Homes

April 29, 2024 — Patrick Sisson - Bloomberg
Architect Brian Lane calls it “1,000 ways to no.” That’s the wall of red tape that he and his colleagues at the Santa Monica-based firm Koning Eizenberg hit when they propose affordable housing projects around Los Angeles. Regulations and code enforcement lead to delays, which drive up costs, kill projects, and exacerbate Southern California’s stifling housing shortage. But over the last year, builders say that this bureaucratic morass has eased somewhat, thanks to the mayoral order known as Executive Directive 1. Mayor Karen Bass signed ED 1 shortly after taking office in December 2022, at the site of an infamous project that took more than a decade to be approved. The emergency declaration promised to open a new era, directing city departments involved in planning and decision-making to expedite 100% affordable projects, sidestepping codes and regulations that have long added delays and costs. Approvals that might otherwise have taken a year or more are now mandated to happen within a 60-day window, with building permits to be issued within five days. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Sisson, Bloomberg

---

Third Circuit Holds That Duty to Indemnify "Follows" Duty to Defend

December 27, 2021 — Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In a win for policyholders, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a District Court’s 2018 ruling, which held that the duty to indemnify follows the duty to defend where a settlement precludes a determination on the facts of the case relative to liability and apportionment. In Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Penn National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co.,1 a large concrete panel collapsed and killed a construction worker at a construction site in New Kensington, Pennsylvania. Cost Company (“Cost”), Liberty Mutual’s insured, was a masonry subcontractor on the project and had further subcontracted with Pittsburgh Flexicore Co. (“Flexicore”), Penn National’s insured, for the concrete panels. Cost’s subcontract agreement required Flexicore to name Cost as an additional insured under its general liability policy issued by Penn National. When the construction worker’s widow filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Cost and Flexicore, Cost demanded that Penn National defend and indemnify it as an additional insured under the policy. Penn National refused, arguing that any additional insured status had terminated at the conclusion of Flexicore’s work for Cost. As a result, Liberty Mutual defended Cost in the lawsuit, which was ultimately settled. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com

---

Updated Covid-19 Standards In The Workplace

August 23, 2021 — Mustafa Karim - Wilke Fleury
With California reopening, many Californians will be heading back to the workplace soon and are wondering if employers may require their employees to get vaccinated. According to the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), an employer may require employees to receive an FDA-approved vaccination against COVID-19 infection so long as the employer (a) does not discriminate against nor harass employees on the basis of a protected characteristic, (b) provides reasonable accommodations related to disability or sincerely-held religious beliefs, and (c) does not retaliate against anyone for engaging in protected activity.[1] On June 15, 2021, California lifted its mask mandate across the state. The California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) updated its guidance for the use of face coverings stating that masks are no longer required for fully vaccinated individuals.[2] However, masks are still required on public transit, indoors in k-12 schools, childcare, other youth settings, healthcare settings, long-term care facilities, correctional and detention facilities, and homeless shelters.[3] Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury LLP

---

It’s a COVID-19 Pandemic; It’s Everywhere – New Cal. Bill to Make Insurers Prove Otherwise

August 17, 2020 — Scott P. DeVries & Andrea DeField - Hunton Andrews Kurth
On June 29, in a development that may fundamentally change the landscape for California businesses which have sustained COVID-19 related business interruption loss, two California legislators amended pending legislation to address several of the most hotly contested issues regarding insurance recovery for these devastating losses. The bill, Assembly Bill 1552, focuses on All-Risk property insurance policies. As amended, it would create a “rebuttable presumption” that COVID-19 was present on and caused physical damage to property which was the direct cause of business interruption. A similar rebuttable presumption would apply to orders of civil authority coverage and to ingress/egress coverage. The bill would further prohibit COVID-19 from being construed as a pollutant or contaminant for purposes of any policy exclusion unless the exclusion specifically referred to viruses. The bill would apply to any All-Risk policy in effect on or after March 4, 2020 and is written to satisfy the standards for an “urgency” statute, taking effect immediately upon being signed into law. Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries , Hunton Andrews Kurth and Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Common Flood Insurance Myths and how Agents can Debunk Them

September 17, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Property Casualty 360 listed four common misconceptions that many homeowners have about flood insurance. First myth on the list was, “I don’t have to worry about flooding because I don’t live near a body of water.” The author pointed out recent floods in desert areas such as Arizona and Nevada. “I don't qualify for government flood insurance because my property isn’t located in a flood plain,” made number two on the list. According to Property Casualty 360, “NFIP can provide coverage available to any homeowner, regardless of their location.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Ensuing Loss Provision Found Ambiguous

April 25, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

After the insurer denied coverage in a homeowner’s policy for construction defects under various exclusions, the court found the ensuing loss provision was ambiguous.Kesling v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38857 (D. Colo. March 22, 2012).



After purchasing a home from the sellers, the insureds noticed problems with the deck of the home. Massive cracking appeared, causing lifting and leaking on the deck and water running through the exterior foundation wall into the home. There was also damage to the roof and crawlspace.



The insureds had a homeowner’s policy with American Family, which covered accidental direct physical loss to property described in the policy unless the loss was excluded. They requested coverage for "conditions, defects and damages." American Family denied coverage because wear and tear, as well as damage to foundations, floors and roofs were excluded. The policy did provide coverage, however, for "any resulting loss to property described . . . above, not excluded or excepted in this policy.



When coverage was denied, the insureds sued American Family.



Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

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

---